That doesn’t mean you should deny others the choice!

You might not believe in marriage but its availability does not compel you or anyone to marry. This is about not denying the choice to people based on their sexual orientation.

Ray. It’s about choice. Just because you don’t believe in it does not mean others should not have the choice.

Calm down guys, the comment/votr was clearly tongue-in-cheek! This isn’t a referendum.

So true Ray !

Not funny Ray

That’s mad! You wouldn’t lift the ban because marriage didn’t work for you?!? That wasn’t the question asked

It,s ok ray. At least some of us realise you were only joking and were,t trying to deny anyone else,s freedoms!

eh.. jokes

:0)

Hmmm…. almost 50% of people have no sense of irony. Now that’s worrying….

Apparently so, Mike…

amazing how much ugly prejudice has reared its head in the journal isnt it? i guess i was deluding myself for years thinking we were becoming progressive and open minded. a good 40% of the population are still opposed to gay people..!! probably people that love loads of gay artists and musicians but dont… quite.. make that connection in their head.

To a large extent, fear and ignorance are at the root of all this prejudice and intolerance. Educate to liberate.

You don’t have to want to get to married to march! I marched two years ago and i am the greatest cynic who wouldn’t marry if you paid me, civil or otherwise! Its nice to know the choice is there – thats the point!

I agree, you want it,,, you got it. I believe marriage was invented by the church to further control the masses. if it is for benefits, I say good on ya.

Sorry emercait i hit the ‘dislike’ by mistake and can’t undo it. Of course no one’s world would come falling down. We’re supposed to be living in a democracy not a dictatorship! Two consenting adults should be allowed to marry no matter what their sexual orientation.

@emercait23 no the world will fall down when you are looking for a divorce, years of hell, solicitors, barristers, legal fees etc.
Dont be fooled, it’s all a scam to to make the legal profession as rich as possible in the shorted space of time

The polls aren’t supposed to be scientific Tommy – they are meant to create an opportunity for people to express their opinions and have a discussion.

Interesting that you have written off the “anti” lobby as less likely to use a computer or read web news-sites. It’s not only older, computer illterate people who oppose equialty. The anti-same-sex-civil-marriage brigade are just as capable of whipping up online support for their views.

You’re wrong Tommy, absolutely wrong. These polls ARE representative – of the opinions of the people who read The Journal and take part in it’s online polls. That is all.

You do raise a valid point that requires pondering, Tommy, which shouldn’t be discarded out of hand. Yet I’ve seen (especially on politics.ie) so much naked homophobia online in response to the David Norris saga (which occurs despite him polling consistenly high with Red C, AND 5% UP in the last 2 days) which suggests that the extremists at both end of the spectrum are using the internet in equal measure to promote their views. Polls like Red C are important because they’re offline, and more representative. An online poll draws those who care enough about the issue (either way) to google it and take the time to add their 2 cents, it’s the casual opinion of those who don’t care much about the issue either way that will hold the balance (Polls like Red C catch these people). So if you split the difference between online polls and offline polls, we’re looking at 70% plus in favour of Gay Marriage. Hell, I’ll dock it 10% for margin of error – it’s still a comfortable enough majority to get our referendum face on.

I think any polls where you can vote multiple times isn’t at all reliable so, if the results are meaningless and non-scientific, what use are they? You can still engage in discussion with or without a poll.

David there are no rational arguments from the “other side” . If you want to find arguments against Gay marriage pick up the Bible or Koran that is where they derive their arguments from.

Even in the Bible or the Koran, I think those against legalisation are on sketchy ground. From my memories of reading the Koran years ago I can’t seem to remember much actual legislation against gays or gay marriage in it. It was definitely frowned upon and viewed as a sin but it seemed to be left to God to punish.

As far as the Bible goes, there are definite prescriptions against it in the Old Testament but most Christians and Jews would now see most of those regulations as only applying to culture then. The New Testament still disapproves of it (although I can’t call to mind any recorded statements from Jesus on the subject), but the Christian community who wrote the New Testament had no intention of changing the legislation of the Roman Empire at the time. In fact, state and church interaction on legislation is rather foreign to the whole spirit of the New Testament.

“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”

I still await an argument

Yup, you’re right about the Old Testament.

Even in the New, though, it’s not at all clear if what we would call homosexuality is what St Paul condemns. The Greek word used, for instance, in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 is ‘arsenokoitai’ – and St Paul’s writing is the earliest known usage of this word in a very small number of extant Greek texts. It’s not clear where it comes from, or indeed how early Christians would have understood the word, but there’s quite a lot of reason to think that St Paul wasn’t talking about two people in a same-sex relationship.

Not least, of course, is the fact that the word ‘homosexuality’ didn’t exist until the 19th Century. Philo of Alexandria (a contemporary of Jesus) understood a very similar set of words in the Septuagint translation of Leviticus (arsenos koiten) to refer to temple-prostitution, for instance. Similar writings also understand these words to refer to pederasty and incest, too. 1st- and 2nd-century Christians simply wouldn’t have taken it to mean homosexuality. Even outside of a religious context, we can only understand a text like this properly if we understand, firstly, the cultural environment of its writer(s) and, secondly, how its earliest readers interpreted it.

In any case, if Christians are called to preach the gospel (however we interpret that), then it simply shouldn’t be done by legislating so that people have no choice but to follow one single group’s view of what it entails. That just defeats the purpose – hence my support for the separation of Church and State. For example, the former enshrinement of the Roman Catholic Church’s law into the Irish legal system meant that, for years, Irish Anglicans were unable to legally buy contraception even though their church didn’t condemn it.

Like, my views should not dictate to how others choose to live their lives (within the bounds of basic morality of course). If someone disapproves, for example, of my wish to marry someone, then that shouldn’t prevent me from being able to do so. If I were able to marry a man, for example, how would it affect opposite-sex couples, or even these blasted homophobes? How, in God’s name, would that affect their everyday lives? It’s quite simple – if a Church or other religious community disapproves of gay marriage, they have the entitlement not to perform such marriages, and to discourage members of that community not to enter into them. They shouldn’t have the right to dictate to whether people outside their community enter into such a marriage. It’s infuriating.

Apologies if that comment was rather a lot longer\more rambling than I intended it to be. ^__^

Cheers Tom,

Didn’t even think to check a concordance on the issue. But yeah, the exact wording of these things is very important. If only more people actually checked what their religious texts said before trying to foist them on others the world would be a better place.

On a slightly different note, some people I spoke to today expressed reservations that churches or priests who did not personally believe in the ethical nature of gay marriage could be forced to either perform weddings or allow their premises to be used for marriages and face anti-discrimination laws if they didn’t comply with the dictates of their conscience. I can’t imagine that this is what anyone would want. Who would want an unwilling priest to officiate? But, perhaps people need reassuring.

The arrangement described in your note sounds pretty close to perfect. Those who dislike the idea don’t have to have anything to do with it whilst not forcing their opinions on others. Sounds good to me.

P.S. Kudos for mentioning Philo Judaeus in a post!

Gays

If Gay Mitchell is elected that would mean the Vatican is back in business.

It deserves every bit of criticism it receives. If you don’t like it, move to North Korea where freedom of speech is fine, so long as you’re willing to take a bullet for it.

Oh so because I believe in free speech for everyone i should shut up. Typical liberal fascism. A person of faith has every right to have that faith same as a Gay person should have the right to get married. And this isnt about church abuse or anything like that its about people having the right to believe in God without being ridiculed for it. Maybe you would fit in better in North Korea with your intolerant views.

Eh, you clearly missed my point. I was referring to your intolerance to criticism of ‘faith’. If you don’t like living in a society where people are free to criticise faith, then move somewhere where freedom of speech doesn’t exist.

People can criticise faith, but it should be based on logical, informed opinion not prejudice.

What prejudice?

When somebody tells me that I have to do or not do something because their imaginary friend says so I think that that person deserves ridicule. To base laws upon iron age rantings and morals is contemptible, being told that you are going to burn in hell if you don’t submit to some superstitious practices is infuriating. I believe in freedom of Religion and freedom from religion and the separation of church and state.

nah, the church has been the driving reason for bigotry in this country chap – bringing up religion is entirely valid.

Because every question like this one results in attacks on the church by the "progressive" elements on this site. And its clear that people have nothing but contempt for people of faith and see them as some counter productive force in Ireland. If people want to argue about the existence of God by talking about evolution thats a legitimate criticism, but just attacking Catholicism at every opportunity is prejudice.

“And its clear that people have nothing but contempt for people of faith and see them as some counter productive force in Ireland.”

It is counter-productive. Using the immoral teachings of a goat-herder from 2000 years ago, and trying to apply them in a modern 21st century society is ridiculous. Your own facebook page states that you admire the teachings of Jesus and Mohammed.

What is the punishment for apostasy in Islam? Death.

What are Christian children told if they don’t accept Jesus as their saviour? Eternal damnation in hell.

Both Christianity and Islam teach that homosexuality is wrong, and has been punished in the past in Islamic states with capital punishment, and members of the church have been ex-communicated.

You sure pick funny teachings to admire. There is nothing moral about the overall message of Jesus or Muhammad.

Religion has done nothing but caused wars, and separated communities for hundreds of years. It is not required in modern society, for society to function as a whole.

Civil marriage has not anything to do with religion, so why bring it in ?

Martina the problem is that the Church cannot keep its nose out of civil matters. The only reason that many people are opposed to Gay marriages is a theological question for them no rational reason. One of the presidential hopefuls Gay Mitchell will oppose anything that is contra to Roman Catholic Dogma.

exactly – try telling the church that Martina

jees lads i know what you mean all i am saying religions(every singal on of them) should not interfere with civil marriage , esp us gay atheists, and don’t talk to me about Gay Mitchell :)

Quite frankly your talking nonsense. No body is forced by the church in this country to do anything, people CHOOSE to accept the churches teaching because its what they WANT to believe in. Stop trying to make Ireland out to be a theocracy because it quite clearly isnt.

Talking nonsense? So blasphemy isn’t a crime? So it isn’t a crime for two people of the same sex to come together in marriage? I mean christ… Condoms were only legalised in 1978! The Church has had it’s filthy grip on Irish society for far too long, and it’s now time to break free from their grip.

The anonymous dude is a spanner. Religion is at fault here, creating divides and encouraging condemnation of diverse groups. Give it a rest and stop shoving your opinions down our necks. The church is dying and it’s their own fault. Radical views, bullying, condemnation and acting above the law are some of the reasons why the Irish people are rebelling against this nonsense. Agree entirely with sean on this argument.

ha ha ha well said. I can’t believe this is even a debate.

Are you endorsing poodophilia?

Well, what’s wrong with it? Live and let live.

Why should marriage be between a man and a woman? Who are you to decide what marriage is?

That is the current law, isn’t it? I didn’t make the law, it’s just that I agree with it. Who are you to decide that marriage between two people of the same sex is ok.

Because anything else is discriminatory. I happen to have logic on my side.

The law doesn’t discriminate – it’s the same for all citizens. Your logic sure sounds a little like prejudice to me.

The law DOES discriminate. It is not legal for a same-sex couple to marry. How is that not discrimination?

Because the law currently defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. It’s the same law for all. How is that discrimination? If I want to marry my pet poodle, the law has other ideas. If I want to marry a person of the same sex, the law has other ideas. Would you have a society without laws?

So if the law is changed, would you agree with that?

“Would you have a society without laws?”

No, but I’d make sure that the said laws were sensible and didn’t discriminate.

“Because the law currently defines marriage as being between one man and one woman. It’s the same law for all. How is that discrimination?”

Because it discriminates based on sexual orientation, rather than gender. Gender-discrimination isn’t the only form of discrimination.

Maurice just stop talking. You clearly know next to nothing about what it’s like to be discriminated against.

I certainly do now.

Maurice What is the real reason you do not want Gay people to marry?

“Maurice What is the real reason you do not want Gay people to marry?”

If you look at his comments at the end of the page on ‘curing homosexuality’ – I think it’s quite clear. He’s a religious lunatic.

Maurice says: “And there is currently equal rights – a gay person can marry a person of the opposite sex” You’d be OK about it if a gay man chose to marry your daughter or sister, then?

Certainly.

Ó.o Wow. Just…. wow.

Are you confusing the two types of marriage? There’s church marriage and state marriage. I don’t know anyone who wants to force the church into accepting gay marriage, and thats the right of any church. But there’s no reason the state cannot provide the same rights to a same sex couple, through marriage, not some semi-sorta-kinda-middle-ground-marriage.

No confusion. The state needs to protect marriage and that means keeping it with the same boundaries as it always has. Allowing same sex marriage, polygamy etc to alter marriage in order cater for very small minorities is not in the public interest. Same sex couples have the same rights as married people through civil partnerships.

Keith one in seven people are LGBT that’s not a small minority. And secondly, civil partnership does not afford LGBT couples the same rights as marriage in a broad range of areas from adoption to inheritance. Civil partnership is a ‘Plessy Doctrine’ type of marriage.

Don’t put Polygamy in the same group as Gay Marriage!

I say we change the boundaries of marriage. Just because it’s been that way for thousands of years doesn’t mean we can’t change it.

Patrick. There is no evidence that one in seven people identify themselves as homosexual. In cases of adoption, there is no parity between a married couple and a same-sex couple as a same sex couple cannot bring a child into the World, so naturally the rights would be different. When it comes to adoption, the right of the child must come first. Inheritance rights are the same for those married and those in a civil partnership.

David, polygamy is the the same category as same sex marriage. It’s allowed in several countries, but would also not be allowed in this country. If people ant to create a bastardized version of marriage, same sex marriage is only the thin end of the wedge to introducing other forms of relationship.

Keith, marriage is for raising families. There are many straight couples who marry, enjoy tax breaks, and have no children. There are many homosexual couples raising children, and the rights of those children to remain in the loving household in which they were raised are nonexistent in the event of one of the parties to the marriage dying. Yours is the same ideology that ostracises the children of single mothers, the children of single fathers and children who have been unfortunate enough to lose a parent (“oh sick, they don’t have a male and female role model anymore”)… Please do yourself a favour and listen to “on coming from a broken home” parts 1 & 2 by Gil Scott Heron and then try – please try – to consider the many conditions under which amazing and beautiful human beings can be raised in all sorts of circumstances.

Under that argument Keith, should Ireland ban all couples from adopting if they cannot produce a child through natural means? (What a disgusting thought)

Also, I would suggest watching this short speech from a similar debate in Iowa: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

“Allowing same sex marriage, polygamy etc to alter marriage in order cater for very small minorities is not in the public interest” Strong point: now you need to justify it. Even if marriage is extended to same sex couples, it will STILL be there for heterosexual couples. That won’t change. It’s about EXTENDING the rights to ALL couples. Your inclusion of polyamy is arbitrary and a cheap shot at a muddying the waters. Stick to the point. How would extending civil marriage to same sex couples weaken the institution of marriage? I’m sure you can articulate that.

Keith..you have Dana as your profile pic…that makes anything you say null and void because your obviously insane.

CAN NOBODY TAKE A PUN ANYMORE…..I VOTED YES. HONESTLY PEOPLE ARE SO FAR UP EACH OTHERS ASSES, whoops

Sand in the vaseline?

Ok, either you are being ironic, trollish or… yikes.

Actually many homosexuals in the US have reverted to heterosexuality through certain types of spiritual therapy!

‘Spiritual therapy’ ?! Oh, please spare me the bullsh*t! Homosexuality has nothing to do with spirituality. Why won’t you gay bashers just mind your own f*cking business… really, what has the civil union of two people, gay or straight got to do with you? How exactly does it affect you? Hmmm?

Well, the type of society we live in affects us all, doesn’ t it? We’re all stakeholders and have a view as to how society should be formed. And it’s not BS. Check it out. There’s sufficient information available to conclude that homosexuality is indeed a spiritual issue and can be changed. You don’t want to acknowledge that?

Emma stop being silly.

Are are you for REAL ?

‘The type of society’?! Eh, just what exactly are you implying? Certainly, the society in which I wish to be a stakeholder, believes in the equality of all, equal rights for all and equal opportunities for all. As for your other assertion… please, oh please, point me in the direction of independent, scientific research that concludes that
a) homosexuality is a spiritual issue
b) that spiritual therapy can change sexual orientation
and
c) that the spiritual exists at all.

Oh sweet Jesus how the hell can such unbelievable fools still exist in this country?!?! Maurice homosexuality is not a spiritual condition it’s a biological fact. Homosexuality is apparent in over 400 different species of animal. Homophobia is only apparent in one. So homophobia is clearly the spiritual issue. But don’t worry Maurice I’ll pray for you ;)

Masters & Johnson, well-known researchers in human sexuality, reported in their book Homosexuality In Perspective a 67% success rate in their helping homosexuals revert to heterosexual behavior. I doubt anyone could accuse Masters & Johnson of being motivated by religious prejudices in their reporting!

“There’s sufficient information available to conclude that homosexuality is indeed a spiritual issue and can be changed. ”

No, there isn’t. The only thing that’s conclusive here is that you’re a religious lunatic, intent on interfering in the private affairs of individuals.

WOW.

Really, Maurice? Wow, how you cherry pick and obfuscate to suit your argument! Masters and Johnson never employed so called ‘spiritual therapy’ and using their research as proof shows just how ignorant you really are. And yes, I would accuse them of prejudice, their work has been widely criticised for cultural bias.

Are you seriously bringing up Masters & Johnson? Virginia Johnson was herself highly sceptical about their homosexual “conversion” programme and suspected that Masters had actually fabricated the results. Quoting discredited nonsense like this only damages your half-baked, bigotry-fuelled arguments.

Masters & Johnson closed shop in 1994 or 95 that is quite some time ago, why was their research not followed up by reputable scientists ? Why are only religious nut jobs trying to flog this long dead horse? Maurice the answer is really simple because its all bullshit.

Well while they are looking for a ‘cure’ for homosexuality lets hope they also find one for bigotry, predjudice, persecution, elitism, irrationality and stupidity, not to mention the ability to make sweeping assumptions!

i’ve read about how homosexuality can be a sort of ‘spiritual catalyst’, because it forces you to be your true self in the face of adversity. religion should focus on what is right, rather than trying to find ‘cures’ for what is supposedly wrong with us.

Perhaps Emma you could point out in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV published by the American Psychiatric Association where it describes homosexuality as a mental illness. I can’t seem to find it in my copy.

Hey, Emma. Fuck you. That is all…

For Maurice (I’ve seen your work on many boards lately), I’m listening to a Hold Steady song right now, and the chorus goes “We’re gonna all be friends in heaven”. Umm… my homosexuality flicked on like a switch when I turned 12 (just like your sexuality did) – so if we must conduct this debate through the prism of “what it says in the bible” – I do remember Jesus saying he would write his scriptures into his people’s hearts to preserve it from corruption – so he did foresee all the bullshit arising from treating the (manifold mistranslated) bible as a legal document. So – there’s your arse kicked for you, using both logic and christian counter-logic. Can you now admit that it’s you, and not God, who hates gays?

Oh and Emma, good luck with being insane. Save your pity for yourself.

@Mike

I don’t hate gays – I seriously refute that. Where did you get the idea from? Because I don’t believe in Same Sex Marriage? There are reasons that I believe that, some of which have been discussed on this forum today.

Dont feed the troll – http://goo.gl/Fr81e

Emma, even the World Health Organisation realised how stupid and untenable it was to classify homosexuality as a mental illness. I say this with all the respect I can muster for your pronouncement: you can take your pity and give it to someone who might need it. Cure? For what? Love and happiness? Thanks but no thanks. Some humanity pills might do you some good, though.

newsflash, in 1973 the Diagnostic Statistical Manula of Mental Disorders removed homosexulaity as a mental illness. Since then a plethora of credible psychological research both quantitative and qualitative has asserted without doubt that homosexuals and heterosexuals are no less mad than each other. Furthermore, research has shown that children raised by gay couples fair no worse or better than chidren raised by heterosexual couples, single people etc. As others have pointed out to your little brain, homosexuality is observed in hundreds of species including primates (check out the binobo chimps of the congo). As for a sepcial relationship between a man and woman, I doubt you have ever had a special relationship with anyone- that requires a heart

I am Gay and spiritual. Explain that.

Easy one Gerry its because your a human being! oh also of course spirituality has nothing to do with sexuality. Spirituality in many cultures is about transcending the physical so not quite sure how anyone can put a homophobic spiritual argument.

“Sad and bitter lives”? Last time I checked the gays had the most fun!

Because the Catholic church is hypocritical.

Well said Avril!

Because mad people do think mad things!!

I afraid its you Maurice who has clearly lost their marbles, you need help…seriously!

well said Glenn

Why don’t we have a ‘People without Predjudice Pride’ march instead

Have to say I totally disagree with the "its not natural" argument thats being alluded to. In that case people with cancer shouldnt take medicine because its "not natural". I think a Gay family could easily bring up a child as well as any other couple.

Sorry Jennifer didnt mean to reply to your post.

well said Jen, you are a great voice and make a lot of sense, it made me sad to see the part you wrote about “decide not to live”, people need to know that by having a strong opposition on something they know noting about they are affecting people’s lives. they need to wake up and take care of their own lives and mind their own business about others, this subject needs to be closed and do as Jen and many others say and afford same equal rights to all.

So then, I assume you are not in favour of a single mother being artificially inseminated?

I did say in brackets without outside help. I have no issue with people who have difficulties having a child I think that a single heterosexual woman who wants a sperm donor should be allowed no problem in fact I think this would be a good thing to give life to a child. However you have missed the point, I think that children should not be brought up in a gay house ..

Mr G why do you assume that people get married just to have children and who are you to decide when someone else have enough ‘rights’. People are entitled to be able to make a commitment to each other as a couple and if this is not recognised in law then they have no protection.

Have a referendum to sort it out. If the people of ireland want it so be it! I don’t want it that’s my view. I’m so sick of gay this gay that. It’s everywhere gets my goat

@ Mr g ..You cant be that sick of it or you wouldn’t have bothered making your small minded comments

you know i know more screwed up people coming from from your average 2.5 catholic family than the supposed non normal family.

What about the welfare of children ALREADY being raised in same-sex households? There is a de facto family unit and yet, in the event of a separation, the child has no call on the support of the non-biological parent (maintenance etc.). Gay couple have been having kids for ages now (with, as you put it, outside help). They will continue to do so. The concept of family has evolved. So too has society. Your idealised “good family home” of man/woman/kids will still be there but please support kids in *other* kinds of family units. The most important thing is that kids are raised in love. Current evidence shows that kids raised in same-sex relationships fare no better or worse than those raised in traditional homes.

Posted this up above but I’d strongly suggest watching this – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSQQK2Vuf9Q

Mr. g, do you think then that single patents shouldn’t keep their kids, because technically thats a one-sex parent family, and therefore would be too one-sided also?

well said pj people need to put things in perspective

Good man PJ! Well said.

Am I not entitled to an opinion? I wouldn’t stop anybody getting married and at the end of the day, it should be a free world.

However, just because my belief is that marriage (in the traditional sense of the word) should be a hetrosexual institution reserved for a man and a woman in order to create a family, I object to being told that I am anti gay (which I am not), homophobic (which couldn’t be futher from the truth) or feel that the gay community are second class citizens (which they are not).

Like much of the comments here, they are missing the point and as usual, the ‘homo’ card is whipped out.

You’ll have to explain it then.

Why should your ‘definition’ of marriage trump others? (The definition of civil marriage in Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden includes same-sex couples).

Civil marriage is the legal means by which the State regognises couples. Same-sex couples should have that same civil right don’t you think?

(p.s. Families are created by many means now a days. You can’t change that. Would you not prefer those children to have all the legal protections they deserve?)

PJ-that last comment was about the funniest thing you have come up with in ages. Racism cannot be compared with anti gay sentiment. Race is something you are born into. Homosexuality is something that can be cured. People here are quick to knock the church and priests who abused children. The sad fact is that most of the clergy who molested little children were gay. This is proof that homosexuality only leads to evil.

Wow Emma. I thought people like you only existed in America.

Homosexuality cannot be ‘cured’. You won’t find a single doctor, scientist, geneticist or psychologist (who is respected and publishes in related peer reviewed journals on the topic) that agrees with you.

Wow.

Emma you clearly know absolutely nothing about child sex offenders. Would you ever go away and educate yourself before you start making stupid comments or better still back up your claims with peer reviewed research.BTW can you turn a straight person into a gay person or is it just a one way thing?

Seems to me that Emma is a bit of a self-hating lesbian. ;) Come out of the closet love ;D Nobody’s buying your whole over-compensation routine.

“People here are quick to knock the church and priests who abused children. The sad fact is that most of the clergy who molested little children were gay. This is proof that homosexuality only leads to evil.”

No – That’s proof that lack of accountability within the Church allowed for paedophiles to hide within it’s ranks. Little girls were raped too you know.

As for curing homosexuality – It’s not something that can be ‘cured’, and even if it was – it wouldn’t be something that society should have to cure. It might benefit the human race however if we could cure bigoted shitehawks like you from pro-creating, so we don’t have anymore children indoctrinated with such asinine views like yours.

@Markeen

I know of one person here in Ireland who was gay, then adapted certain spiritual principles, and found he began to fancy women and lose his gay feelings. There are many in the USA who report the same experience.

@Maurice

I’m sorry. The science just doesn’t support that. I could cite plenty of peer reviewed reports. People can be bullied or frightened enough to change their behavior but cannot change who they are. Very sad really.

”American Psychological Association reported that, “the available evidence, from both early and recent studies, suggests that although sexual orientation is unlikely to change, some individuals modified their sexual orientation identity (i.e., individual or group membership and affiliation, self-labeling) and other aspects of sexuality (i.e. values and behavior).” from ‘APA Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. (2009). “Report of the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation.” Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. August 2, 2011′

@Markeen

I’ve seen the ex-gays marching in the USA! Also, my friend certainly wasn’t frightened or bullied into changing his behaviour or values. It happened naturally. If science doesn’t support that – I’m sure it will soon.

the Emma person is the same as the Cindy person. two fake female profiles from the same American twat. fuck off from all of us in Ireland, thanks.

Thank you so much PJ it is so encouraging to see celebrities supporting the LGBT community. Emma you really need help, I believe that comparing homosexuals to pedophiles should be a crime in itself. I also find it interesting that people who dont agree with gay marriage and make disgusting comments like yours are the very people who dont have a picture or face to accompany their bigotry. Seriously Emma, your delusions and hatred are so ingrained into your tiny brain that there is really only one thing to say: go fuck youself you narrow minded ugly hearted bitch

I see you’re taking a page out of Heinrich Himmler’s book now Emma. The Nazi’s also claimed to be able to cure homosexuality, and we all know what that led to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_law

Totally agree with you Anonymous, its not ‘natural’ to wear clothes either but heaven forbid we decide to stop. Children need love, happiness and security and all human beings have the capacity to deliver that, regardless of their anatomy!

It’s also not natural to be without a name Mr. Anonymous

Ah yes but he has a face! anyway maybe he’s called Anonymous!

Ha I agree, My name is Antoin, This Anonymous thing is a pain the the arse.

Ending the ban on same sex marriage isn’t a fundamental shift in civil marriage. Civil marriage is the means by which the State chooses to regularise the legal relationship between two adults in the belief that stable, mutally dependent individuals are good for each other, their communities and society.

Polygamy is a completely different debate and would represent a radical change in the way the state recognises couples. It is open to debate of course but it is disingenuous to conflate with allow same sex couples to marry.

( A reasonable argument against polygamy is that there would be a significant decrease in the ability to provide for multiple partners and off-spring during their lifetime and after death. It opens the possibility of people polygamous partners becoming a significant burden on the State).

It’s disingenuous to conflate the two.

Civil marriage is the means by which the State regularises the relationship/legal affairs of two people on the assumption that a mutually-dependent unit are beneficial to each other and, in turn, society. Ending the ban on same-sex marriage doesn’t change that in any way. It simply extends to concept to two consenting adults regardless of sex.

Allowing the marriage of greater than two people would be a significant departure. It’s open to debate of course. But same sex marriage and polygamy are unrelated. (An argument against polygamy would be with a greater number of partners, there would likely be a lessening of the ability to support each partner and their off-spring resulting in a greater burden on the State.)

*Sorry.I thought it deleted my first comment.

I see, so “it’s just not the same”? That’s it?
Your argument works both ways.
What’s wrong with the following statement:- “Polygamy is the means by which the State regularises the relationship/legal affairs of three or more people on the assumption that the members of a mutually-dependent unit are beneficial to each other and, in turn, society. Ending the ban on polygamy doesn’t change that in any way. It simply extends to concept to three or more consenting adults regardless of sex.”
I met a polygamous family many years ago when I was in Salt Lake City in Utah, and I had my pre-conceptions radically shifted by my experience with them. They were a surprisingly well adjusted unit, living more like a patriarchal community than like a traditional family. If this really is a debate on our social morality, we can’t limit it to the coomon experience we encounter in this country.
Most of us are familiar with gay couples and are not afraid of them. That, I suspect is at the root of your response.

I made no judgment on polygamy. It’s simply a different debate and your inclusion of it in the debate on ending the ban on same sex marriage is unjustified.

What gay people seek is rather conservative – it is simply access to a well defined and existing civil right that they are currently excluded from (civil marriage).

Seeking the legalisation of polygamy is not so conservative. You’re welcome to lobby on this and debate it on it’s own merits but conflating the two is disingenuinous.

Spanner

You have to remember D that children are not a right and that the best interest of the child, not the couple is the important factor in adoption. Personally I have no problem with gay marriage if that’s what people want, I do however have grave reservations about adoption. I would be concerned about the affects on the child as they grow up in their schools and community and the whispering and bullying that they would probably encounter. I don’t for one minute doubt that a gay couple would not be kind and loving parents and as you so rightly pointed out they could quite possibly do a hell of a lot of better than some straight parents.

Children nowadays are almost seen as an accessory to some people, like a puppy. You go out to Africa, shell out a few quid and bob’s your Uncle off home you go with a new child. You could of course just pay someone to have the baby and then show it off at your next social gathering/photo shoot/film promotion before you hand it back to your nanny. I know that these are extreme cases but my point is that we do live in a small minded world where prejudice will rear it’s ugly head and it is the child that will bear the brunt of it. I think for now that the wisest course would be to push ahead on the marriage side of things and down play adoption for the time being.

Brian, if poll after poll is to be believed, you might be over-estimating the extent of prejudice that children of gay parents would face. In any case, should we not be confronting such prejudice rather than legislating for it?

The children-as-accessory argument can apply to couples of any orientation. However a gay couple end up as parents/guardians of a child, it’s no more likely to be a decision that’s taken lightly and I’d wager that far more thought is put into it than in the conception of a new human being by two callow teenagers in a few minutes of fumbling. I’d like to see as much parliamentary time used to address that issue as was used to make sure dem gays didn’t get too many crumbs from the legislative table.

@brian. There are plenty of children of gay parents in ireland, yet a gay couple won’t even be considered for adoption. A single gay (or straight) person can adopt, how is it worse for a child to have two loving parents of the same sex than one? It’s not like the state will start handing out children to gay couples, they’ll have to go through the same long hard process that everyone else has to.

For those worried about the consequences for kids of same sex couples, it should be pointed out that a variety if studies have shown that the important factor for child development is the stability and quality of the family unit, not its gender breakdown.

A stable and loving same sex couple can provide for kids in a way that is far and away preferable to the muck that passes for, and is recognised as, parenting by great big chunks of the "normal" population.

Ciaran I agree with you on the children-as-accessory argument can apply to couples of any orientation. that’s why I used Madonna and Elton John as examples although didn’t mention them by name.When you mention confronting prejudice I would have thought that my using the words small minded and ugly in the same sentence would have indicated that I too don’t agree with peoples prejudicial views.

Eoghan, you might have missed the last sentence in my first paragraph about gay parents and straight parents.

Antoinette, I think you may be slightly wrong but also slightly right in what you are saying Same sex couples are in effect allowed to adopt a child but the child can only be adopted by one of them as they are not married, The other partner has no legal right over the child http://tiny.cc/8ql9t . This applies to straight couples also. Most people (including myself) are not aware of this and assume that there are no gay adoptive couples in Ireland. If gay marriage is legislated for then I would presume that adoption rules would automatically change and end this inequality for civil and co-habiting couples.

I’m still not convinced of same sex adoption and I would regard myself as open minded and I do take the point that there are a lot of biological parents who are crap at their job. I will have to look into it further myself and look at the studies done in the area to get a better handle on things. The problem is that , while I might actively try to get a better understanding of the issue a lot of people won’t and that is where the LGBT community could falter. Far better not to mention adoption at all just go for the marriage law change and that will automatically change the adoption laws before any religious nut jobs like Emma know what’s happening.

The argument that a gay couple can’t between them create a child does nothing to explain why they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt one. Kids are evolved to survive and flourish so long as they have some very basic, simple requirements which include food, shelter, education and above all else, love. There’s no magic ingredient that can only be provided by a man and a woman. If there were in reality such an advantage, it could be argued that children being raised by single parents should be removed and adopted by opposite sex couples. All oppositions to it that I’ve ever encountered boil down to no more than either a simple resistance to change or just plain old homophobia.

Brian’s heart is in the right place and his concerns are well-meaning, but there are many reasons why kids bully each other. They are bullied for being the wrong race, wearing the wrong trainers, coming from the wrong end of town and myriad other petty things. We cannot remove kids from all risks of bullying and denying gay couples the right to be considered for adoption is a massive overreaction to an unavoidable but manageable risk.

Couldn’t agree more. Adults who molest children are paedophiles that has nothing to do with sexuality.

Rather than red thumbs can someone reply with where I’m wrong. What I’m saying is fact.

The people giving you the red thumbs don’t *have* objective facts on which to base a disagreement. Time and again, we hear that extending civil marriage to same sex couple will undermine traditional marriage. This is regularly trotted out as a fact and yet nobody has ever produced evidence to support it. Reference to religious beliefs, yes (but that totally disregards the rights of and respect for people other/no religions) and, of course, personal distate. Civil Partnerships have been taking place for months now with NO negative ramifications for Irish society. This is a pretty strong indicator that same-sex civil marriage would be equally without negative consequence. They know this but do not want to acknowledge it.

Sean you are quite simply an amazing individual

Emma you are quite simply a relic

Dont knock gays having kids. They do know all the best parks and how to apply talc to a sorebum.(blame Frankie Boyle on same sex parents)

…

Careful now!

Don’t be so niaeve! I think two dads is better than one, and two moms better than one! Straight marriages and children, U have young people in Ireland getting pregnant because they want a house from the council and they have child benefits etc, some people who want kids can’t have them and some people who have them don’t want them and don’t take care of them. If a woman has problems with her uterus and cant conceive, does that mean they shouldn’t have a baby? Gay couples may not have the bits of both sexes to concieve, but that does not mean they are incapable of loving and bringing a kid up, or should be denied of children! And I think anyone who denies another person children are selfish. But look. That’s just my opinion!

An ACCESSORY to gay marriage?

You make it sound like a crime. Perhaps your opinions are not a far cry from the supposed working class society that would be so hostile to a child of same sex parents.

And CRAPOLOGY?

Nuff said.

Time to get off ur high horse their buddy.
Afraid to show your name? Sure you are probably just in the closet. Sure2bSure, to be sure, to be sure.

You start by saying the only difference between civil partnership and marriage is adopting of kids. Wrong. The difference is one is civil partnership and the other is marriage. That’s the point.

Sadly, being dumb is for life and not just for christmas also.

An accessory as in a trinket.

So you’d think it’s better, say, for a child to have no parents at all rather than two fathers or mothers?

There are forms of discrimination which all right-minded people agree with. The law discriminates against paedophiles, bestiality, thievery, murderers etc. It currently discriminates against gays wishing to marry because it’s still viewed by society as sexually deviant behaviour and unsuitable to raise children in such a relationship.

“Who the hell are any of you that think for one second you have ANY right to say what somebody who was born into this world just like you can do with their life?”

To follow your logic would mean that “who’s to say that a paedophile or a thief can’t go about their nasty business in society without interference from anyone else.”

Erm, there’s actually a distinction between homosexuality and, say, murder. Paedophilia, thievery and murder all damage someone in some way – in each case, there is an identifiable victim. Who’s the victim in a same-sex relationship? Which of the two people has been transgressed against?

There’s a reason why murder is illegal and homosexuality isn’t. >.<

The point I was making is that society regulates and practices discrimination against certain groups. It currently discriminates against gays by not allowing them to marry, as marriage is reserved for a man and a woman.
Possibly children raised in a gay home would be damaged by the absence of a mother or father.
Bestiality is illegal, but why? Who gets damaged? It appears that while the issue of harm is a moot point, sexual deviance is still frowned upon in our society.

Sexual deviance may be frowned upon, but how do we define it? What is the supposed ‘norm’ against which we measure things that we can call them ‘deviant’?

At one stage, for instance, it was not normal for two people of different ethnic backgrounds (i.e.’races’) to have children. Think of discrimination in the States, for instance. Think of Apartheid, where black and white people (as well as a whole list of supposed ‘races’) were literally separated. Separate living areas, separate facilities, separate rights and even separate education. We no longer consider black people to be inferior to white people, and society in general (legally, anyway) no longer views it as immoral for a white and a black person to have a child together. (This is just one example, of course.)

Why, then, was that viewed as deviant at one time, but not now? If our society instinctively frowns upon sexual deviance, then why do we no longer consider some things as such? Why should we continue to view homosexuality as deviant, but not these other things that are now considered good?

The issue you mention has more to do with racism and less to do with sexuality.
Why is homosexuality still considered deviant by many people? (the legislature, the electorate – assuming a referendum on gay marriage would be defeated in this country). It’s because we are still a Christian country and apply the morals of Christianity to our society. And in Christianity, homosexual acts are considered deviant and abominable.

“And in Christianity, homosexual acts are considered deviant and abominable.”

A sweeping generalisation, I’m afraid. If Christianity in general considers homosexuality so reprehensible then how, for instance, can the Church of Ireland hold memorial services at Gay Pride, such as we had in Cork for several years now. How could several Anglican cathedrals in Ireland hold services to mark IDAHO Day (International Day Against Homophobia)? How could such organisations as the Gay Christian Network in the States exist? How could such notable clergy-people as Archbishop Desmond Tutu speak out for gay rights on a continual basis?

I’m a Christian (CofI), a regular churchgoer, and an LGBT person. If Christianity were so unquestionably against homosexuality, then that would not be possible. Clearly, Christianity doesn’t throw its weight so unanimously against homosexuality as you suggest.

And in Christianity, homosexual ACTS are considered deviant and abominable.

Gays are welcome in all Christian Churches, and hatred of gays is very unChristian, therefore you’re right, Christianity isn’t against gays. The Catholic Church sees the acts as evil, but gays are as much a part of the RC Church as others. They are urged to refrain from homosexual acts, which as I said, are considered deviant and abominable. I suppose Irish society is still very much formed by a Catholic conscience. It may be a remnant of times past, but the law remains in place to forbid gays from marrying. How does the CHofI view active homosexuality, as a matter of interest?

I found the answer for myself. Sorry for the question. Please ignore it.

Drat. That was supposed to be a reply to Maurice.

You didn’t answer the question! How does the CofI view homosexual ACTS?

The RCC doesn’t view homosexuality as evil i.e the disposition in one to be homosexual, it considers the ACTS as evil. They are two different things, in so much as I can commit a moral wrong, but not be a morally bad person.

I think it was you Tom who bypassed the issue.

I’m familiar with the split that the ordination of gays caused in the Anglican Church, so you don’t need to go into it.

Thanks for the advice Polly Pickles, but I don’t mind the nastiness one bit. For people who preach tolerance, some tend to be the most intolerant bunch of people I’ve ever come across.