Well, if they weren’t so fabulous they wouldn’t be so damn tempting!

lol, fabulous indeed

@Damien your comment above is indeed nicely put but that type of comment never ever fails to arrive in any argument such as these and inevitably is thrown at any one that doesn’t bang anti heterosexual drum.
Marriage is a thing of beauty to be shared between Men and Women and the children therein.

Homosexuality is a flawed lifestyle.

I got married to my partner of 16 years last July and oddly the world just carried on.

alzee…what are you smoking! anti heterosexual…good God man show me one example of so called heterophobia and I gaurantee you I can point to.100 examples of homophobia…you need to.get out more

Glad you liked my writing style alzee.

I hope it didn’t come across as a lazy cliche (probably something else you’d also like to keep for yourself), but I was just trying to understand your way of thinking. I’d be delighted if you could educate me as to any flaws in my logic (nothing against bisexuals at all BTW). If it wasn’t a choice for you though, how come I got to choose?

Clearly you must be some sort of expert on the homosexual mind to know with such certainty how it works.

While your at it, care to tell me what this “gay lifestyle” is when its at home and why its so flawed? Whatever it is either me or my friends have a serious problem. Other than the gender of the adults with whom we may have consensual relations with, we all live the more or less the same lifestyle. Clearly, then, I’m either gay and living a heterosexual lifestyle, or their straight and living a homosexual lifestyle!

Weirdly though, nobody can tell which it is! I’m guessing we all must be living the gay lifestyle – we all seem to lack the hate and spite which so clearly fills your (I presume) way of life!

I look forward to your helpful explanations.

Just one thing though, would you mind terribly actually try to use reason and logic and actually explain your position, rather than just rattling off some tired, lazy, uninformed cliches? Not to be fussy, but while I’m personally convinced by arguments such as “I don’t like it” or “one small section of a really old book says it’s bad (provided you interprete the provisions one way and ignore others), even though the founder of my faith came along afterwards and said love your neighbour unconditionally and live and let live etc”, I think I’ll need something more to go back to the other gays before I can persuade all the other gays that they should be happy being second class citizens.

Fourth para should read

“Weirdly though, nobody can tell which it is! I’m guessing we all must be living the gay lifestyle – we all seem to lack the hate and spite which so clearly fills your (I presume) straight way of life!”

Let me begin with an analogy. The purpose of eyes is to see. We say that one has a pair of “good” eyes if they function in accordance with their purpose. By that same token, we say that one has a pair of “bad” eyes if they do not function in accordance with their purpose. Now, since good is something that ought to be pursued (that’s the definition of good), the proper thing to do with bad eyes is to turn them into good eyes. In other words, the proper function of eyes gives us insight on how they ought to function.According to this position, known as classic virtue ethics, human nature defines what is unique and proper for human flourishing, and a bad person is one who lives contrary to human nature.”
Now, it is a self-evident fact that the purpose of our sexual organs is to reproduce – that’s how they’re structured. Just like how a key fits a lock, the male and female sex organs are complementary to each other. Given that their purpose is to reproduce, they are functioning properly when used in conjunction with this purpose. Homosexual acts are therefore wrong because they run contrary to the proper functioning of our sexual organs.
Aside from the fact that homosexuality runs contrary to the proper function of our sexual organs, it is also physically destructive. Yet, if homosexual behavior were morally acceptable, then it’s odd as to why these harmful consequences result. Consequently, this lends credulity to the fact that there is something deeply wrong about homosexual behavior.

So you only eat for nutrition, Alzee?

I find it hard to believe Alzee that you’re actually being serious, but luckily it appears you are in the (overwhelming) minority. The sooner these out-dated ignorant ‘philosophers’ depart from this realm the better for society.

Alzee

All your analogies are based on manmade precepts – nice to see your superiority complex is not hidden in any way.

Try moving you prying eyes off other people and make better use of your time.

alzee, I’ll only say this – there is a strong old truth about virulent homophobia – and the deeper truths it may hide.

Gender is gender, and sexual orientation is sexual orientation. sitting in in your right teapot is sitting in your right teapot. You tend not to lash out.

Feeling a strong near unmanageable need to lash out against homosexuality can, in certain cases, speak to something else.

it might not be the case, but have a think maybe.

And we drink beer for hydration and its diuretic properties?

Alzee, a few points:

1. The basic thrust of your argument seems to be I’m going to “not working as intended/properly = wrong/immoral.” Given you use the analogy of a blind eye not working as “intended” to explain your point gay people are bad, are you suggesting that blind people are bad because they don’t use their eyes right? I really hope not.

2. Similarly, applying your reasoning, is somebody who is born infertile, and will thus not use their sexual organs for their rightful purpose is also wrong/bad/immoral? Should the infertile/post menopausal also be denied the right to marry?

3. If your suggestion is that sexual activity or attraction is wrong/bad unless it has a reproductive function, then you must also be condemning any heterosexual person who engages in oral or anal sex (including “pegging” etc), uses contraception or engages in sexual activity for reasons other than procreation is also bad/wrong/immoral.

Can’t see you making your friends if that’s the type of thing you to outlaw.

4. A male key fits a male lock. Your interlocking parts theory only really applies to lesbians so.

Jeasus, Mary and Joseph. Michael it is such an archaic concept that no one gives a holy, god forbid sh!t about. :D There are way more important things that need to be addressed first. IMO

Give it 30 years.

I was also initially shocked by the poll results. However, I suspect that the majority of people don’t believe it’s worth the time and money voting on such a ridiculous, unenforcable law.

Pakistan has used the language of the Irish blasphemy law to press the UN to recognize the so-called “defamation of religions” as a new normative principle of international law. For this reason alone, the issue should be included in the next referendum.

The blasphemy law wasn’t challenged. FF pushed it through with the help of the Greens. McAleese didn’t see fit to refer it to Supreme Court, and no individual had both the finance and will to challenge in the SC. The good news is that it can, and probably will be reversed in the Dail without going to a referendum. Also no sane judge will ever want a conviction for this on their watch.

good point. should be tied into a referendum that excites general interest

well said Emily

Um,I don’t think I’m the one that needs to grow up here.
As you’ve missed my point,I’ll simplify it a little more for you.
The comparison I made was to show that I feel homophobia is something wrong in someone’s mind,the same as being a racist is something flawed in a persons mind. They are both as ridiculous as eachother.
2 people, of the same sex, getting married/legally binding themselves together, effects you how? Are you going to loose something? Is it contagious?

Looks like I’m saying that to Shane as the guy who I was replying to had his comment removed…..

Under Irish Law, ” The union of a man and woman”…….and before anyone starts I am answering @Croitiers question, and not commenting any any other issue, don’t shoot the messenger

@swimtwobirds I think you’ve missed the point there, while you were banging your gavel. Mairead, i think, means that you don’t heal someone’s oppressive pattern (in this case alzee’s alleged homophobia) by isolating, condemning and calling them names. You do it by staying cool, above it, and waiting for them to hoist themselves by their own petard, and realize how silly they look.

As things are, it’s handy for tax, inheritance, fathers signing consent forms, pensions, property rights. In many modern societies marriage isn’t necessary because de facto/common law partnerships are recognised as equal to marriage…

If you have kids or own a house together or something I can see why people do it..

If you aren’t married to your child’s father then you both have to adopt your own child in order for the father to have power of attorney in emergency situations (had a friend who worked in children’s hospital, told me a child had to be made a ward of the state in order to have a life saving operation, because the mother, who was away on her hen party, couldn’t be reached and the father had no legal right to sign for consent)

Mind you, that’s indicative of a far more pressing issue that needs resolving.. You shouldn’t have to marry in order for the father to have rights..

Except that’s not going to happen. So as long as the state is involved in marriage, don’t discriminate between couples.

The problem will be deciding who and how its rewritten. Could you trust any political party to rewrite the country’s basic rules? How do you rebalance power, which is far too concentrated in the Cabinet, when the folks that benefit from this power and lack of accountability, get an input? Who do you pick as chairman of this Convention the government is going to set up?

I like the idea, but the execution of the idea will have to be watched carefully.

I’m with David on this one. We have a good citizen protective constitution. It certainly needs to be updated but the people should be able to vote on every change IMO. It’s the only interaction we’re allowed after politicians think they’ve won the “popularity of the 5 years contest”!

Nail on the head Reada. Each part must be looked at individually and assessed as such by each citizen alone.

I agree with David, the way things are at the moment, I simply wouldn’t trust any politicians to do it. I’m not a nationalist really, im actually quite pro European and im happy to be living in a far less conservative closed off nationalist Ireland than people did 50 years ago , BUT if there’s one thing that MUST be written 100% for the Irish people and Irish people alone is our constitution. And I just wouldn’t trust anyone with a hint of power to do it at the moment.

As corrupt and inept as political parties are now, they were much more crazy in bygone times. I hold no romantic sentiment about bunreacht na hEireann. It would be hugely symbolic of a new Ireland if it was replaced. The present constitution will always smell of Dev and Catholic Ireland. Sometimes its better to start afresh. Try get all party support and have it independently reviewed and let the people decide in a referendum. This would be the case anyway.

In every case Id agree with you Cyril, especially the reference to Catholic Ireland etc, except for the constitution, I think we are lucky that it was written around the time it was, reason being, it must be written selfishly, completely selfishly because its the only that thing that protects the people. Dev, for all his flaws, at least did this succesfully. I couldnt imagine people being capable of that now. Even if it was an independent board that wrote it, Id have huge reservations about the amount of influence politicians and even Europe would have while it is being written. And I would really fear that people would vote on it without actually reading it, or at least reading detailed summaries.

This is what happened with Lisbon, for both yes AND no voters.

Well Cyril,your own words betray you,as long as Catholics and followers of a particular party can have no input,then I guess your happy,a bit narrow minded don’t you think…

The problem with a whole new constitution is that I might some of the new ideas and not others, so might vote against it. You could have a whole host of new provisions in it, and would get several lobby groups against different changes in it.

Seems to be a consensus here that it needs to be rewritten, but uncertainty about the methods.

2nd paragraph above. Click on “report” (it’s blue). The methodology is on page 6…

@michael
I know, but it should be in this article itself, because that information tells how plausible the study is and how representative it is. An internet survey or a survey of younger or older people might give a very different result to a truely random sampling of the general public.

“The quantitative study carried out by RED C consisted of 1005 interviews with adults aged 18+ conducted between the 28th and 30th November 2011. A random digit dial (RDD) method was used to ensure the
process of selection of households to be included was random – this also ensured that ex-directory households were covered. A respondent from each household was then invited to take part in the survey, with demographic quotas used to ensure a representative sample. Half of the sample was interviewed using an RDD landline sample, with the other half conducted using an RDD mobile phone sample. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results weighted to make sure those surveyed matched the profile of all adults.”
http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/OIReferendum-Report-Final-2003-corrected.pdf. PAGE 6

Give a legitimate reason against it but I suspect you can’t. I’d prefer if all the bigots left instead tbh, bigotry should have no place in modern Ireland.

Who does it harm?

I always wonder about those who say being gay is a “choice”. If they think sexuality is a choice, presumably they must at some point have chosen to be “straight”.

For most straight people I know though, they never made a choice to be straight. They just are. They don’t feel any same sex attractions at all whatsoever, so they were just straight by default. When a straight man looks at another man naked, they don’t “choose” not to get turned on – they just aren’t.

Equally, I haven’t met a gay person who chose one day to be attracted to the same sex. They just were (more often than not despite fighting against the attractions for a long time). As much as he’d like it, the sight of a naked woman just doesn’t move a gay man that way.

Which leads me to wonder alzee, if you are so convinced that one can choose who you are attracted to, doesn’t that make you bisexual?

What exactly is your problem with gay marriage, Alzee? If two men or two women chose to marry, how exactly would that affect you or anybody else?

Damien Lohan..comment of the week.sir!

God on a bike Alzee. Think about the logic behind someone “choosing” to be gay. You must be trolling.

Hey alzee, intresting name? you might try the following.
Don’t like gay marriage? Don’t get one.
Don’t like abortions? Don’t get one.
Don’t like drugs? Don’t do them.
Don’t like sex? Don’t have it.
Don’t like your rights taken away? Don’t take away anybody elses.

Er gay people dont “choose” anything when it comes to their sexuality.

Unless you mean the choice we make to finally and bravely acknowledge who we are, and stop being unhappy and isolated?? Great choice that alright.

@alzee I hope one of your kids turns out to be gay and makes your brain explode.
I would however be extremely sorry for your kid as he would have to hide himself for you and resent you forever.

@ Alzee

You should move to Uganda – no doubt you would agree with their politics

@Shane i think alzee’s attitude is the opposite of what uganda needs :)

If gay marriage is introduced will you leave the country? I hope so, the less bigots we have here the better.

Completely off topic here but it’s driving me nuts…..shauna,what film is the still on your profile pic taken from????I know it but can’t think.
And alzee,your a funny aul yoke you are,if we were all as lucky as you to be able to choose who we desired in life there’d be no heartbreak. But also there’d be no love. We’d just mate because it was what we ‘had to do as human beings,to reproduce’.
People fall in love and enjoy sex. What does it matter to you who they do this with? As long as both parties are into it then who are they harming? Let them be married,what the hell difference does it make to you?

This is right right right :)

I I agree with Hugh, this is wrong, wrong wrong that we are even discussing interfering with someone else’s private life private business and social rights, that is what you meant Hugh?

i think hughs joking

If I might hazard a guess at this one, but I think the answer might be in the roots of the “2010 certain rights and obligations act” which purported to be introducing rights for same sex partners but was in fact designed to pull same sex cohabitants in to the reach of the dept of social protection. Up until 2010 same sex partners could not have their social welfare reduced under the 2005 cohabitation act because same sex partners could not cohabit. Now thanks to the new homeland security act …sorry social welfare act same sex partners are crucified like every one else.