Why was Norris doing so well before the letter then? His love of Ulysses?

Because people liked him. He’s funny. (And I had a big problem with the letter, but to say people only liked him for his sexuality is a bit ridiculous.)

Excellent post. Fully agree.

argh, the lack of an edit feature… “However, CP and the recognition of foreign partnerships – is worth a thousand, no, a million times more than any currently available civil partnerships, domestic partnership or same-sex marriages in the US.”

In the thread above you ask me to “please explain” and in response accuse me of “imposing” my views on you. How unreasonable can you get?

Don’t worry, true Christianity has volunteer followers only.

No conscripts.

OK so I don’t volunteer. Then any law your religion or any other imposes because of its warped and often contradictory ‘morality’ should have no influence on me or on national law. No, we’ll keep the “do not kill” because it makes sense to have that law, and to suggest that prior to Moses everyone thought it ok to just kill people willy nilly is just plain silly -no civilisation would survive such a mentality. So we can have laws based on questions about rights and individual choices and their consequences rather than ‘it is written’. So I can ‘allow’ menstruating women to sleep indoors, will wear fabrics of my choosing, will not have slaves from neighbouring nations, or any slaves at all, and I can marry whoever I choose under the rules of the nation. Restricting the rights of others based on the rules of your religion IS enforcing your beliefs on others. Religious people like yourself are free to live by the bible if you like but keep away from my choices and freedoms in so far as they do not affect you directly. Live and let live.

Paul. Government impose limits on our behaviour, rightly, I’m sure you’d agree. We live in a society with many fine laws based on Judeo-Christian principles. That’s the norm for western society. Those principles are derived from the Bible, and I bet you are glad you are not living under, say, Sharia law.

The only alternative to government is anarchy, and that is worse than communism. There is an anarchic and evil heave on for many years now to push back the boundaries of sexual behaviour – lower the age of consent, legitimise pornography, teach our children that it’s “OK” to have pre-marital sex with multiple partners as long as they wear a condom, legalise prostitution, permit bigamy, get your kit off in public, etc etc. Where does it end? Is 16 y.o. ok for sexual relations? Is 4 wives enough? Should gay porn be sold in your corner store? Or bondage porn. Is that ok? How about advertising a brothel on rte? Should we allow the sale of “sexy” clothes for kids? Do you think a 15 year old boy should be permitted to have a 40 year old boyfriend? Can you think of anything more disgusting or perverted than that, actually?

The debate has always been about more than marriage. It’s about the very fabric of our society. And there’s a race by many to allow anything and everything to happen whenever and wherever.

You clatter and deride Christianity, but have nothing to replace it with, and act like your own God, where your personal standards are the acceptable levels of behaviour for everybody. Well, that is not so. There are some things which are absolute, and one is that marriage is for couples of the opposite sex. Otherwise, it’s not marriage, call it what you will.

Kieran, I’d hate for you to labour under the misapprehension that you’re somehow representing Christianity and Christian values against the atheist hordes here.

I think I can say with some confidence that your moral views are repugnant to most Christians in Ireland and across Europe and that they go directly contrary to the principles upon which the very fabric of society is based,

It seems pretty risible, to be honest, for someone like yourself to be talking up Western society, and comparing it to Sharia law, when in this very comments section you’ve confirmed you disagree with the basic tenets of our laws and favour principles of morality almost indistinguishable from the worst excesses of Islamic theocracies, such as the capital punishment through stoning of women for minor sexual so-called ‘crimes’.

Peter – you are using a Straw-Man argument.

I never agreed with your points or debated them when you suggested I believed in stoning, slavery etc. Your argument was so obviously convoluted it didn’t merit comment.

Any fool can pull an isolated line or law out of the Bible and claim it is authority for their own interpretation. ”A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.” I could go into your copy of the Indo this morning and string together different sentences and paragraphs to prove the Taoiseach advocates a Yes vote on 31st May. Would you believe me, if I told you it was in the Indo? But it’s written down in black & white…

The Scripture itself says “no Scripture is of private interpretation” – doctrine is proven by referencing “precept upon precept, line upon line” – comparing Scripture with Scripture.

I have stated a case against so-called gay marriage, based on the principles found in the Bible. What do you expect from a Christian and a Bible-believer?

Do you really suppose the Christian churches and assemblies around Ireland are advocating stoning pregnant spinsters? Do you reckon that that’s preached from the pulpits? Visit one some time, I’ll give you a few addresses, and you’ll see that believers are going to church because they love God and people, not to Lord it over the heathen or “resist the atheist hordes.”

Btw, may I ask you from where your moral standard or authority comes? How do you know the difference between right and wrong? What is the cut-off point for you when societal standards slip? That’s an important question, because the only authority I know, which has been sufficient in Ireland for 2 millennia, is being chucked as fast as people can say “I don’t believe the Bible”. It’s a fair question. I have laid my heart bare and you have attacked, easy to do for you with the approval of most commentators here. But you have not justified yourself.

Well, Kieran, if you’re changing your story back, then we’re back to the original question aren’t we?

If “because the Bible says so” *by itself* isn’t enough reason for you think something is a good idea, then why should it be enough for everyone else? What are the *additional* factors that mean that you think the supposed prohibition on gay marriage in the Bible is worth following while the other prohibitions and requirements you feel free to ignore and dismiss?

And I think it quite appropriate for you to talk about how “any fool can pull an isolated line or law out of the Bible and claim it is authority for their own interpretation” considering that that’s exactly what the homophobic hatemongers do. If they took their faith a bit more seriously they’d spend more time trying to live Christ’s message of love, tolerance and understanding, and less time perverting the word of God to justify their own immoral agenda.

Peter – changing my story? Once again that’s a straw man argument from your own imagination. I have answered your present query above in the last thread.

No you haven’t. You were asked how you accounted for the discrepancy of taking the Bible’s supposed instruction on gay marriage seriously, but not its instructions on slavery. You said there was no discrepancy because you took all instructions from the Bible as absolutely true and correct. Now you say that actually, no, you don’t believe that slavery is morally justifiable, despite the Bible clearly stating that it is.

Either you believe slavery is justifiable or its not. And, if not, the question is still unanswered as to what the difference between the instructions on slavery and gay marriage are that you think one can be disregarded and the other not?

(This all still under the same proviso, of course, that there’s actually no such prohibition at all but we’ll buy into your premise for the moment)

Leviticus decries both homosexuality and the consumption of shellfish as abomination, without saying which is the greater abomination. I had a king prawn salad for lunch. Should I go to confession?

Every one of those spurious examples of over-permissiveness are covered by the rights and responsibilities *and their consequences* in my original post. Those ridiculous things you posted clearly have negative consequences for someone whose rights are effected, e.g. the right to a childhood, and would therefore never become legal under a real liberal system where if someone’s actions don’t affect others then it’s nobody’s business (see JS Mill “on liberty”). There is no need to refer to an ancient set of books that not everyone agrees with and impose those rules. There is also no need to think the only alternative to subjecting everyone to Judeo-Christian rules is Sharia, anarchy or “communism”. We are capable as societies of arguing each case on whether it’s something we all need to interfere in. I think we’d agree that a child in an abusive relationship with a 40 year old (of any gender!) is something we should interfere in, as is someone being deprived of their life, property, liberty etc. And a couple who want to get married don’t affect anyone other than the couple, their right to do what they like if it harms nobody trumps your right not to be grossed out.

And you were going on about straw man? Funny that since you then chose to attack anarchy, communism, child abuse, polygamy and kinky sex in response to a post saying we don’t need to impose Christian laws when we can allow individual freedoms and when we see the potential for harm legislate against it.

Peter

Here is an attempted explanation of your so-called discrepancy. I have studied the Bible for ten years and I’m afraid it’s not enough to be able to give a succinct answer, but it’s the best I can manage for the moment.

The five books which comprise the Torah are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers & Deuteronomy. In these 5 books are written the 613 laws, some of which you listed and which national Israel were obliged to keep, or suffer the awful consequences. Also detailed in these books are the various sin-offerings which the Jews were to make if they transgressed the law.

The consequences of breaking any of the laws were severe. All 613 laws were literally impossible to keep, and every Israeli ever born broke at least one of them, and usually more. In the Bible, many of these transgressions could be and were covered with various sin-offerings involving the sacrifice of innocent animals. Thus, a child who disobeyed parents, for example, was liable to have to make a burnt offering rather than be stoned to death, as the law demanded. Murderers were always to die for their crime since the time before the law was given, since before the time of the Jews, even, and that law still stands. The moral laws also stand, this we know because many were repeated in the NT, including 9 of the “10 Commandments” (the one about the Sabbath was not carried forward, although it tends to be adhered to by Christians today).

The severe punishments tell us that God takes sin very seriously; furthermore, the Bible tells us that “…almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission (of sins).” For sin to be covered or paid for, blood must be spilled.

God knew Israel could not keep his commandments. Not then and not now. In His mercy, He gave Israel a way out of suffering the consequences of their sin, by accepting sacrifices which pointed toward (or where a type of) the future sacrifice of Messiah (Isa 50, Zech 13, Psalm 22 & c). Jews in the O.T. era were saved from their sins by grace through faith in God and what he was going to do on the cross in the future.

Fast forward to 30 A.D. – the year of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He said “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.” Jesus was the only person to live a sinless life on earth, and thus became the only person capable of offering himself as a sacrifice acceptable to God for sin. When God came to earth as a man, He was the Jew’s Messiah, but the Jews rejected Him, so salvation was offered to Gentiles too. Previously, to be saved, one had to become a Jew. Now, because of Jesus and the Jews rejection of Him, salvation is offered to the whole world, Jew and Gentile alike. Men today can trust in/believe on Jesus and that what He did on the cross may be acceptable as a vicarious sin offering to God

In summary: Man is a sinner, always rebelling against God. God gave the law 4.000 years ago so that man could measure his sin, and then gave man a way to escape his sin – through sacrifices which pointed to Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice on the cross. Salvation is still by grace through faith today, and sins are paid for by blood – Christ’s blood, shed on a cross. Alternatively, now, as in the O.T. era, you can still pay for them yourself, if you want, through eternal damnation.

So the 613 laws are not applicable today, and were never applicable to Gentiles. Jesus said “A new commandment I give unto you, that ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another” That’s New Testament Christianity, and improves on what came before. As Paul wrote in Hebrews “For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.” Jesus being that “better hope.”

The days of slaves and stoning and dietery rules are gone. This is the age of grace.

No contradiction, no discrepancy

That’s HALF the answer, then. You’ve explained exactly the same reasoning by which I and other Christians and Jews today almost universally reject those instructions. Now all you have to do is explain what’s DIFFERENT about a supposed prohibition on gay marriage that IT stands, while – as you say yourself – others from the Books of Law do not.

There is nothing in Christ’s teachings prohibiting gay marriage. Nor is there incompatibility between Christ’s teaching and gay marriage. So you need to account on why you feel the need to reach back into the distant pre-Christian past for instructions never intended for Christians to follow and cherry pick those that suit your own prejudices.

And then, once you’ve done that, we can move on to schooling you in how there’s in fact no prohibition on homosexuality in the Bible outside your own prejudiced misinterpretation.

Peter

You’re a Christian? At least, you have identified yourself in your latest post with the Christians and Jews, and I assume you are not Jewish. So presumably, as a Christian, you believe the Bible, the standard for Christian faith & practice. Check out these New Testament verses.

Marriage is between men and women Matthew 19:1-8

Condemnation of lesbianism and male homosexuality: Romans Chapter 1:24 ff

Homosexuality (and transvestism) condemned: 2 Corinthians 6:9-11

Homosexuality condemned: 1Timothy 1:10

Homosexuality condemned: Jude verses 4, 7 & 8

How do you get “gay marriage” out of that lot?

The moral laws from the OT are repeated ad-nauseum in the NT. Too many times to list here. That is basic, kindergarten-level Christian doctrine in all denominations.

Show me a single supporting text for so-called gay marriage.

Just one.

Peter

1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Not second.

Matthew 19:1-8 — is about divorce, not homosexuality. It makes no claim that homosexuality or gay marriage is not permitted. In fact, it also underlines – as in other places in the New Testament – that the rulings of Moses in these matters are to be discounted (so that places your previous leaning on Leviticus out of the window then…)

Romans Chapter 1:24 — is about promiscuity, not homosexuality. It condemns people who are interested only in their own material and sexual desires, rather than spiritual matters, but makes zip, nada, no distinction whatsoever between homosexual and heterosexual acts. In fact, if anything, a neutral, unprejudiced reading of it would be that GAY PEOPLE SHOULD BE MARRIED rather than having lots of extramarital sex.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 AND 1Timothy 1:10 — Actually, these condemn “arsenokoitai”: a word apparently invented by Paul and never seen before or since. Nobody’s sure what it means, though it does seem to refer to some form of male sex. As with certain other places in the Bible it’s very likely a condemnation of male rape or the use of rent boys, rather than homosexuality per se. But then, I’m sure you already knew that.

Jude 4-8: Again, as with others you’ve cited, THIS MAKES NO MENTION OF HOMOSEXUALITY at all. Rather, it has a general condemnation of promiscuity that makes no distinction between heterosexual and homosexual acts. And, once again, is therefore implicitly IN FAVOUR OF GAY MARRIAGE by way of being against extramarital sex.

But that’s for bringing those arguments up so they can be exposed for the sham they are. It’s useful.

Romans does not condemn homosexual acts? Are you really serious? It could not be clearer. It is about promiscuity AND homosexuality.

Ro 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Do you understand “women”, “men”, “against nature”, “natural use”, “vile affections”, “lust”, “unseemly”, “error”?
Does that look like a text which will evolve into support for your case? It strongly condemns GLBs! How much more evidence do you need? Can you not read the plain text? When do words not mean what they say?

Show me the support. One line of support. Just one. I’ve answered your queries. Answer mine. Where is sympathy for your case? Prove me wrong and I will change my mind. Win me over with unbiased reason and clear Bible text.

“Aesenokoitai” is a compound word. Greek is a very pointed and specific language. It is disingenuous of you to suggest the word means anything other than that meaning the translators gave it. Male rape or rent boys? You’re having a laugh surely?

And finally Peter -

Your interpretation of Jude 7 & 8 is that it supports homosexual marriage?
“Sodom”, “Gomorrha”, “strange flesh”, “defile the flesh”, in your words “IMPLICITLY SUPPORTS GAY MARRIAGE”?
Really, it says anything you want it to say, doesn’t it? You choose to ignore plain words. No means yes and yes means no. You’ll be confused at the ballot box on May 31st I think.

I have no wish to be rude, but why did you engage in this debate? You accuse me of having an unsupported position, yet I have honestly never seen such misinterpretation of words and unsupported argument as you have achieved, not even from a Jesuit.

Which translators? It was only translated as “homosexuals” for the first time in 1958!

It’s a compound word, yes, of “Arseno” (Man) and “Koit” (Bed, from which the modern English ‘cot’ descends). Man-Bed. And you come from that to a definitive, unassailable opinion that this word, “Man-Bed” MUST, completely unambigiously mean “Homosexual”? That’s a real reach.

Philo, the famed Jewish scholar of the 1st century translated “arsenos koiten” as “temple prostitution”. Do you speak Ancient Greek better than him? I think not. To try and interpret it as “homosexuality” general ignores the context in which it appears — during a long passage where Paul is primarily concerned with those who think they can be both Christian AND observe other religion’s practices and goes off on about idolatry and the leaving of tributes of fruit at altars. Other cults active in Cornith at the time are known to have included sexual acts of prostitution as part of their tribute rituals. Surely it seems far more likely that Paul is referring to this than homosexual orientation generally since (i) sexual orientation as a concept was part of 1st century thinking and (ii) it makes what otherwise be a FAILURE on his part to condemn the use of temple prostitutes rather glaring.

But don’t let’s just consider Philo. What about Hippolytes in the 3rd century who uses it to describe an imagined sexual act between the Serpent in Eden and Adam and Eve? Or the 3rd century Exposition on Proverbs which uses it on the context of any sexual act not intended for procreation? Eusebius uses it to mean pedastry (the grooming of young boys by an adult male rather than homosexuality between two equal, consenting adults) as does Aristophane. Pseudo-Macrius takes it to mean male rape (again NOT the general homosexual act).

I could go on… There are only 65 occasions in ancient literature where the word “arsenokoite” appears, discounting Paul and those that directly quote Corinthians without further explanation. NONE OF THEM use it to refer to homosexuality as we define it — consensual sexual relations between two people of the same gender and status. Where any context is given at all, it is always with an element of rape, abuse, or prostitution.

And, crucially, while the Bible itself never discusses homosexuality *at all*, it’s not something the Ancient Greeks were shy about. There are TONS of reference to homosexuality in Ancient Greek texts and they had a number of different words used to describe it and aspects of it. And Paul doesn’t choose to use any of them. Why? Because that’s not what he’s talking about.

By the way, on Romans 1.26-27. Your entire argument rests on own pre-existing prejudice holds that homosexuality=sexual immorality you see any condemnation of sexual immorality as a condemnation of homosexuality but, I’m afraid, that’s just in your head. That’s how you can look at a verse about women taking up sexual activities “contrary to nature” and see “gay” (rather than, as contemporary readers would have seen it – masturbation, or sex for sex’s sake, since women – at the time – weren’t supposed to enjoy it). It’s how you can read a verse about admonishing MEN CHEATING ON THEIR WIVES and only notice the gender of the cuckold.

So, yeah, the Bible says not to cheat on your wife with men or women; not to rape men or women; not to have sex with minors. I think we can all get on board with that as a moral code. Now just point out the bit where it condemns gay marriage. Since, you know, you’re the one that claims it condemns it.

And honestly, I don’t expect to change your mind no matter how much Biblical and historical evidence is thrown your way. Because you’re not *actually* interested in the Bible or Christ’s message to the world except as a crutch and excuse for your own immorality and lack of Christianity towards your fellow humanity.

Just one last point on Jude, since you bring it up again.

“Sodom”, “Gomorrha”, “strange flesh”, “defile the flesh”, you say? A more perfect example of your prejudice twisting your reading I couldn’t have chosen. “Defiling the flesh” to you OBVIOUSLY means homosexuality – because you’re ALREADY decided that homosexuality defiles the flesh — it’s another of those logical fallacies you’re so good at. Same with “Sodom and Gomorrha” — are Sodom and Gomorrha symbols of homosexuality? No, not in the Bible they’re not. There’s no homosexuality (as in consensual same sex relationships between adults) mentioned anywhere in that portion of Genesis: there’s *male prostitution* and *male rape*.

You’ve said same sex marriage should be illegal because you believe the Bible condemns it. You’re wrong because your religious views do not get to dictate to society. You’re also wrong because the Bible does not condemn it. You’ve been challenged to make your case and time and time and time again you come up verse after verse that does no such thing.

Ok, we’re at odds.

I have not encountered an argument such as yours before. Actually, I’ve never debated with a gay person before.

How many of the denominations support your interpretation, do you know? Proestant, catholic, orthodox, Calvinist, Presbyterian, baptist? Or the cults? JW, Mormons? charismatics? evangelicals? Do even one out of that lot go with your interpretation or is your authority senator Norris?

HA!

The very fact that you simply assume that I’m gay says volumes about your tendency to make presumptions from your own prejudice. I’m not and absolutely nothing I’ve posted in this comments section would give a reasonable person grounds to assume as much. (And I didn’t vote for Norris, either, thanks very much!)

But I take it you’re declining to disagree with the historical evidence as to what these words and phrases mean or to point out any other verses that supposedly prohibit general homosexuality and aren’t simply talking about extramarital affairs, rape or prostitution? Very wise. You won’t find any.

And as far as I can see, mine is the orthodox view. I’ve only run into a handful of people who share your interpretation of the Bible; always on the internet; always claiming some authority for dictating that the laws of the land should aim to cause harm and distress to their fellow man.

I really do suggest you look at the Bible with new eyes, reading these passages *without* your own presumptions ahead of time as to what they mean, and aware of the historical context of events in the 1st century Roman Empire and what the concerns of those living in those times actually were.

I’m the same. straight couple or gay couple, doesn’t bother me. it’s none of my business. if people want to get married then they should be allowed.

Well, to be fair, that’s not a good idea. Civil marriage is a state institution regulated by the government. If you just take away civil marriage then you take with it a whole ton of other things with it. Whether gay or straight, most people would like the automatic legal right to be regarded as their partner’s next of kin for medical and legal matters and to be regarded as the legal co-parent of children in the family home.

Taking those rights away from *everybody* isn’t really helpful.

I think he’s running scared for votes. The last few Americans I was speaking said they wanted him gone.

Have been talkin to a few myself and they all want him out.

It’s not going to change a single vote. All Americans who are for gay rights would already have voted for him (which is all the Americans I know, but maybe I hang out with more tolerant ones than other posters.)

http://tinyurl.com/39rl3kj

What’s the point of your last paragraph Richie?
Someone also went to the moon but that too is irrelevant.

Point is Julian, It is terrible that in 2012 we are still having issues with same sex relations..
Obama is using this issue as a scapegoat for his f**k up’s

Whats the moon got to do with it?

Oh, come on. He’s not using it to win votes. It’s not going to change a single vote, because gay rights activists are certainly not going to vote for Romney ever.

But I think it’s a bit ironic that you, as someone who isn’t American (or necessarily a member of the LGBT community) thinks that it’s up to you to dictate policies. I had a gay American friend complain about this reaction specifically, that Obama should focus on something “more important.” If I know people in the LGBT community who say it’s important to them, I as a cis heterosexual, will take my cue and support that.

I don’t need to be a part of the LGBT to want equal rights for all
i am not American either… not that it makes a difference…
We all have “gay friends”
I just call them friends….No need for titles

Clearly. You don’t seem to think that gay people might have a more personal perspective on it. I do. And so as a cis heterosexual, I listen to people who have experienced discrimination

But I guess you think that’s putting labels on things.

Why?

I think we would all like to know why?

Just wondering if it’s just gay people that you feel should not be allowed marry. Is it ok that Black people and White people, rapists, murderers, Protestants, auctioneers, teachers, paedophiles can marry, or do you just disagree with gays marrying?

Yeah, knew I’d get slaughtered.

It’s my opinion, nothing more.

I don’t see where you have been slaughtered Nucky. You have been politely asked by 3 other contributors to develop your point. Slaughtered? I don’t think so.

Don’t marry a gay then!! I don’t like straight weddings(standing in front of an aged virgin witnessed by an invisible man in a church) but I have been very tolerant to them in past!! Live and let live!!

Yes we just want to know what your opinion is based upon? Personally I am not in favour of banana sandwiches, based on the fact I do not think sandwiches should be sweet! I just prefer savoury. Its my opinion.

We just want to hear your reasoning behind your opinion. Just cus! isn’t a reason

Don’t agree, but to give him his due, he did say it was his personal opinion. Everyone’s allowed their personal opinion. It’s when they force their opinions down your throat as supposed facts that makes me reach for the pointy stick…

I’m not surprised Nucky

Nucky, if you don’t feel comfortable explaining why you’re not in favour, maybe it’s time to reconsider your opinion?

You won’t be slaughtered, Nucky. You’ll just get red thumbed. ;-)

Nucky? Tradition – the great crutch of Ireland?

Gonna get slaughtered here but I’m personally not in favour of women voting. No explanation needed. If you ask when, then I’m being slaughtered.

Simply stating that you’re opposed to equal rights being given to your neighbour, without advancing any supporting argument, is absolutely pointless. We already know some people are against gay marriage. You’re only adding to the debate if you advance at least one argument supporting your position.

My reason?

Its just an opinion to be honest. I think the term marriage (for me) depicts a hetrosexual union which provides for a safe environment for children to be brought into the world.

I don’t buy into the ‘we are equal so we deserve to be allowed to be married’ argument. As far as I can see, there is no inequality at play here, it is just portrayed that way by the gay community.

Nucky you are one of the minority. Straight marriage, Gay marriage who cares, we are all Tax payer’s we all should be equal. It doesn’t affect you if a gay couple get married, so why would you be against it.

“As far as I can see, there is no inequality at play here”

Watch this video and I dare you to come back and tell me that “there is no inequality at play here”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9gyloyOjM&feature=autoplay&list=FLfNS7Zo47vJtj4spFKOjnVQ&playnext=1

It is about an individual whose partner tragically lost his life from falling from a great height. He went to retrieve his body from the hospital only to be told that he has no right to. In the eyes of the state he is no more than a “glorified room mate”.
He was told that he would have to contact his partners family to get his hands on the medical records. The rest of the story is extremely painful to watch but I advise you to do so.

Is that why you are looking for ‘equality’? C’mon, you can do better than that surely!

Better than that? Jaysus, what sort of horrendous situation do we have to put ourselves in for you to feel that we deserve being treated like human beings?

What about the couples that have children and only one parent has any legal rights to them? What if that parent dies? The kids have to go into care and say goodbye to their other parent.

Have a little compassion.

You can do better than that? What sort of sick person are you? It has everything to do with equality.
I honestly can’t take your intolerance any more.

What a video Gavin, i wish i didn’t watch it.

You wish you didn’t watch it?

I disagree, I’m all for gay marriage and gay adoption rights and whatnot. But give Nucky a break, he is entitled to an opinion, even if nobody agrees with it.

P.s. Being tolerant and open-minded also includes respecting another person’s opinions, even if they are outdated, unequal, unfair etc..Calling him intolerant is a bit ironic.

@ Karen. It’s funny really, Nucky trailing out the bait. Sets the trap, gets a load of people advocating tolerance to present themselves as inacceptably intolerant. The fact he/she’s using the name “Nucky Thompson” pretty much sets the agenda.

Unacceptably. My bad.

It was very upsetting.

As entitled Nucky is to his opinion, my fear is that his vote against gay marriage could jeopardize my son’s chances of marrying his partner. They are in a civil partnership – which is NOT equal to marriage (169 discriminating differences). His relationship is loving and joyous and in all senses – spirit, emotional, social, familial, you name it – the equal of the marriage I have with his mother and the marriage of his sister and her husband. Opinion is fine and dandy but if it came to a vote, he would/could help perpetuate inequality and injustice. Putting civil rights issues to a public vote stinks.

My apologies. I read your comment wrong. Yes it is a very upsetting piece but it is something that everyone should see. I particularity like the closing statement.

“I need to fight for what’s right. I need to fight for what I believe in and I can’t just, just stand back any more. Maybe that is why this all happened. Maybe this is just part of the reason, is to open my eyes and inspire me to want to make a change and want to fight for equality …

I just don’t know if people will listen,

but I guess no one will listen if I don’t talk …

so I’m talking”

Truly inspirational.

My apologies, i should have explained what i meant a bit more, i have forwarded the link of the video to everyone i know.

Ed he made breeding a mixed gender affair he did not make raising a mixed gender affair.

Yeah… It’s just so unnatural. Like your phone, keyboard shoes and clothes too! In fact we should ban everything you’re not born into this world with that can be deemed “unnatural”, so everything!

Mother nature didn’t invent the institution of marriage. And if she did then same-sex marriage would be included because homosexuality can be found throughout the animal kingdom in penguins, lions, elephants, ducks, some insects, dolphins, sheep, monkeys, some lizards, and countless others.

What’s that reason?

The way I see marriage is that it’s all about a commitment from a man and woman to raise a family so that’s the only reason I think it should stay that way. But I totally agree with gay couple having all the benefits that come with it like inheritance, tax breaks, etc.

@ Ed – Hate to break it to you like this, but Mother Nature doesn’t exist, just as Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy don’t exist. We evolved, we weren’t designed. Natural and unnatural are social constructs, not laws of the universe. Like all social constructs, the change with the times.

Marriage is a man-made institution. Plenty of evidence to show that human beings can and have been raising families in all sorts of other ways.

The right to create and raise a family is NOT and SHOULD NOT be consigned only to a man and a woman who marry. To think that is to be extremely narrow-minded.

Says who? You? That is only your opinion, just as mine and nothing more.

is it natural for a couple with an unwanted pregnancy to give up their child? NO

I Love Lamp, marriage has *never* been defined as a commitment between a man and a woman to raise a family. If it had been infertile couples would not be allowed to marry would they?

I mean, do you think infertile couples *should* be allowed to marry? They don’t fall inside your personal definition after all? Do you think couples who just plain don’t *want* children should be allowed to marry? That’s outside your definition too.

And, in any event, same sex couples are just as capable of committing to raise children as anyone else. There are millions of same sex couples raising families around the globe as we speak — and often doing a much better job of it than many differently gendered couples…

I love lamp,
Eh, no it’s not just my opinion. It’s a fact. And says everybody who does some damn research into the thing.

Same-sex couples create and raise families all the time, how can that be just an opinion?

And while we’re at it, here’s a quote from the American Anthropological Association:
“The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.”
(here’s the link http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-the-Family.cfm)

As said by many here, marriage is as social construct. There’s been a load of comments on what marriage is, and what it’s for. I’ll throw in my own two cents, as it hasn’t been stated clearly enough for me ( I’m a bit intellectually lacking that way, indulge me ).

Marriage was first and foremost a means of maintaining ownership of property, and so power, between families that sought to align themselves with one another. Marriage was not decided by the prospective partners themselves, but by the heads of their families. Domestic happiness and romantic fulfilment were not priorities.

Given that very few people these days would want the type of marriage I’ve described above, then it’d be pragmatic to chuck any ideas of what marriage was and is into the nearest bin and let people to define it themselves. Either remove the concept of civil marriage altogether, and have only a civil partnership, marriage then being a purely symbolic act, without any special legal standing, or let anyone marry anyone they wish.
We have enough problems in our worlds these days.

As for marriage being a requirement for a healthy environment for a child, look around you. That boat has sailed long ago, it won’t be coming back.

” mother nature made breeding and raising a mixed Sex affair” Yeah, that must be why single parents have been completely outlawed in this country. None of them successfully raising children anywhere. None. Not a one. Nada. Never happens.

And what about the conservative vote which is more numerous than the gay one? He took a very big risk saying this. In another country like Spain or the UK this wouldn’t be an issue but outside of the big cities in the US, it’s a very conservative country

Obama didn’t need to support gay marriage to get the gay vote. He already supported civil union and he repealed don’t ask don’t tell and his main opponent thinks that you can “pray out the gay”! How did he ever not have the gay vote?

Looks for what?

The church can campaign against it all they like but it’s not working for them in the UK and I can’t see it working for them here either.
And it’s not straw clutching by Obama at all. I’d say he’s agreed with it all along but the way the campaigns are going enable him to actually say so. Mitt Romney being a completely ridiculous social conservative means that people who would have voted Obama out (for the same sort of reasons we voted out Fianna Fail) will probably now stick with him because Romney is such a dreadful option. If anything Obama is risking a lot by declaring this in an election year. Sure it will easily win him liberal support but what liberal would vote republican anyway?

We are ready for Same sex marriages Damn the church.

The church. Ahhh yes that wonderful institution of morality !

Who care what the church thinks? We are long past the stage where the church could stop anything.

Same sex marriage has nothing to do with the church. Its about how the state sees it. I couldn’t care less how the church feel. They have no business dictating Irish affairs.

The church would never allow it?? I’m sure Ireland is a democratic republic not a theocratic dictatorship. We all know what the church got up when they had undue influence in Irish politics. The church tried to stop condoms & divorce as well.

WOW, there’s a surprise. Someone with a fake profile picture, fake name on a brand spanking new Twitter account following zero Twitter accounts and with zero people following them so they can make backward conservative statements such as the above in support of the Catholic Church in Ireland.

I am showing my face, show some balls and show yours Mr. Iona Institute or whomever you are!!!!

F*CK the church. They should have absolutely nothing to do with the state anyway. Comments like that really grind my gears.

The motion is for CIVIL marriage, and has nothing to do with the church. Actually, I think most couples opting for a civil marriage would rather stick two fingers up (both of them middle) at the church. This is about equal rights – nothing more, nothing less.

Owen reading all the positive comments here about same sex marriage, and the tumbs up, you are proven wrong. Ireland is ready.

” The church would never allow it!”

File along with contraception, masturbation, sex before marriage, divorce, yadda yadda.

P.

Newsflash: Ireland has people of more than one religion AND people of no religion. Let the faithful follow the teaching os their church if they want to: it’s not like anyone will be forced into a same sex marriage. Those adhering to the teachings of their church can avoid marrying someone of the same sex. It doesn’t follow that they have the right to impose the rules of *their* church on anyone else. People are looking for access to CIVIL marriage. No one church can speak for everyone.

….interesting to see what divorce rates will be like for same sex marriages.

See the above article, the majority in Ireland don’t agree with the biblical definition of marriage, besides which it’s our constitutional definition that matters. Anyway, the government can’t just outright legalise it, it requires a constitutional amendment and a referendum (unless the KAL appeal succeeds). In which case we’ll all get to see how the country actually feel about it!

Couldn’t disagree win you there, Stephanie

Stephanie that’s only the Red C and in my opinion not to be trusted, according to them David Norris was running away with the presidency. I don’t know anyone that has done a Red C and from my experience in the real world as opposed to some phone poll is that support would only be 50/50 if even.

Lamp, Stephanie is still correct, because the Biblical definition of marriage is a formal, community and state-recognised union between a man and woman. Shacked-up is not Biblical.

Another definition of marriage would read ‘the union of a man and a woman, to the exclusion of all others, til death do they part’

We have pretty much done away with the second 2 tenets, why is the first still such an issue?

Cavan, it’s an issue for a Bible believer. I believe God’s laws are better than man’s. The fact that I struggle to keep the laws of God (as in I’m a sinner) does not detract from my belief or subjection to said laws.

Just as well God is gracious and can save even a law-breaker such as me

But this issue transcends religious affiliations, it is a conversation to be had by followers of the catholic church (or any church for that matter) to be sure, but as I see it, this is a conversation for all citizens … I appreciate that we look to the past for guidance into the future but I don’t think we need to be a slave to it…

The Bible got the most simple moral issue wrong (slavery).
So, anyone who uses anything from the bible to inform their lives, their beliefs or their morality
is to be instantly disregarded.
Leviticus 25:44-46: “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves and they will become your property. You can make them slaves for life”

Kieran if you are going to rattle on the bibles definition of marriage. I am going to have to roll this old one that has been doing the rounds for some time.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When people try to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to follow them:

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9).The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7.In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev.15:19-24).The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev.25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev.11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread cotton/polyester blend. He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Doc – OT, NT, context, dispensations, laws, Jews & Gentiles, you want me to cram years of study into a blog on my iPhone? I’d be glad to meet with you and show you what the Bible has to say in Matthew chapter 5.
I have never heard of anyone actually disproving the Bible, as opposed to merely disbelieving or resisting it. Your selective quoting proves nothing.
“Study to show thyself approved” said the apostle. Your posting wasn’t a study. Clever, though, if incomplete

Jo – you opine the Bible is wrong on slavery, thus wrong on everything. Love your neighbour is wrong? Do good unto others. Is that wrong? Honour your father and mother is wrong? Murder is ok? That’s what you are implying. Your argument does not stand up to the first and simplest buffet

you have never heard of anyone disproving the bible? funny that because i have never heard of anyone proving it either- please explain

Everyone else has argued against your religious point, but I’d like to point out one flaw with your logic on a throwaway comment you made.

An American can’t become the SG of the UN.

David – I am satisfied by faith. Informed faith. The Bible is true. By faith you say it isn’t. Because you cannot prove it.

Chris – interesting re American. Why not?

David – Biblical proof is rife throughout the book, now I’ve thought on it for a few moments
It is an authority on wind patterns, sea currents, the hydrological cycle, personal hygiene, life in the blood, astronomy, historical lineage of kings (including Egyptian), historical existence of lost empires since re-discovered (eg Hittites), faith, morals and salvation.
and lots more besides

I think the point is Kieran that people are pointing out the logical fallacy in your argument.

You say that gay marriage is wrong, according to the Bible (it’s not actually, but that’s another story) and people point out, with examples, that the Old Testament is obviously not morally correct on EVERYTHING. You, yourself, in fact, tacitly admit that it’s not right on EVERYTHING. So, obviously, there must be a second logical step whereby you separate out the things in the Bible that you think are morally correct and those which you think are not. “It says so in the Bible” is not enough for you to think it’s a good idea.

So can you explain what it is in addition to “It says so in the Bible” that makes gay marriage in particular wrong, while other times “it says so in the Bible” is something you feel free to ignore?

I mean, you brought up murder as prohibited by the Bible. I can explain, in logical steps, why I think murder is morally wrong, while slavery is not morally correct. Can you do the same for gay marriage and slavery?

(And as a side point for what’s it’s worth: yes, ‘Honour Your Father and Your Mother’ as set out in the Old Testament is repugnant to modern reality – as it sets out complete abasement to one’s parents irregardless of their actions and moral characters; even giving the specific examples of helping a parent cover up a murder or becoming a prostitute to provide them with money as correct ways for children to behave)

Peter, I apologise if I may have appeared a little ambiguous in my postings. Let me state clearly – the Bible is without error, factual, moral or otherwise, and is an absolute authority for mankind. He ought to live by it, because he will be judged by it.
The so-called anomalies are not that at all. The Book needs to be studied and precept laid on precept, line upon line. Again let me state, it is without error, and is profitable for doctrine, for correction, for reproof, that the man of God may be perfect.
It is absolute in it’s condemnation of homosexuality. There are no passages – none – in any of it’s individual 66 books to support it, and many that condemn it.
That is the Biblical position.

Why do you continue to comment on the Bible? This issue is about same sex CIVIL marriage. It has noting to do with religion and in turn religion should have noting to do with our states affairs and legislation. Simple.

Er, Kieran I’m pretty sure that the very opening statement of the Bible, you know the bit about the planet being magicked into existence ready-made in 7 days, has been disproved. Damn those pesky geologists! It’s all downhill from there really.

Oh right, so you DO think slavery is a moral act then? That forcing your daughter into prostitution is okay? That if your wife is having her period she’s unclean and can’t sleep in the same house as you? That anyone who wears blended fabrics should be put to death by stoning? That if a father is abusing his child and that child reports the abuse, the *child* has committed a mortal sin worthy of death?

Yeah… not exactly piling up the reasons for people to give your opinions the time of day, are you?

Are you intentionally trying to be a ridiculous male stereotype? You know, lesbians aren’t attracted to men no matter what the porn industry might lead you to believe.

Why are you against gay men, huh? If you’re already making yourself out to be such a stereotype, I can only suspect you’re against them because of the strange tingly feelings, lol.

Also, banana sandwiches and coffee aren’t PEOPLE. Not liking them won’t upset them or hurt them.

Being against people – because they’re gay – makes you homophobic.

Being against gay men but not gay women still makes you just as homophobic.

@lamp.That’s because they were republicans.
Camp obama is a well oiled machine and is ready for Romney.
He will have a 2nd term

Vadim, I can assure you that most straight women dont find you remotely attractive so its unlikely any gay men are gonna take a shine to you either.

Scratch a homophobe, find a closet case. http://www.gcn.ie/New_Study_Says_Homophobia_Is_Linked_to_Same-Sex_Desire

You can have gay friends and family members and still be ridiculously homophobic, yanno. Doesn’t let you off the hook at all.

Was that meant to be a reply to my comment? And what does my sexual orientation or google have to do with anything? The fact that you approve of same sex relationships between women but not men is ridiculous. It’s not that you think there’s anything wrong about it, it’s that men being with other men freaks you out, as it does with a lot of straight men. Theres nothing wrong with how you feel, its unfortunate but society as it has stood for decades has manufactured that feeling so I don’t blame you. I know a fair few men who are totally supportive of same sex marriage but couldn’t go into a gay bar because they feel uncomfortable. These men are compassionate enough to recognise that the problem is with their attitude towards homosexuality, not with the concept itself. In my own life experience I have found this attitude to be rife with homophobic men. I understand it, but I don’t see how someone’s discomfort (which will fade as we become more accepting as a society) should mean that we deny certain civil rights to a significant portion of the population!

To be honest, Lenbot, it’s not so much that you can have gay friends and be ridiculously homophobic as you can be ridiculously homophobic and know gay people who refrain from smacking you upside the head out of manners.

haha, true ^_^