(Close Window)
Topic: Ireland leads the way
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 23, 2015 08:07AM)
There have been numerous posts on here about gay marriage and other gay rights issues. So I thought I would share the news. Ireland has become the first country in the world to endorse gay marriage by popular referendum (as opposed to legislation).

Yesterday we were asked to change our constitution to give full marriage rights to every citizen, straight or gay. And the referendum has been carried by a sizable majority; we are all delighted here.
Message: Posted by: ClintonMagus (May 23, 2015 08:11AM)
Whoopee...
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 23, 2015 08:32AM)
:D
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 23, 2015 08:40AM)
Times have certainly changed when political correctness usurps the Vatican.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 23, 2015 08:48AM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Times have certainly changed when political correctness usurps the Vatican. [/quote]

The Irish?

Politically Correct?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 23, 2015 09:19AM)
Surprising and terrific news. Congratulations to the Irish people!
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 23, 2015 09:55AM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
... Ireland has become the first country in the world to endorse gay marriage by popular referendum (as opposed to legislation).
... [/quote]

Good for the Irish. The way is should be done. ("by popular referendum (as opposed to legislation")
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 23, 2015 09:57AM)
Yea I think the same thing Rockwall.

I am glad they did it that way as opposed to a mandate by government at the point of a gun. Good for the Irish. (I am not claiming to agree or disagree with if it "should" be done, but just that is the way "it should" be done.) Good for Ireland.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 23, 2015 10:25AM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Destiny wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Times have certainly changed when political correctness usurps the Vatican. [/quote]

The Irish?

Politically Correct? [/quote]
Yes.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 23, 2015 10:34AM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Destiny wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Times have certainly changed when political correctness usurps the Vatican. [/quote]

The Irish?

Politically Correct? [/quote]
Yes. [/quote]

Do you ever consider that people who come to different decisions than yourself might have made a thoughtful choice?

Obviously the heterosexual majority of Ireland decided their marriages are not threatened by giving gays the same rights - and are not worried that there is some agenda to make homosexuality compulsory like... um... heterosexuality used to be.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 23, 2015 10:48AM)
Have you ever considered that your comprehension of posts here isn't always accurate? Or that you are often too presumptuous?
Please show me an opposing opinion to my own relevant to this thread.
please tell me where I said the Irish hadnt made a thoughtful decision.
I will now breathlessly await your next load of self righteous wit.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 23, 2015 10:56AM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Have you ever considered that your comprehension of posts here isn't always accurate? Or that you are often too presumptuous?
Please show me an opposing opinion to my own relevant to this thread.
please tell me where I said the Irish hadnt made a thoughtful decision.
I will now breathlessly await your next load of self righteous wit. [/quote]

Sorry - if you choose to give one word answers, you will have to tolerate(oh gosh - there's a terrible word) me making what I can of it.

Or you could always be less ambiguous.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 23, 2015 11:02AM)
Less ambiguous leaves less wiggle room.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 23, 2015 12:18PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
... Ireland has become the first country in the world to endorse gay marriage by popular referendum (as opposed to legislation).
... [/quote]

Good for the Irish. The way is should be done. ("by popular referendum (as opposed to legislation") [/quote]

Often this is a bad idea. One of the functions of a constitution and an impartial judiciary is to protect the rights of individuals from "mob rule". A democratic referendum to strip rockwall of all his assets and divide them amongst us" cannot be acceptable in a modern liberal democratic state.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 23, 2015 12:35PM)
It's all well and good when the majority supports the constitutionally correct position, but if you're a slave, you can get awfully tired waiting for everyone to come around and pass a referendum.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 23, 2015 12:40PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Less ambiguous leaves less wiggle room. [/quote]
None required, but thanks for being a nice guy.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 23, 2015 12:54PM)
It's a great day to be Irish.

It should be noted, though, that the vote was necessary because of the Irish constitution.

In the US, constitutionally guaranteed rights should NOT be subject to popular vote.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 23, 2015 12:54PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Destiny wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Have you ever considered that your comprehension of posts here isn't always accurate? Or that you are often too presumptuous?
Please show me an opposing opinion to my own relevant to this thread.
please tell me where I said the Irish hadnt made a thoughtful decision.
I will now breathlessly await your next load of self righteous wit. [/quote]

Sorry - if you choose to give one word answers, you will have to tolerate(oh gosh - there's a terrible word) me making what I can of it.

Or you could always be less ambiguous. [/quote]
Why is 'tolerate' a terrible word?
And where was I ambiguous? You asked me a simple straightforward question, I gave you a simple straightforward answer. Im sorry I don't suffer from verbal diahrrea and don't live to hear myself talk like someone else here.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 23, 2015 12:59PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
It's a great day to be Irish.

It should be noted, though, that the vote was necessary because of the Irish constitution.

In the US, constitutionally guaranteed rights should NOT be subject to popular vote. [/quote]
Good point.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 23, 2015 01:04PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
... Ireland has become the first country in the world to endorse gay marriage by popular referendum (as opposed to legislation).
... [/quote]

Good for the Irish. The way is should be done. ("by popular referendum (as opposed to legislation") [/quote]

Often this is a bad idea. One of the functions of a constitution and an impartial judiciary is to protect the rights of individuals from "mob rule". A democratic referendum to strip rockwall of all his assets and divide them amongst us" cannot be acceptable in a modern liberal democratic state. [/quote]

Sort of what happened with the ACA and you seemed to support that.

Doesn't it happen constantly with the battle cry of the rich need to pay their "fair share" and all that class warfare bs?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 23, 2015 01:10PM)
Congress voted on the ACA. It was not subjected to a popular vote of the people, so the point is really off topic. The point being made here is that equality under the law should not be subject to a majority vote on who has equal rights and who doesn't.

If civil rights for blacks were put up to popular vote in 1964 they would have been denied.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 23, 2015 01:18PM)
There doesn't appear to be all that much more support for gay marriage in Oreland than there is in the USA. Just different rules of law, which is unsurprising given the disparities in population and size between the countries.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 23, 2015 01:20PM)
Science is decided by a show of Irish hands.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 23, 2015 01:43PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Congress voted on the ACA. It was not subjected to a popular vote of the people, so the point is really off topic. The point being made here is that equality under the law should not be subject to a majority vote on who has equal rights and who doesn't.

If civil rights for blacks were put up to popular vote in 1964 they would have been denied. [/quote]

Then why does everyone site polls to prove it is popular?

So yiu think it is better to have dictates as opposed to how people prefer to be governed?
Message: Posted by: Mary Mowder (May 23, 2015 01:50PM)
Good for Ireland!

-Mary
Message: Posted by: lunatik (May 23, 2015 02:50PM)
Nasty nasty nasty
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 23, 2015 02:57PM)
I think it's good that they allowed people to decide how they want to run their country. Agree or disagree, it's seems reasonable to me!
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 23, 2015 03:31PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
... Ireland has become the first country in the world to endorse gay marriage by popular referendum (as opposed to legislation).
... [/quote]

Good for the Irish. The way is should be done. ("by popular referendum (as opposed to legislation") [/quote]

I would agree with that if "popular referendum" around here didn't mean; "people using fear tactics to sway voters."
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 23, 2015 03:35PM)
Let me guess. Any time you disagree with the idea it is a scare tactic right?
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 23, 2015 04:10PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Destiny wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Have you ever considered that your comprehension of posts here isn't always accurate? Or that you are often too presumptuous?
Please show me an opposing opinion to my own relevant to this thread.
please tell me where I said the Irish hadnt made a thoughtful decision.
I will now breathlessly await your next load of self righteous wit. [/quote]

Sorry - if you choose to give one word answers, you will have to tolerate(oh gosh - there's a terrible word) me making what I can of it.

Or you could always be less ambiguous. [/quote]
Why is 'tolerate' a terrible word?
And where was I ambiguous? You asked me a simple straightforward question, I gave you a simple straightforward answer. Im sorry I don't suffer from verbal diahrrea and don't live to hear myself talk like someone else here. [/quote]

So both deaf and verbally constipated?
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 23, 2015 04:18PM)
And it must be painful when consummated.
Message: Posted by: Darth_Prime (May 23, 2015 04:51PM)
Yaaaas!

I'm so happy for Ireland, it's sad that people are voting on our rights, just because we are Gay doesn't mean we shouldn't be recognized as Human... hopefully the US can get it right finally too
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 23, 2015 05:00PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Destiny wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Destiny wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Have you ever considered that your comprehension of posts here isn't always accurate? Or that you are often too presumptuous?
Please show me an opposing opinion to my own relevant to this thread.
please tell me where I said the Irish hadnt made a thoughtful decision.
I will now breathlessly await your next load of self righteous wit. [/quote]

Sorry - if you choose to give one word answers, you will have to tolerate(oh gosh - there's a terrible word) me making what I can of it.

Or you could always be less ambiguous. [/quote]
Why is 'tolerate' a terrible word?
And where was I ambiguous? You asked me a simple straightforward question, I gave you a simple straightforward answer. Im sorry I don't suffer from verbal diahrrea and don't live to hear myself talk like someone else here. [/quote]

So both deaf and verbally constipated? [/quote]
Don't be so hard on yourself. I wouldn't say you're deaf, just blind or maybe a superiority complex. You're constantly jumping to conclusions and you're usually wrong. Then, you back pedal with a snide shallow apology and wait to attack again. Like now.
As far as Verbal constipation goes, I would say yes, you are a sufferer, so I will ask again.
Why is 'tolerate' such an awful word?
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 23, 2015 05:07PM)
Well it is like suffer.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 23, 2015 05:12PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, tommy wrote:
Well it is like suffer. [/quote]
How so?
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 23, 2015 05:36PM)
Suffer (v.) Look up suffer at Dictionary.com

mid-13c., "allow to occur or continue, permit, tolerate, fail to prevent or suppress," also "to be made to undergo, endure, be subjected to" (pain, death, punishment, judgment, grief), from Anglo-French suffrir, Old French sofrir "bear, endure, resist; permit, tolerate, allow" (Modern French souffrir), from Vulgar Latin *sufferire, variant of Latin sufferre "to bear, undergo, endure, carry or put under," from sub "up, under" (see sub-) + ferre "to carry" (see infer).
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 23, 2015 05:55PM)
Wow. thanks, Tommy. I never really linked the two before. I always thought of tolerate as such a positive word and suffer as a negative. But you're right. They can definitely be synonymous.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 23, 2015 06:07PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Darth_Prime wrote:
Yaaaas!

I'm so happy for Ireland, it's sad that people are voting on our rights, just because we are Gay doesn't mean we shouldn't be recognized as Human... hopefully the US can get it right finally too [/quote]
Our constitution was written in a different time, and we were delighted to change it. It was not so much a matter of voting on gay rights, as acknowledging that there is only one type of citizen in this country, and that is an equal citizen.

For as long as I remember there has been little or no discrimination against gays here, but there is a perception among the gay community that the discrimination still exists. I hope tonight, as the whole country parties and celebrates, they realize the bad old days are well and truly in the past. We have openly gay government ministers and politicians, openly gay sports stars, openly gay presidential candidates, and even openly gay priests.

Whatever the conservative wing of the Magic Café might think (and I am surprised to see some negativity in what should be a good news thread) it is a great day for the Irish.
Message: Posted by: Dynamike (May 23, 2015 06:14PM)
I thought Ireland was a strong, aggressive and tough country. I guess I thought wrong. :)
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 23, 2015 06:25PM)
Gay fellows are tough.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 23, 2015 06:32PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Dynamike wrote:
I thought Ireland was a strong, aggressive and tough country. I guess I thought wrong. :) [/quote]

No. You were absolutely right. It takes a strong, aggressive and tough country to beat discrimination of any kind.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 23, 2015 06:46PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Starrpower wrote:
I think it's good that they allowed people to decide how they want to run their country. Agree or disagree, it's seems reasonable to me! [/quote]

Maybe it sounds reasonable to you. But when it comes to equal rights, the so-called "tyranny of the majority" didn't seem reasonable to our Founding Fathers. One of the reasons the Bill of Rights was enacted was to [quote]prevent a scenario in which decisions made by a majority place its interests above those of an individual or minority group, constituting active oppression comparable to that of tyrants and despots.[/quote]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

(If you'd like to read the direct sources, you might refer to the writings of John Stuart Mill, Edmond Burke, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.)
Message: Posted by: Darth_Prime (May 23, 2015 07:04PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Darth_Prime wrote:
Yaaaas!

I'm so happy for Ireland, it's sad that people are voting on our rights, just because we are Gay doesn't mean we shouldn't be recognized as Human... hopefully the US can get it right finally too [/quote]
Our constitution was written in a different time, and we were delighted to change it. It was not so much a matter of voting on gay rights, as acknowledging that there is only one type of citizen in this country, and that is an equal citizen.

For as long as I remember there has been little or no discrimination against gays here, but there is a perception among the gay community that the discrimination still exists. I hope tonight, as the whole country parties and celebrates, they realize the bad old days are well and truly in the past. We have openly gay government ministers and politicians, openly gay sports stars, openly gay presidential candidates, and even openly gay priests.

Whatever the conservative wing of the Magic Café might think (and I am surprised to see some negativity in what should be a good news thread) it is a great day for the Irish. [/quote]

In my limited knowledge of Ireland, wasn't it Illegal until 1993? or 1992?
Message: Posted by: Slim King (May 23, 2015 07:35PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Darth_Prime wrote:
Yaaaas!

I'm so happy for Ireland, it's sad that people are voting on our rights, just because we are Gay doesn't mean we shouldn't be recognized as Human... hopefully the US can get it right finally too [/quote]

I've never heard ANYONE say gays were Inhuman... NEVER ... I've heard them called sinful, just like the rest of us .. But NEVER INHUMAN ... Do you have examples of that?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 23, 2015 07:38PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Dynamike wrote:
I thought Ireland was a strong, aggressive and tough country. I guess I thought wrong. :) [/quote]

You know I almost believed you when you claimed that your homophobia was no more than a typo.


http://www.themagiccafe.com/forums/viewtopic.php?topic=267172&forum=6
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 23, 2015 07:49PM)
Yes, Darth, we did not get off to a good start. In the eighties Ireland was not a good place to be gay. But by the nineties that had changed completely. A lot of that was down to brave politicians like Senator David Norris (gay rights campaigner, English professor, politician and almost our President), and a lot of it was down to us maturing as a society. By the nineties there was no real prejudice against gays, though it took a while for the laws to catch up.

Today there is no stigma to being gay in Ireland. According to my son one of his buddies in school is openly gay, and no one cares. We have finally become the society we should be.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 23, 2015 08:01PM)
So, what was the percentages on the vote?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 23, 2015 08:12PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Yes, Darth, we did not get off to a good start. In the eighties Ireland was not a good place to be gay. But by the nineties that had changed completely. A lot of that was down to brave politicians like Senator David Norris (gay rights campaigner, English professor, politician and almost our President), and a lot of it was down to us maturing as a society. By the nineties there was no real prejudice against gays, though it took a while for the laws to catch up.

Today there is no stigma to being gay in Ireland. According to my son one of his buddies in school is openly gay, and no one cares. We have finally become the society we should be. [/quote]


http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/generation-emigration/i-needed-to-leave-ireland-to-come-out-as-a-gay-man-1.2200482
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 23, 2015 08:19PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, rockwall wrote:
So, what was the percentages on the vote? [/quote]

According to my source, 62.1% in favour.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 23, 2015 08:29PM)
OK. Just wondering. So, when Tony says, "By the nineties there was no real prejudice against gays", he actually means only 38% of the Irish are still homophobic bigots I guess.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 23, 2015 08:30PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Yes, Darth, we did not get off to a good start. In the eighties Ireland was not a good place to be gay. But by the nineties that had changed completely. A lot of that was down to brave politicians like Senator David Norris (gay rights campaigner, English professor, politician and almost our President), and a lot of it was down to us maturing as a society. By the nineties there was no real prejudice against gays, though it took a while for the laws to catch up.

Today there is no stigma to being gay in Ireland. According to my son one of his buddies in school is openly gay, and no one cares. We have finally become the society we should be. [/quote]


http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/generation-emigration/i-needed-to-leave-ireland-to-come-out-as-a-gay-man-1.2200482 [/quote]
I read that article too. I read plenty like it in the Irish Times, which were published to create a sense that there was a prejudice here that there actually isn't. That prejudice was entirely in the writer's head.

I have friends who came out to complete support and acceptance many years ago, and that is a more realistic view of the situation. I have one friend who never came out because no one cared. He has been openly living with his boyfriend for fifteen years. Of course that doesn't make a dramatic story, so he was never interviewed.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 23, 2015 08:35PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, rockwall wrote:
OK. Just wondering. So, when Tony says, "By the nineties there was no real prejudice against gays", he actually means only 38% of the Irish are still homophobic bigots I guess. [/quote]

He is no doubt overstating the case. Given the strong (but diminishing) presence of the Roman Catholic church in Ireland, it is possible that much of the 38% No vote was composed of the "love the sinner, but sex outside of sacramental marriage is always wrong" crowd.

It is fascinating that every Irish political party, large or small, supported the referendum. Now that's something significant.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 23, 2015 08:59PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Dynamike wrote:
I thought Ireland was a strong, aggressive and tough country. I guess I thought wrong. :) [/quote]

After ask of your race baiting you do this?

Very classy.
Message: Posted by: Darth_Prime (May 23, 2015 09:02PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Darth_Prime wrote:
Yaaaas!

I'm so happy for Ireland, it's sad that people are voting on our rights, just because we are Gay doesn't mean we shouldn't be recognized as Human... hopefully the US can get it right finally too [/quote]

I've never heard ANYONE say gays were Inhuman... NEVER ... I've heard them called sinful, just like the rest of us .. But NEVER INHUMAN ... Do you have examples of that? [/quote]

Besides personal stories, I've only found older articles in which people either say "Inhuman" or allude to it.

my base for saying that is we should get the same "Human" rights as someone who is not Gay, instead we have to get our marriage rights voted on, and discrimination laws are being passed etc. we are not being treated the same as other "Humans" just because we are Gay
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 23, 2015 09:15PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Yes, Darth, we did not get off to a good start. In the eighties Ireland was not a good place to be gay. But by the nineties that had changed completely. A lot of that was down to brave politicians like Senator David Norris (gay rights campaigner, English professor, politician and almost our President), and a lot of it was down to us maturing as a society. By the nineties there was no real prejudice against gays, though it took a while for the laws to catch up.

Today there is no stigma to being gay in Ireland. According to my son one of his buddies in school is openly gay, and no one cares. We have finally become the society we should be. [/quote]


http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/generation-emigration/i-needed-to-leave-ireland-to-come-out-as-a-gay-man-1.2200482 [/quote]
I read that article too. I read plenty like it in the Irish Times, which were published to create a sense that there was a prejudice here that there actually isn't. That prejudice was entirely in the writer's head.

I have friends who came out to complete support and acceptance many years ago, and that is a more realistic view of the situation. I have one friend who never came out because no one cared. He has been openly living with his boyfriend for fifteen years. Of course that doesn't make a dramatic story, so he was never interviewed. [/quote]

Or perhaps your friends'' experiences can't be universalized to the point that you think they can.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 23, 2015 09:16PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Yes, Darth, we did not get off to a good start. In the eighties Ireland was not a good place to be gay. But by the nineties that had changed completely. A lot of that was down to brave politicians like Senator David Norris (gay rights campaigner, English professor, politician and almost our President), and a lot of it was down to us maturing as a society. By the nineties there was no real prejudice against gays, though it took a while for the laws to catch up.

Today there is no stigma to being gay in Ireland. According to my son one of his buddies in school is openly gay, and no one cares. We have finally become the society we should be. [/quote]


http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/generation-emigration/i-needed-to-leave-ireland-to-come-out-as-a-gay-man-1.2200482 [/quote]
I read that article too. I read plenty like it in the Irish Times, which were published to create a sense that there was a prejudice here that there actually isn't. That prejudice was entirely in the writer's head.

I have friends who came out to complete support and acceptance many years ago, and that is a more realistic view of the situation. I have one friend who never came out because no one cared. He has been openly living with his boyfriend for fifteen years. Of course that doesn't make a dramatic story, so he was never interviewed. [/quote]

Or perhaps your friends' experiences can't be universalized to the point that you think they can. [/quote]
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 23, 2015 09:29PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Darth_Prime wrote:
Yaaaas!

I'm so happy for Ireland, it's sad that people are voting on our rights, just because we are Gay doesn't mean we shouldn't be recognized as Human... hopefully the US can get it right finally too [/quote]

I've never heard ANYONE say gays were Inhuman... NEVER ... I've heard them called sinful, just like the rest of us .. But NEVER INHUMAN ... Do you have examples of that? [/quote]

Just do a quick Google search on the phrase "gays called subhuman." I just did and there's not enough space to even think about putting all the links here.
Message: Posted by: Scott Burton (May 23, 2015 09:43PM)
Congrats Tony! Congrats Ireland! Stories like this make me feel good.

From all I could read, it is only the Catholic church that publicly opposed this. All political parties showed support. Is this really the case? (I realize that world news and local realities may be very different)
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 23, 2015 10:06PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Destiny wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Destiny wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Have you ever considered that your comprehension of posts here isn't always accurate? Or that you are often too presumptuous?
Please show me an opposing opinion to my own relevant to this thread.
please tell me where I said the Irish hadnt made a thoughtful decision.
I will now breathlessly await your next load of self righteous wit. [/quote]

Sorry - if you choose to give one word answers, you will have to tolerate(oh gosh - there's a terrible word) me making what I can of it.

Or you could always be less ambiguous. [/quote]
Why is 'tolerate' a terrible word?
And where was I ambiguous? You asked me a simple straightforward question, I gave you a simple straightforward answer. Im sorry I don't suffer from verbal diahrrea and don't live to hear myself talk like someone else here. [/quote]

So both deaf and verbally constipated? [/quote]
Don't be so hard on yourself. I wouldn't say you're deaf, just blind or maybe a superiority complex. You're constantly jumping to conclusions and you're usually wrong. Then, you back pedal with a snide shallow apology and wait to attack again. Like now.
As far as Verbal constipation goes, I would say yes, you are a sufferer, so I will ask again.
Why is 'tolerate' such an awful word? [/quote]

The 'tolerate' was ironic.

I never make 'snide, shallow' apologies. Anytime I apologise I mean it.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 23, 2015 10:10PM)
Http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32862824

Some excerpts from link above follow:

One of Ireland's most senior Catholic clerics has called for the Church to take a 'reality check' following the country's overwhelming vote in favour of same-sex marriage. Diarmuid Martin, the archbishop of Dublin, said the Church in Ireland needed to reconnect with young people. The archbishop told the broadcaster RTE: "I appreciate how gay and lesbian men and women feel on this day. That they feel this is something that is enriching the way they live. I think it is a social revolution."

The Catholic Church is not immune from the influence of an increasingly liberal Ireland. In his appeal for a no vote the church's most senior figure In Ireland specifically recognised the love shared between same sex couples. That is a softening of language and in its own way a sign of wider change.

In total, 1,201,607 people voted in favour of same-sex marriage, while 734,300 voted against. Out of 43 constituencies, only the largely rural Roscommon-South Leitrim had a majority of 'no' votes. The government will now introduce a bill to enact the people's will, and it says it hopes it will become law by the time the Irish parliament breaks up in the summer.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 23, 2015 10:11PM)
Very well. Then I accept.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 23, 2015 10:27PM)
We are talking about the Republic of Ireland, right? I'm guessing Norther Ireland is still a backward haven for homophobes like the rest of the world?
Message: Posted by: Darth_Prime (May 23, 2015 10:35PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Darth_Prime wrote:
Yaaaas!

I'm so happy for Ireland, it's sad that people are voting on our rights, just because we are Gay doesn't mean we shouldn't be recognized as Human... hopefully the US can get it right finally too [/quote]

I've never heard ANYONE say gays were Inhuman... NEVER ... I've heard them called sinful, just like the rest of us .. But NEVER INHUMAN ... Do you have examples of that? [/quote]


Just do a quick Google search on the phrase "gays called subhuman." I just did and there's not enough space to even think about putting all the links here. [/quote]


Yes, Thank you!
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 23, 2015 10:39PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Very well. Then I accept. [/quote]

I make no apology to you because none is needed.

I'm very aware of your contempt for me and occasionally decide to return fire - I find it entertaining.

We come on the internet and declare our beliefs and argue them.

It's apparently good and correct when you or anyone who agrees with you does it but loving the sound of my own voice when I do it.

And while you occasionally bother to put up the facts, your more frequent inclination is to mock or dismiss the poster.

I used to watch an acquaintance do that. When he couldn't win with facts he resorted to arguing with the tone of voice, or choice of words, or facial expression, or hand gestures of the person he was talking to in order to move the conversation to where he felt on surer ground and away from what he couldn't dispute.

This is like deja vu all over again.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 23, 2015 10:46PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, rockwall wrote:

We are talking about the Republic of Ireland, right? I'm guessing Norther Ireland is still a backward haven for homophobes like the rest of the world? [/quote]
What do you mean like the rest of the world? Gay marriage is accepted in more and more nations. And more and more U.S. states, for that matter.

Northern Ireland is likely to follow suit sooner than later.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/may/22/northern-ireland-watchful-eye-gay-marriage-referendum-ireland
Message: Posted by: Slim King (May 23, 2015 10:51PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Darth_Prime wrote:
Yaaaas!

I'm so happy for Ireland, it's sad that people are voting on our rights, just because we are Gay doesn't mean we shouldn't be recognized as Human... hopefully the US can get it right finally too [/quote]

I've never heard ANYONE say gays were Inhuman... NEVER ... I've heard them called sinful, just like the rest of us .. But NEVER INHUMAN ... Do you have examples of that? [/quote]

Just do a quick Google search on the phrase "gays called subhuman." I just did and there's not enough space to even think about putting all the links here. [/quote]

I put in "Bob Cassidy hates old women" and got 188,000 hits ..... ROTFLMAO ... google fun times mean nothing..

I have never heard anyone call a gay person "subhuman" in my life .. I also have never heard anyone say "Bob Cassidy hates old women" in my life....
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 23, 2015 10:56PM)
Http://www.relate.org.uk/
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 23, 2015 11:00PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Darth_Prime wrote:
Yaaaas!

I'm so happy for Ireland, it's sad that people are voting on our rights, just because we are Gay doesn't mean we shouldn't be recognized as Human... hopefully the US can get it right finally too [/quote]

I've never heard ANYONE say gays were Inhuman... NEVER ... I've heard them called sinful, just like the rest of us .. But NEVER INHUMAN ... Do you have examples of that? [/quote]

Just do a quick Google search on the phrase "gays called subhuman." I just did and there's not enough space to even think about putting all the links here. [/quote]

I put in "Bob Cassidy hates old women" and got 188,000 hits ..... ROTFLMAO ... google fun times mean nothing..

I have never heard anyone call a gay person "subhuman" in my life .. I also have never heard anyone say "Bob Cassidy hates old women" in my life.... [/quote]

Well then once you finish chuckling you might consider that Hitler gassed Jews, gypsies, blacks, the mentally and physically handicapped, and GAYS - because they were subhuman.
Message: Posted by: Darth_Prime (May 23, 2015 11:27PM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Darth_Prime wrote:
Yaaaas!

I'm so happy for Ireland, it's sad that people are voting on our rights, just because we are Gay doesn't mean we shouldn't be recognized as Human... hopefully the US can get it right finally too [/quote]

I've never heard ANYONE say gays were Inhuman... NEVER ... I've heard them called sinful, just like the rest of us .. But NEVER INHUMAN ... Do you have examples of that? [/quote]

Just do a quick Google search on the phrase "gays called subhuman." I just did and there's not enough space to even think about putting all the links here. [/quote]

I put in "Bob Cassidy hates old women" and got 188,000 hits ..... ROTFLMAO ... google fun times mean nothing..

I have never heard anyone call a gay person "subhuman" in my life .. I also have never heard anyone say "Bob Cassidy hates old women" in my life.... [/quote]

well you're lucky, because I have to myself and to others
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 24, 2015 12:16AM)
I wonder why Ireland never went to war with Hitler.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 24, 2015 03:04AM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Destiny wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Very well. Then I accept. [/quote]

I make no apology to you because none is needed.

I'm very aware of your contempt for me and occasionally decide to return fire - I find it entertaining.

We come on the internet and declare our beliefs and argue them.

It's apparently good and correct when you or anyone who agrees with you does it but loving the sound of my own voice when I do it.

And while you occasionally bother to put up the facts, your more frequent inclination is to mock or dismiss the poster.

I used to watch an acquaintance do that. When he couldn't win with facts he resorted to arguing with the tone of voice, or choice of words, or facial expression, or hand gestures of the person he was talking to in order to move the conversation to where he felt on surer ground and away from what he couldn't dispute.

This is like deja vu all over again. [/quote]

Well, you already said sorry to me in this very thread. And since you wrote this:
"I never make 'snide, shallow' apologies. Anytime I apologise I mean it." - I assumed you meant it.
I guess it was a snide, shallow apology.
And no, there is no contempt for you. I just constantly have to defend myself against your unprovoked attacks.
It seems you are filled with contempt.
I wish it would stop. Pick on someone else. I'm getting tired of it.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 24, 2015 03:53AM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Darth_Prime wrote:
Yaaaas!

I'm so happy for Ireland, it's sad that people are voting on our rights, just because we are Gay doesn't mean we shouldn't be recognized as Human... hopefully the US can get it right finally too [/quote]

I've never heard ANYONE say gays were Inhuman... NEVER ... I've heard them called sinful, just like the rest of us .. But NEVER INHUMAN ... Do you have examples of that? [/quote]

Just do a quick Google search on the phrase "gays called subhuman." I just did and there's not enough space to even think about putting all the links here. [/quote]

I put in "Bob Cassidy hates old women" and got 188,000 hits ..... ROTFLMAO ... google fun times mean nothing..

I have never heard anyone call a gay person "subhuman" in my life .. I also have never heard anyone say "Bob Cassidy hates old women" in my life.... [/quote]

Congratulations for one of the stupidest posts I've ever read. Rather than do the simple search I suggested, you ignore it in order to mock me.

But I'll help you just a bit:

"Priest defends college student, says gay sex 'subhuman'"
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/051101

http://www.wtae.com/Duquesne-Student-Sanctioned-For-Comments-On-Homosexuality/7694784

Then, of course, there is the notorious "Untermensch" of Nazi ideology. I'm really surprised you never heard of that before:

[quote]Worst of all were seen to be the parasitic Untermensch (Subhumans), mainly Jews, but also Gypsies, homosexuals, disabled and so called anti-socials, all of whom were considered lebensunwertes Leben (Lifeunworthy Life) due to their perceived deficiency and inferiority.[/quote]

http://www.nazism.net/about/ideological_theory/

There are hundreds of other ACTUAL LINKS to instances of gays being referred to as sub-human, but I'm sure you'll just ignore them so you can ROTFLYAO in ignorant bliss.
Message: Posted by: Josh Riel (May 24, 2015 04:59AM)
This discussion is the same one I left 4 or so years ago when I got banned (For the second or third time, I can't remember).

I'll help everyone here to find their center: T.V. tells you God will, without mercy, brutally
(in his justice and mercy we know as "the fruits of the spirit": Love, Joy, Peace, Long-Suffereing, Kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self control)
murder horrifically and without regard for............................................................................................ This expresses my dramatic pause...................................... love, joy, peace, long-suffereing, kindnesss, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. everyone who does not meet his biblical expressions of perfections -As currently expressed by Fox news- I am of course joking, using the standard conservative opinion as ballast.

I expect to meet every Christian who condemns another in hell (Yes, I mean you, I will meet YOU, YOU [b][u][i]YOU[/b][/u][/i] ! I will meet you in hell and for nothing more than your condemnation of another.

Matthew 7:2 ►
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 24, 2015 05:16AM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Scott Burton wrote:
Congrats Tony! Congrats Ireland! Stories like this make me feel good.

From all I could read, it is only the Catholic church that publicly opposed this. All political parties showed support. Is this really the case? (I realize that world news and local realities may be very different) [/quote]
All the political parties, major and minor, supported the Yes vote, though one (Renua) was a bit weak in their support. The catholic church officially was on the No side, but were not heavily involved in the campaign, and said that parishioners should vote according to their conscience. A poll before the vote revealed that one in four priests was either going to vote Yes, or was seriously considering voting Yes.

The only real opposition came from an ultra-conservative right-wing catholic think-tank, the Iona Institute. But they are nutcases with no popular base.
Message: Posted by: Josh Riel (May 24, 2015 05:23AM)
[quote]But they are nutcases[/quote]

I bet they would disagree. Who can makle the call?
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 24, 2015 07:50AM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, Destiny wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Slim King wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Darth_Prime wrote:
Yaaaas!

I'm so happy for Ireland, it's sad that people are voting on our rights, just because we are Gay doesn't mean we shouldn't be recognized as Human... hopefully the US can get it right finally too [/quote]

I've never heard ANYONE say gays were Inhuman... NEVER ... I've heard them called sinful, just like the rest of us .. But NEVER INHUMAN ... Do you have examples of that? [/quote]

Just do a quick Google search on the phrase "gays called subhuman." I just did and there's not enough space to even think about putting all the links here. [/quote]

I put in "Bob Cassidy hates old women" and got 188,000 hits ..... ROTFLMAO ... google fun times mean nothing..

I have never heard anyone call a gay person "subhuman" in my life .. I also have never heard anyone say "Bob Cassidy hates old women" in my life.... [/quote]

Well then once you finish chuckling you might consider that Hitler gassed Jews, gypsies, blacks, the mentally and physically handicapped, and GAYS - because they were subhuman. [/quote]
And Freemasons
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 24, 2015 10:39AM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Scott Burton wrote:
Congrats Tony! Congrats Ireland! Stories like this make me feel good.

From all I could read, it is only the Catholic church that publicly opposed this. All political parties showed support. Is this really the case? (I realize that world news and local realities may be very different) [/quote]
All the political parties, major and minor, supported the Yes vote, though one (Renua) was a bit weak in their support. The catholic church officially was on the No side, but were not heavily involved in the campaign, and said that parishioners should vote according to their conscience. A poll before the vote revealed that one in four priests was either going to vote Yes, or was seriously considering voting Yes.

The only real opposition came from an ultra-conservative right-wing catholic think-tank, the Iona Institute. But they are nutcases with no popular base. [/quote]

And yet almost 40% voted no?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 24, 2015 10:42AM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Scott Burton wrote:
Congrats Tony! Congrats Ireland! Stories like this make me feel good.

From all I could read, it is only the Catholic church that publicly opposed this. All political parties showed support. Is this really the case? (I realize that world news and local realities may be very different) [/quote]
All the political parties, major and minor, supported the Yes vote, though one (Renua) was a bit weak in their support. The catholic church officially was on the No side, but were not heavily involved in the campaign, and said that parishioners should vote according to their conscience. A poll before the vote revealed that one in four priests was either going to vote Yes, or was seriously considering voting Yes.

The only real opposition came from an ultra-conservative right-wing catholic think-tank, the Iona Institute. But they are nutcases with no popular base. [/quote]

And yet almost 40% voted no? [/quote]

As I speculated above, my guess is that many who voted NO did so at least partially on sacramental grounds. A jealous god and all that.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 24, 2015 11:24AM)
On the 40% who voted no, there are a number of factors in play. Some are ardent catholics following the party line. Some are in favour of gay civil unions, but not marriage. Some have concerns about issues such as surrogacy and adoption laws, rather than with marriage equality. And a large portion were just voting against the government, who are embroiled in a big battle over stealth taxes.

At least half of that, perhaps more, was not a homophobic vote.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 24, 2015 11:36AM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Destiny wrote:
[quote]On May 23, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Very well. Then I accept. [/quote]

I make no apology to you because none is needed.

I'm very aware of your contempt for me and occasionally decide to return fire - I find it entertaining.

We come on the internet and declare our beliefs and argue them.

It's apparently good and correct when you or anyone who agrees with you does it but loving the sound of my own voice when I do it.

And while you occasionally bother to put up the facts, your more frequent inclination is to mock or dismiss the poster.

I used to watch an acquaintance do that. When he couldn't win with facts he resorted to arguing with the tone of voice, or choice of words, or facial expression, or hand gestures of the person he was talking to in order to move the conversation to where he felt on surer ground and away from what he couldn't dispute.

This is like deja vu all over again. [/quote]

Well, you already said sorry to me in this very thread. And since you wrote this:
"I never make 'snide, shallow' apologies. Anytime I apologise I mean it." - I assumed you meant it.
I guess it was a snide, shallow apology.
And no, there is no contempt for you. I just constantly have to defend myself against your unprovoked attacks.
It seems you are filled with contempt.
I wish it would stop. Pick on someone else. I'm getting tired of it. [/quote]
I used the word 'sorry' not in apology but Ss it is often used as a polite introduction to bad or disappointing news. Anyway I'm moving on - life's too short and neither of us will give on this so its pointless. I genuinely wish you a great day.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (May 24, 2015 01:31PM)
My guess is that the only reason why the gay movement gets any votes is because of the political climate in which the media and left will go to the end of the earth to classify people as bigots, racists, etc.. Threaten their lively hoods. It reminds me of the Nazi's where if you were had Jewish blood in you and we're asked if you were Jewish, you'd better say no unless you wanted to be tortured and killed. Today, if you say that you don't support the gay lifestyle, you will be verbally tortured publicly and in some cases, your career killed, Just for having a different point of view. The Left's militant attitude has gone overboard. Before the wimpy left cry, kick and scream and pout about the comparison to the Nazi's, please use the parallels and discuss it. I fully expect the argument that this is what straight people have done to gays for many years, which is true. But don't use that as an excuse to do the exact same thing which you abhor to those who don't agree with you, step up and be above it, don't be a hypocrite.

I will say that I do oppose gays being discriminated against in regards to employment and housing. Violence against them should never be tolerated either.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 24, 2015 01:46PM)
Man, that is some spin! Comparing those who support equal protection under the law to the Nazis!

Unbelievable.

The notion that bigots are "intimidated" by those seeking equal rights is laughable. I never met a bigot or homophobe who had any hesitance at all in broadcasting his bigotry to anyone who will listen. Just turn on talk radio.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (May 24, 2015 01:49PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Man, that is some spin! Comparing those who support equal protection under the law to the Nazis!

Unbelievable. [/quote]

As I predicted lol, no substance to the argument, just moan and groan about the comparison. You're better than that Bob!!
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 24, 2015 01:55PM)
Lunatik makes a valid point.
To say that you disagree with same sex relations is to be labelled with a sickness called homophobia and councilling is often recommended for the affliction. Scary stuff indeed.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 24, 2015 02:02PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, lunatik wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Man, that is some spin! Comparing those who support equal protection under the law to the Nazis!

Unbelievable. [/quote]

As I predicted lol, no substance to the argument, just moan and groan about the comparison. You're better than that Bob!! [/quote]

Actually, I thought you were better than someone who would compare equal rights advocates to Nazis. Where is the substance in that? It's really sad to see the distorted lengths some will go to in order to justify their intolerance.

Sorry to see you think it's something worth LOLing about.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry one. But don't tell anyone else who they can and cannot love.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 24, 2015 02:03PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Lunatik makes a valid point.
To say that you disagree with same sex relations is to be labelled with a sickness called homophobia and councilling is often recommended for the affliction. Scary stuff indeed. [/quote]

What would you say to someone who opposed, say, Jews getting married? Or who opposed to inter-racial marriage?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 24, 2015 02:06PM)
The Nazi reference is especially sickening given that the Nazis labeled gays as sub-human and exterminated them.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 24, 2015 02:14PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, lunatik wrote:
My guess is that the only reason why the gay movement gets any votes is because of the political climate in which the media and left will go to the end of the earth to classify people as bigots, racists, etc.. Threaten their lively hoods. It reminds me of the Nazi's where if you were had Jewish blood in you and we're asked if you were Jewish, you'd better say no unless you wanted to be tortured and killed. Today, if you say that you don't support the gay lifestyle, you will be verbally tortured publicly and in some cases, your career killed, Just for having a different point of view. The Left's militant attitude has gone overboard. Before the wimpy left cry, kick and scream and pout about the comparison to the Nazi's, please use the parallels and discuss it. I fully expect the argument that this is what straight people have done to gays for many years, which is true. But don't use that as an excuse to do the exact same thing which you abhor to those who don't agree with you, step up and be above it, don't be a hypocrite.

I will say that I do oppose gays being discriminated against in regards to employment and housing. Violence against them should never be tolerated either. [/quote]


Did you mean to say that you do NOT support housing/employment discrimination?
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 24, 2015 02:15PM)
Lunatik your comments are deeply offensive and completely bogus. In Ireland we call homophobes homophobes, but those with a reasoned position against marriage equality were given a fair hearing. There was no intimidation. How you turn something beautiful and progressive into something nasty and twisted says a lot more about you than it says about what happened in Ireland, and will happen in other countries soon.

I would say grow up, but that ship has sailed. You don't even have that excuse.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 24, 2015 02:16PM)
I really am somewhat surprised by the outcome of the vote. It has nothing to do as I see it as being against gays or being homophobic.

Isn't the whole issue about same sex marriage?

I feel that same sex individuals should be able to have all the same privileges as a hertosexual couple who marry. But I do not feel that people of the same sex should be married. I guess that is old school in me because I believe that most times people when they think of marriage think along the lines of having children and raising a family. However it is not always the case such as when elderly couples (male, female) marry.

It just seems to me that marriage is an institution for a man and a woman, not two men or two women. Again just old school I guess. I am not interested one bit in their sexual preference. Just the institution of marriage as I have seen it and understand all my life. I just cannot wrap my head around two guys or two women being married. Living together and having the same rights as a married couple...YES. But being married, NO. That is just me. I hope that in no way makes me a bad person in anyone's eyes.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 24, 2015 02:37PM)
Acesover, that is not an unreasonable position, and it is the position that many of the 40% took. Equal but slightly different I suppose. There is nothing inherently anti-gay in your position, but most gay people wanted full marriage rights, and we decided they were right. In an ideal world we shouldn't need to waste our time on these things, and everyone should be treated as equal as a matter of course. Until we arrive at that time, this will do us over here to start.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 24, 2015 03:28PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Lunatik makes a valid point.
To say that you disagree with same sex relations is to be labelled with a sickness called homophobia and councilling is often recommended for the affliction. Scary stuff indeed. [/quote]

What would you say to someone who opposed, say, Jews getting married? Or who opposed to inter-racial marriage? [/quote]
I would let them know that I disagreed with them, but as long as they are not harming anyone, they are entitled to their opinion.
This movement has become very powerful indeed. In fact here in my town, many elementary schools are now flying the rainbow flag directly under the Canadian flag. Anyone who opposes it is instantly branded a sick individual filled with hate and fear. I don't think it is fair to supress freedom of thought.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 24, 2015 03:30PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Lunatik your comments are deeply offensive and completely bogus. In Ireland we call homophobes homophobes, but those with a reasoned position against marriage equality were given a fair hearing. There was no intimidation. How you turn something beautiful and progressive into something nasty and twisted says a lot more about you than it says about what happened in Ireland, and will happen in other countries soon.

I would say grow up, but that ship has sailed. You don't even have that excuse. [/quote]
I'm glad that was the case. Good on the Irish
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 24, 2015 03:52PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Lunatik makes a valid point.
To say that you disagree with same sex relations is to be labelled with a sickness called homophobia and councilling is often recommended for the affliction. Scary stuff indeed. [/quote]

What would you say to someone who opposed, say, Jews getting married? Or who opposed to inter-racial marriage? [/quote]
I would let them know that I disagreed with them, but as long as they are not harming anyone, they are entitled to their opinion.
This movement has become very powerful indeed. In fact here in my town, many elementary schools are now flying the rainbow flag directly under the Canadian flag. Anyone who opposes it is instantly branded a sick individual filled with hate and fear. I don't think it is fair to supress freedom of thought. [/quote]

This isn't about freedom of thought. Public institutions are for the public. This is acknowledgment of a sector of the public that has not been very welcomed by public institutions in the past. Work is also ongoing to make public institutions safer and friendlier for First Nations, Métis and Inuit Canadians.

We've come a long way, and we still have a long way to walk.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 24, 2015 03:56PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
On the 40% who voted no, there are a number of factors in play. Some are ardent catholics following the party line. Some are in favour of gay civil unions, but not marriage. Some have concerns about issues such as surrogacy and adoption laws, rather than with marriage equality. And a large portion were just voting against the government, who are embroiled in a big battle over stealth taxes.

At least half of that, perhaps more, was not a homophobic vote. [/quote]

Since when are those who are against gay marriage for religious reasons, (or any other reason), not homophobes? Did something change when I wasn't looking?
Message: Posted by: Darth_Prime (May 24, 2015 04:05PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, lunatik wrote:
My guess is that the only reason why the gay movement gets any votes is because of the political climate in which the media and left will go to the end of the earth to classify people as bigots, racists, etc.. Threaten their lively hoods. It reminds me of the Nazi's where if you were had Jewish blood in you and we're asked if you were Jewish, you'd better say no unless you wanted to be tortured and killed. Today, if you say that you don't support the gay lifestyle, you will be verbally tortured publicly and in some cases, your career killed, Just for having a different point of view. The Left's militant attitude has gone overboard. Before the wimpy left cry, kick and scream and pout about the comparison to the Nazi's, please use the parallels and discuss it. I fully expect the argument that this is what straight people have done to gays for many years, which is true. But don't use that as an excuse to do the exact same thing which you abhor to those who don't agree with you, step up and be above it, don't be a hypocrite.

I will say that I do oppose gays being discriminated against in regards to employment and housing. Violence against them should never be tolerated either. [/quote]


talk to me, as Gay young adult.

there are radical everything, Left, Right, Center etc. using the "Wimpy Leftest" other such hyperbolic words are a crutch, to back hand what you don't believe by saying that they do the same.

First it's not anymore a "Lifestyle" than you straight "Lifestyle" it's sexuality not a "Lifestyle" or a "Life Choice". would you go to a person and say I don't agree with your race?

I am all for freedom of speech and opinion and expression, I just want the same freedoms as anyone, when we get kicked out of restaurants, denied service, abused, verbally attacked, it's wrong and people will get called out for it

If you don't agree with me, just because I am gay, that is a bigoted thought process

*My use of "You" is a generalized statement, and not directed at any one person*
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 24, 2015 04:42PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
On the 40% who voted no, there are a number of factors in play. Some are ardent catholics following the party line. Some are in favour of gay civil unions, but not marriage. Some have concerns about issues such as surrogacy and adoption laws, rather than with marriage equality. And a large portion were just voting against the government, who are embroiled in a big battle over stealth taxes.

At least half of that, perhaps more, was not a homophobic vote. [/quote]

Since when are those who are against gay marriage for religious reasons, (or any other reason), not homophobes? Did something change when I wasn't looking? [/quote]
Why must they suffer from a phobia?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 24, 2015 04:53PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
On the 40% who voted no, there are a number of factors in play. Some are ardent catholics following the party line. Some are in favour of gay civil unions, but not marriage. Some have concerns about issues such as surrogacy and adoption laws, rather than with marriage equality. And a large portion were just voting against the government, who are embroiled in a big battle over stealth taxes.

At least half of that, perhaps more, was not a homophobic vote. [/quote]

Since when are those who are against gay marriage for religious reasons, (or any other reason), not homophobes? Did something change when I wasn't looking? [/quote]
Why must they suffer from a phobia? [/quote]

Because language takes funny twists and turns. It is not a psychiatric illness, but an artifact of earlier usage. Tables don't really have legs, but we use the word as if they do.
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 24, 2015 05:03PM)
You completely lost me on that one! My kitchen table has 4 legs, but my end table has none. Nether of them are gay (I don't think), nor are they homophobes.

My comment is regarding legislation itself. Does someone care to address the difference between legislation that specifically states something is legal (in this case gay marriage) as opposed to the absence of a law that forbids something?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 24, 2015 05:34PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, acesover wrote:
I really am somewhat surprised by the outcome of the vote. It has nothing to do as I see it as being against gays or being homophobic.

Isn't the whole issue about same sex marriage?

I feel that same sex individuals should be able to have all the same privileges as a hertosexual couple who marry. But I do not feel that people of the same sex should be married. I guess that is old school in me because I believe that most times people when they think of marriage think along the lines of having children and raising a family. However it is not always the case such as when elderly couples (male, female) marry.

It just seems to me that marriage is an institution for a man and a woman, not two men or two women. Again just old school I guess. I am not interested one bit in their sexual preference. Just the institution of marriage as I have seen it and understand all my life. I just cannot wrap my head around two guys or two women being married. Living together and having the same rights as a married couple...YES. But being married, NO. That is just me. I hope that in no way makes me a bad person in anyone's eyes. [/quote]

Doesn't make you a bad person at all. The times are changing and we've come to realize that there is no such thing as "separate but equal." That's why civil unions just don't convey the same sense of love and devotion as does marriage.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 24, 2015 05:34PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
On the 40% who voted no, there are a number of factors in play. Some are ardent catholics following the party line. Some are in favour of gay civil unions, but not marriage. Some have concerns about issues such as surrogacy and adoption laws, rather than with marriage equality. And a large portion were just voting against the government, who are embroiled in a big battle over stealth taxes.

At least half of that, perhaps more, was not a homophobic vote. [/quote]

Since when are those who are against gay marriage for religious reasons, (or any other reason), not homophobes? Did something change when I wasn't looking? [/quote]
What I meant was that some of the No voters were following the party line of the Catholic church (which one in four priests was uncomfortable with, by the way). They were voting the way their clergy told them, rather than out of any conviction. This is particularly true of older people. Their clergymen might have been homophobes (some were, undoubtedly) but that does not make their flock homophobes.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 24, 2015 05:48PM)
How amazingly condescending. They may well believe that their clergy are correct with every bit as much real "conviction" as you have that gay marriage should be supported.

I was just kidding about the part about being amazed, though.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 24, 2015 06:04PM)
Sheeple lead the way.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (May 24, 2015 06:04PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, lunatik wrote:
My guess is that the only reason why the gay movement gets any votes is because of the political climate in which the media and left will go to the end of the earth to classify people as bigots, racists, etc.. Threaten their lively hoods. It reminds me of the Nazi's where if you were had Jewish blood in you and we're asked if you were Jewish, you'd better say no unless you wanted to be tortured and killed. Today, if you say that you don't support the gay lifestyle, you will be verbally tortured publicly and in some cases, your career killed, Just for having a different point of view. The Left's militant attitude has gone overboard. Before the wimpy left cry, kick and scream and pout about the comparison to the Nazi's, please use the parallels and discuss it. I fully expect the argument that this is what straight people have done to gays for many years, which is true. But don't use that as an excuse to do the exact same thing which you abhor to those who don't agree with you, step up and be above it, don't be a hypocrite.

I will say that I do oppose gays being discriminated against in regards to employment and housing. Violence against them should never be tolerated either. [/quote]


Did you mean to say that you do NOT support housing/employment discrimination? [/quote]

Correct, they should not be discriminated against for housing or employment.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 24, 2015 06:04PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, Starrpower wrote:
You completely lost me on that one! My kitchen table has 4 legs, but my end table has none. Nether of them are gay (I don't think), nor are they homophobes.

My comment is regarding legislation itself. Does someone care to address the difference between legislation that specifically states something is legal (in this case gay marriage) as opposed to the absence of a law that forbids something? [/quote]

Your table has no legs. Legs are part of animal anatomy. The metaphor of furniture having legs is so old that we take it for granted. But it is (and certainly originally was) a metaphor. (Not hard to see that animal legs had to have been in language long before the invention of the table.)

"Homophobia" hasn't been in our lexicon as long as legs, to be sure. But it's a word we're stuck with for the time being. Rather like "modernism" describing art of the 1920s.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 24, 2015 06:06PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
On the 40% who voted no, there are a number of factors in play. Some are ardent catholics following the party line. Some are in favour of gay civil unions, but not marriage. Some have concerns about issues such as surrogacy and adoption laws, rather than with marriage equality. And a large portion were just voting against the government, who are embroiled in a big battle over stealth taxes.

At least half of that, perhaps more, was not a homophobic vote. [/quote]

Since when are those who are against gay marriage for religious reasons, (or any other reason), not homophobes? Did something change when I wasn't looking? [/quote]
Why must they suffer from a phobia? [/quote]

Because language takes funny twists and turns. It is not a psychiatric illness, but an artifact of earlier usage. Tables don't really have legs, but we use the word as if they do. [/quote]
Well, I would argue that they do have legs but that is a whole other kettle of fish. :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 24, 2015 06:08PM)
We're not "stuck" with it by accident. It's not going away anytime soon. It's a rhetorical attempt to control the argument; if you oppose, say, gay marriage or other political positions, it's not because you have any reasonable belief system; you're just [i]afraid[/i] of gay people. It's no random quirk of language.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 24, 2015 06:12PM)
But the three-legged swastika is the symbol for the Isle of Man not Ireland.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 24, 2015 06:14PM)
Lobowolf, I was not being condescending in any way; I live here and I know what is going on. Some held sincere views, others followed the party line. It is that simple.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 24, 2015 06:16PM)
You have a not uncommon tendency to universalized your own beliefs and experiences.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 24, 2015 06:17PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, tommy wrote:
But the three-legged swastika is the symbol for the Isle of Man not Ireland. [/quote]

As it has been since centuries before the Nazis existed.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (May 24, 2015 06:20PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, lunatik wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Man, that is some spin! Comparing those who support equal protection under the law to the Nazis!

Unbelievable. [/quote]

As I predicted lol, no substance to the argument, just moan and groan about the comparison. You're better than that Bob!! [/quote]

Actually, I thought you were better than someone who would compare equal rights advocates to Nazis. Where is the substance in that? It's really sad to see the distorted lengths some will go to in order to justify their intolerance.

Sorry to see you think it's something worth LOLing about.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry one. But don't tell anyone else who they can and cannot love. [/quote]

Again, nothing to address the specific points. Please respond Bob, unless you know I'm right, which I HIGHLY suspect.
Message: Posted by: Darth_Prime (May 24, 2015 06:47PM)
I did Luntik
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 24, 2015 07:04PM)
Marriage, Civil Unions. Let me ask. Can a man and a woman have a civil union? Can two straight individuals have a civil union for legal purposes? Or are civil unions only for gay couples of the same sex? Just some questions that I would like to know the answers too. The why anyone would want to is not important. However I feel the, "can it be done" is what is important. Just curious. Does anyone know?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 24, 2015 07:09PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, lunatik wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, lunatik wrote:
My guess is that the only reason why the gay movement gets any votes is because of the political climate in which the media and left will go to the end of the earth to classify people as bigots, racists, etc.. Threaten their lively hoods. It reminds me of the Nazi's where if you were had Jewish blood in you and we're asked if you were Jewish, you'd better say no unless you wanted to be tortured and killed. Today, if you say that you don't support the gay lifestyle, you will be verbally tortured publicly and in some cases, your career killed, Just for having a different point of view. The Left's militant attitude has gone overboard. Before the wimpy left cry, kick and scream and pout about the comparison to the Nazi's, please use the parallels and discuss it. I fully expect the argument that this is what straight people have done to gays for many years, which is true. But don't use that as an excuse to do the exact same thing which you abhor to those who don't agree with you, step up and be above it, don't be a hypocrite.

I will say that I do oppose gays being discriminated against in regards to employment and housing. Violence against them should never be tolerated either. [/quote]


Did you mean to say that you do NOT support housing/employment discrimination? [/quote]

Correct, they should not be discriminated against for housing or employment. [/quote]

Not to nit pick but certainly nobody should be descriminated against at all right?
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 24, 2015 07:15PM)
Bigots will argue, obstinately, irrationally and unfairly that buggery is not a perversion of nature.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 24, 2015 07:25PM)
The phrase "civil union" hardly connotes the love and dedication that most people nowadays associate with marriage. It sounds more like a business partnership than a lifelong commitment.

Heterosexual marriages performed in civil ceremonies are nonetheless "marriages" in the eyes of the law. Why is it necessary, in a secular society, to suggest that vows between same sex couples are any different, in name or in fact, from those taken by heterosexuals?

"Civil unions" were simply created by progressive states in order to combat discrimination against homosexuals by guaranteeing visitation rights in hospitals, equality for tax purposes, marital estates in property, inheritance, etc.- rights that they were previously denied in most jurisdictions in the US. And many states once fought as vehemently against those simple rights as they now do against the simple but critical recognition that a marriage is primarily of the heart, not a financial or business proposition. To insist that civil unions are the same as marriage ignores that critical difference and suggest that their unions are something less than those between heterosexuals.

The desire or ability to procreate has NEVER been a prerequisite for marriage in this country.

Again- separate is NOT equal and those who are opposed to gay marriage aren't required to marry one, nor do their marriages have any effect whatsoever upon your own. (Unless you insist that your relationship somehow be recognized as "better.")
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 24, 2015 07:35PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
The phrase "civil union" hardly connotes the love and dedication that most people nowadays associate with marriage. It sounds more like a business partnership than a lifelong commitment.

Heterosexual marriages performed in civil ceremonies are nonetheless "marriages" in the eyes of the law. Why is it necessary, in a secular society, to suggest that vows between same sex couples are any different, in name or in fact, from those taken by heterosexuals?

"Civil unions" were simply created by progressive states in order to guarantee visitation rights in hospitals, equality for tax purposes, marital estates in property, inheritance, etc. And many states once fought as vehemently against those simple rights as they now do against the simple but critical recognition that a marriage is primarily of the heart, not a financial or business proposition. To insist that civil unions are the same as marriage ignores that critical difference and suggest that their unions are something less than those between heterosexuals.

Again- separate is NOT equal and those who are opposed to gay marriage aren't required to marry one, nor do their marriages have any effect whatsoever upon your own. (Unless you insist that your relationship somehow be recognized as "better.") [/quote]

Bob,

Was that in answer to my question about who can partake in a Civil Union? If so I am still not sure. However it may not have been in response to my question.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 24, 2015 07:36PM)
One the practical reasons for marriage is to prevent incest.

I wonder if the Irish would oppose incestuous marriage between homosexuals and If so on what grounds?
Message: Posted by: Darth_Prime (May 24, 2015 08:22PM)
Civil unions don't always guarantee hospital visitations rights, there have been stories where couples have been denied visitations and information etc. same with property, custody, possessions etc
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 24, 2015 09:26PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, acesover wrote:


Was that in answer to my question about who can partake in a Civil Union? If so I am still not sure. However it may not have been in response to my question. [/quote]

I thought the answer was implicit in what I wrote. While in many countries they are available to both same and opposite sex relationships, in the US, civil unions, sometimes known as domestic partnerships, were established for same-sex unions. All states that previously had civil union laws now allow same sex partners to marry. The underlying rationale is the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

For complete details see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 24, 2015 10:33PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Lunatik makes a valid point.
To say that you disagree with same sex relations is to be labelled with a sickness called homophobia and councilling is often recommended for the affliction. Scary stuff indeed. [/quote]

What would you say to someone who opposed, say, Jews getting married? Or who opposed to inter-racial marriage? [/quote]
I would let them know that I disagreed with them, but as long as they are not harming anyone, they are entitled to their opinion.
This movement has become very powerful indeed. In fact here in my town, many elementary schools are now flying the rainbow flag directly under the Canadian flag. Anyone who opposes it is instantly branded a sick individual filled with hate and fear. I don't think it is fair to supress freedom of thought. [/quote]

This isn't about freedom of thought. Public institutions are for the public. This is acknowledgment of a sector of the public that has not been very welcomed by public institutions in the past. Work is also ongoing to make public institutions safer and friendlier for First Nations, Métis and Inuit Canadians.

We've come a long way, and we still have a long way to walk. [/quote]
Yes we do. But we mustn't leave behind our citizens with more traditional values who were born and raised in a different time. They are not "phobic". They are not bad people. They just have different beliefs. And that has to be ok.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 24, 2015 11:20PM)
"Phobia" means and irrational fear. Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals, not necessarily hatred for them.

To deny them equal protection under the law because of an irrational fear that gay marriage somehow threatens your own own marriage is, by definition, homophobic.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 24, 2015 11:30PM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, acesover wrote:


Was that in answer to my question about who can partake in a Civil Union? If so I am still not sure. However it may not have been in response to my question. [/quote]

I thought the answer was implicit in what I wrote. While in many countries they are available to both same and opposite sex relationships, in the US, civil unions, sometimes known as domestic partnerships, were established for same-sex unions. All states that previously had civil union laws now allow same sex partners to marry. The underlying rationale is the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

For complete details see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union#United_States [/quote]


I honestly did not feel it was implicit or even an answer to my question. However in this post you cleared it up. Your answer is yes, hetrosexual couples can have a civil union.

I do have another question. Are civil unions prohibited the same as marriage when it concerns blood relationships? The reason for asking is that it seems that close blood relationships are an issue where children are concerned (offspring) when it comes to mental problems. Which obviously is not an issue of same sex civil unions. So again just asking. It just seems to me that this is one big slippery slope.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 24, 2015 11:46PM)
No. That's NOT my answer. Read it again. Here, agan, are my exact words:

"While in many countries they are available to both same and opposite sex relationships, in the US, civil unions, sometimes known as domestic partnerships, [b]were established for same-sex unions.[/b]"

In the United States, only the State of Washington has a domestic partnership law that is available to all, provided that one of the parties is at least 62 years old.

Obviously, the issue of blood relationships is a matter of health and a separate issue entirely.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2015 12:58AM)
Kudos to Washington for not discriminating against heterosexuals!
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 25, 2015 02:38AM)
So as Ireland turns away from its Christian values and takes another step towards Satanism, where do you think they are leading us too?

[youtube]OA1V7cI28hI[/youtube]
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 25, 2015 08:12AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
No. That's NOT my answer. Read it again. Here, agan, are my exact words:

"While in many countries they are available to both same and opposite sex relationships, in the US, civil unions, sometimes known as domestic partnerships, [b]were established for same-sex unions.[/b]"

In the United States, only the State of Washington has a domestic partnership law that is available to all, provided that one of the parties is at least 62 years old.

Obviously, the issue of blood relationships is a matter of health and a separate issue entirely. [/quote]

OK. So your implicit answer is that it is really a gray area and still in its infancy. Not sure where it is going to go. It all depends on where and how old and if you live in the state of Washington and who knows what else.

Just as an after thought I believe "implicit" means that something is absolutely fact, no room for doubt. Yet all of this seems nothing like the definition of implicit. I am not arguing here just asking for an answer and I feel that your answer was 50 shades of gray (lol).

Also the remark that, "blood relationships is a matter of health and a separate issue entirely different issue" is definitely not true as all of this is intertwined. It certainly is part of the issue when drafting a law. It is no different than who can and cannot marry. Just saying this is not a simple matter of Political Correctness to please a group of individuals. It goes much deeper than that and should be considered before jumping on either bandwagon.
Message: Posted by: NYCTwister (May 25, 2015 08:34AM)
People should be allowed to marry whoever they want.

If it wasn't for religious fools, trying to impose their beliefs on others by force of law, this would be a non-issue by now.

Notice how it's just those from the religious right here that oppose it.

Love thy neighbor? Only god judges?

What a sick joke.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 25, 2015 08:50AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
No. That's NOT my answer. Read it again. Here, agan, are my exact words:

"While in many countries they are available to both same and opposite sex relationships, in the US, civil unions, sometimes known as domestic partnerships, [b]were established for same-sex unions.[/b]"

In the United States, only the State of Washington has a domestic partnership law that is available to all, provided that one of the parties is at least 62 years old.

Obviously, the issue of blood relationships is a matter of health and a separate issue entirely. [/quote]

Don't most of the states recognize "common-law marriage" between hetrosexual couples who don't want formal registered marriages?
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 25, 2015 08:58AM)
[quote]On May 23, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
Let me guess. Any time you disagree with the idea it is a scare tactic right? [/quote]

Nope. If someone has actual, viable data as to why something is wrong, they can present it.
"Gays will ruin marriage!" "Gays are trying to recruit your sons!" "If we allow gay marriage, we have to allow incest and beastiality!" These are not viable arguements.

I actually saw it happen here. The local Native Americans wanted to put up a casino on their land. Unfortuneatly, the charter with the state of Rhode Island stated that the Native Americans couldn't do anything without a referendum from the state. So they put together a referendum to allow casino gambling on their land. The two local "video slots" parlors promptly started a fear campaign about how the casino would rob income from other parts (i.e., the local video slots parlors) and how the deal they set up with the casino corporation didn't allow for as much money to come into Rhode Island as the deal the video slots parlors had to sign. The referendum was defeated. A year later, one of the video slot parlors bought the other one, and campaigned to have itself made into a full fledged casion citing jobs and income that would be generated! It passed and the Lincoln Dog Track is now Twin Rivers Casino! Twin Rivers is now working to remove the other video slots parlor from Newport and move it elsewhere, not one word about the income that's going to be removed from Newport by this action.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 25, 2015 09:22AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, ed rhodes wrote:

Don't most of the states recognize "common-law marriage" between hetrosexual couples who don't want formal registered marriages? [/quote]

The fact is that most states do NOT recognize common law marriages anymore.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/fact-or-fiction-five-myths-about-common-law-marriage
Message: Posted by: lunatik (May 25, 2015 09:27AM)
Will the Progressives support polygamy?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 25, 2015 09:28AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, acesover wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
No. That's NOT my answer. Read it again. Here, agan, are my exact words:

"While in many countries they are available to both same and opposite sex relationships, in the US, civil unions, sometimes known as domestic partnerships, [b]were established for same-sex unions.[/b]"

In the United States, only the State of Washington has a domestic partnership law that is available to all, provided that one of the parties is at least 62 years old.

Obviously, the issue of blood relationships is a matter of health and a separate issue entirely. [/quote]

OK. So your implicit answer is that it is really a gray area and still in its infancy. Not sure where it is going to go. It all depends on where and how old and if you live in the state of Washington and who knows what else.

Just as an after thought I believe "implicit" means that something is absolutely fact, no room for doubt. Yet all of this seems nothing like the definition of implicit. I am not arguing here just asking for an answer and I feel that your answer was 50 shades of gray (lol).

Also the remark that, "blood relationships is a matter of health and a separate issue entirely different issue" is definitely not true as all of this is intertwined. It certainly is part of the issue when drafting a law. It is no different than who can and cannot marry. Just saying this is not a simple matter of Political Correctness to please a group of individuals. It goes much deeper than that and should be considered before jumping on either bandwagon. [/quote]

No, it's NOT a gray area. Just take the time to read the references I cited. It really sounds like you're intentionally distorting what I write.

And while you're standing there wondering which "bandwagon" to jump on, you apparently haven't noticed that, on this issue, the train has already left the station.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (May 25, 2015 09:30AM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, lunatik wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, lunatik wrote:
My guess is that the only reason why the gay movement gets any votes is because of the political climate in which the media and left will go to the end of the earth to classify people as bigots, racists, etc.. Threaten their lively hoods. It reminds me of the Nazi's where if you were had Jewish blood in you and we're asked if you were Jewish, you'd better say no unless you wanted to be tortured and killed. Today, if you say that you don't support the gay lifestyle, you will be verbally tortured publicly and in some cases, your career killed, Just for having a different point of view. The Left's militant attitude has gone overboard. Before the wimpy left cry, kick and scream and pout about the comparison to the Nazi's, please use the parallels and discuss it. I fully expect the argument that this is what straight people have done to gays for many years, which is true. But don't use that as an excuse to do the exact same thing which you abhor to those who don't agree with you, step up and be above it, don't be a hypocrite.

I will say that I do oppose gays being discriminated against in regards to employment and housing. Violence against them should never be tolerated either. [/quote]


Did you mean to say that you do NOT support housing/employment discrimination? [/quote]

Correct, they should not be discriminated against for housing or employment. [/quote]

Not to nit pick but certainly nobody should be descriminated against at all right? [/quote]

I would discriminate against a pedophile moving in next door.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (May 25, 2015 09:33AM)
[quote]On May 24, 2015, Darth_Prime wrote:
[quote]On May 24, 2015, lunatik wrote:
My guess is that the only reason why the gay movement gets any votes is because of the political climate in which the media and left will go to the end of the earth to classify people as bigots, racists, etc.. Threaten their lively hoods. It reminds me of the Nazi's where if you were had Jewish blood in you and we're asked if you were Jewish, you'd better say no unless you wanted to be tortured and killed. Today, if you say that you don't support the gay lifestyle, you will be verbally tortured publicly and in some cases, your career killed, Just for having a different point of view. The Left's militant attitude has gone overboard. Before the wimpy left cry, kick and scream and pout about the comparison to the Nazi's, please use the parallels and discuss it. I fully expect the argument that this is what straight people have done to gays for many years, which is true. But don't use that as an excuse to do the exact same thing which you abhor to those who don't agree with you, step up and be above it, don't be a hypocrite.

I will say that I do oppose gays being discriminated against in regards to employment and housing. Violence against them should never be tolerated either. [/quote]


talk to me, as Gay young adult.

there are radical everything, Left, Right, Center etc. using the "Wimpy Leftest" other such hyperbolic words are a crutch, to back hand what you don't believe by saying that they do the same.

First it's not anymore a "Lifestyle" than you straight "Lifestyle" it's sexuality not a "Lifestyle" or a "Life Choice". would you go to a person and say I don't agree with your race?

I am all for freedom of speech and opinion and expression, I just want the same freedoms as anyone, when we get kicked out of restaurants, denied service, abused, verbally attacked, it's wrong and people will get called out for it

If you don't agree with me, just because I am gay, that is a bigoted thought process

*My use of "You" is a generalized statement, and not directed at any one person* [/quote]

The freedoms that you listed I agree with.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 25, 2015 09:36AM)
Addendum to my previous-

And, aces, rather than guessing what "implicit" means, why don't you just take a moment and look it up. Oh, that's right, you've already stated that you don't need to read or research anything because you already know what you know.

In the sense that I used the word it simply means "implied, though not plainly expressed."
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2015 09:42AM)
.Go Warriors!
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 25, 2015 09:49AM)
It's implicit in your statement that you're a Warriors fan. :eek:
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2015 09:53AM)
:). I'm not actually...I had responded to a post you made then changed while I was responding, so I had a total non-sequitur hanging out ther, so I changed it. Not much of an NBA fan. The professional sports I care about are football, baseball, and boxing. I'll watch NBA on a casual level, though.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 25, 2015 09:58AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, lunatik wrote:
Will the Progressives support polygamy? [/quote]

Some might. Others might not. The one thing I'll bet on is that "they" won't all agree.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2015 10:10AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, lunatik wrote:
Will the Progressives support polygamy? [/quote]

Some might. Others might not. The one thing I'll bet on is that "they" won't all agree. [/quote]


They may have a platform, though. People agree or disagree with the progressive movement based on public statements about what progressives believe in. Why all of a sudden do they need a non-unanimity disclaimer?
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 25, 2015 10:27AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, lunatik wrote:

Will the Progressives support polygamy? [/quote]
I doubt it. I have never heard of progressives supporting polygamy. Some fundamentalists conservative religious groups do, though.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 25, 2015 10:27AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
:). I'm not actually...I had responded to a post you made then changed while I was responding, so I had a total non-sequitur hanging out ther, so I changed it. Not much of an NBA fan. The professional sports I care about are football, baseball, and boxing. I'll watch NBA on a casual level, though. [/quote]

So, while it was implied (implicit) in your statement, it was not a fact. I hope this helps acesover understand what "implicit" means.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 25, 2015 10:27AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Addendum to my previous-

And, aces, rather than guessing what "implicit" means, why don't you just take a moment and look it up. Oh, that's right, you've already stated that you don't need to read or research anything because you already know what you know.

In the sense that I used the word it simply means "implied, though not plainly expressed." [/quote]

Well you did make one true statement. That is, I know what I know. :)

I nor anyone else should have to guess what you mean. You should express youself better. The way you used "implicit" sounds as if it means without reservation, absolutely true with no doubt. However your statement was very ambiguous to the point that the only one who would know what was meant was the author. In other words it was not implicit as the word is commonly used. However this is not what this topic is about. It is about the institution of marriage. I don't believe I could be more explicit than that.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 25, 2015 10:34AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, lunatik wrote:

Will the Progressives support polygamy? [/quote]
I doubt it. I have never heard of progressives supporting polygamy. Some fundamentalists conservative religious groups do, though. [/quote]

I think Bob said he had no problem with it. I'm not sure if that's implicit endorsement or not though.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 25, 2015 10:36AM)
Just goes to show that you have difficulty with comprehension or understanding context.

And, yes, the sense that I used the word IS the most common and is the FIRST definition given in the dictionary.

But what would I know about writing? I haven't quite completed writing my hundredth book yet. But my readers seem to have no problems understanding me.

The topic, BTW, is equal protection under the law. In case you missed it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 25, 2015 10:39AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
:). I'm not actually...I had responded to a post you made then changed while I was responding, so I had a total non-sequitur hanging out ther, so I changed it. Not much of an NBA fan. The professional sports I care about are football, baseball, and boxing. I'll watch NBA on a casual level, though. [/quote]

Not hockey? I may put a frownie face icon here if I was inclined to do so.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 25, 2015 10:39AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, lunatik wrote:

Will the Progressives support polygamy? [/quote]
I doubt it. I have never heard of progressives supporting polygamy. Some fundamentalists conservative religious groups do, though. [/quote]

I think Bob said he had no problem with it. I'm not sure if that's implicit endorsement or not though. [/quote]
And where did he say this?
Message: Posted by: Starrpower (May 25, 2015 10:40AM)
I support polygamy for two reasons:

1. Every man should have the choice to increase his level is misery

2. It gives ugly women a better shot at getting hitched.

Of course, I am assuming a multiple-wife situation, in which case ugly men are out of luck.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 25, 2015 10:42AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, lunatik wrote:

Will the Progressives support polygamy? [/quote]
I doubt it. I have never heard of progressives supporting polygamy. Some fundamentalists conservative religious groups do, though. [/quote]

I think Bob said he had no problem with it. I'm not sure if that's implicit endorsement or not though. [/quote]
And where did he say this? [/quote]

It's probably been deleted by now.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2015 10:45AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, lunatik wrote:

Will the Progressives support polygamy? [/quote]
I doubt it. I have never heard of progressives supporting polygamy. Some fundamentalists conservative religious groups do, though. [/quote]

Past performance does not guarantee future positions. That's why they call 'em "Progressives."
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 25, 2015 11:14AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, lunatik wrote:

Will the Progressives support polygamy? [/quote]
I doubt it. I have never heard of progressives supporting polygamy. Some fundamentalists conservative religious groups do, though. [/quote]

Past performance does not guarantee future positions. That's why they call 'em "Progressives." [/quote]

And btw, why wouldn't they? Don't they believe that someone can love more than one person? I'm pretty sure progressives don't have anything against the occasional manage a trois so what would be the rational for not letting some make it legal?

Maybe, the only reason they are against it is BECAUSE they think it's largely a fundamentalist conservative religious thingy.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 25, 2015 11:17AM)
It is difficult to see why polygamous or polyandrous marriage between consenting adults should be illegal. "I think it's icky" shouldn't be sufficient.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 25, 2015 11:33AM)
Well, there you go balducci. We have another progressive on the side of polygamy. I think Lobo's got it.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2015 11:42AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
It is difficult to see why polygamous or polyandrous marriage between consenting adults should be illegal. "I think it's icky" shouldn't be sufficient. [/quote]

I can think of legal reasons. Bilateral contracts are exponentially simpler.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 25, 2015 11:48AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, rockwall wrote:

Well, there you go balducci. We have another progressive on the side of polygamy. I think Lobo's got it. [/quote]
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I still fail to see what polygamy has to do with gay marriage any more or less than with heterosexual marriage.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (May 25, 2015 11:51AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
It is difficult to see why polygamous or polyandrous marriage between consenting adults should be illegal. "I think it's icky" shouldn't be sufficient. [/quote]

I can think of legal reasons. Bilateral contracts are exponentially simpler. [/quote]

This was what I was wondering about. How it affects the "contract" involved legally with marriage and with insurance and so forth? But since you used the words "exponentially simpler" I think I have my answer at least to the contracts part.

As for inheritance and everything as well I would imagine.

Unless of course the government should get everything after death than not an issue.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2015 11:53AM)
Doctor: Space is very limited in the ICU. I can only take one person back. Immediate family only.
Chorus: We're her husbands.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 25, 2015 11:56AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Doctor: Space is very limited in the ICU. I can only take one person back. Immediate family only.
Chorus: We're her husbands. [/quote]

How is that any different than, "Chorus: We're her children."
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2015 12:08PM)
Well, it's funnier.
Message: Posted by: Darth_Prime (May 25, 2015 12:12PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, rockwall wrote:

Well, there you go balducci. We have another progressive on the side of polygamy. I think Lobo's got it. [/quote]
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I still fail to see what polygamy has to do with gay marriage any more or less than with heterosexual marriage. [/quote]


Because if we are allowed to get married, than you can marry your animal, son/daughter, the ant-christ... we also bring in the New World Order, we are the second coming of Satan himself.. what else are us Gays responsible for? the destruction of Family Values, the destruction of "Freedom" etc
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2015 12:23PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, rockwall wrote:

Well, there you go balducci. We have another progressive on the side of polygamy. I think Lobo's got it. [/quote]
If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I still fail to see what polygamy has to do with gay marriage any more or less than with heterosexual marriage. [/quote]

That's hard to believe. But here you go:

When heterosexual marriage was the only marriage option, obviously the belief that "consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they want" was not the prevailing legal doctrine. However, that belief has been asserted repeatedly by those favoring gay marriage. It's a worldview that taken on its face would support polygamy as well. Enforced monogamy discriminates against married people; I'm allowed to get married tomorrow, but George Clooney isn't.
Message: Posted by: Scott Burton (May 25, 2015 12:55PM)
There is a distinction between "polygamy" and "polyamory". From my standpoint at this time, I would oppose the first and support the latter. The distinction being that polygamy is strictly patriarchal by definition and susceptible to male dominance justified by religious creed. Polyamory is more of an equitable relationship. However, I'm not completely educated on the topic and am willing to be corrected.
Message: Posted by: Scott Burton (May 25, 2015 12:55PM)
There is a distinction between "polygamy" and "polyamory". From my standpoint at this time, I would oppose the first and support the latter. The distinction being that polygamy is strictly patriarchal by definition and susceptible to male dominance justified by religious creed. Polyamory is more of an equitable relationship. However, I'm not completely educated on the topic and am willing to be corrected.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 25, 2015 12:55PM)
Funny how some imply that polygamy is something championed by progressives. It's been around since ancient times and there are innumerable examples of it in the Bible itself. (And I'd hardly call those offshoot Mormon sects who still practice it progressives. Other than that they are among the most conservative folks you'd find.)

Personally,I've got no problem with the idea. If anyone is crazy enough to want more than one wife, that's their problem. But I'd had to see the alimony and property settlement problems that would follow a mass divorce.

Of course, those who are claiming that gay marriage will lead to polygamy include the same sub-geniuses who also claimed it would lead to bestiality and pedophilia.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 25, 2015 01:02PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

When heterosexual marriage was the only marriage option, obviously the belief that "consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they want" was not the prevailing legal doctrine. However, that belief has been asserted repeatedly by those favoring gay marriage. It's a worldview that taken on its face would support polygamy as well.[/quote]
See, I don't accept that any more than the claim it supports bestiality and pedophilia (as Bob said).
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2015 01:06PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Funny how some imply that polygamy is something championed by progressives. It's been around since ancient times and there are innumerable examples of it in the Bible itself. (And I'd hardly call those offshoot Mormon sects who still practice it progressives. Other than that they are among the most conservative folks you'd find.)

Personally,I've got no problem with the idea. If anyone is crazy enough to want more than one wife, that's their problem. But I'd had to see the alimony and property settlement problems that would follow a mass divorce.

Of course, those who are claiming that gay marriage will lead to polygamy include the same sub-geniuses who also claimed it would lead to bestiality and pedophilia. [/quote]


The implication is actually that the rationale most frequently cited in support of gay marriage supports polygamy just as well. It's an accurate one.

Surely as someone who has "no problem with the idea," you wouldn't count yourself among "the most conservative folks you'd find."
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 25, 2015 01:07PM)
Did someone imply that polygamy is something championed by progressives? I think the question was, why isn't it?
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2015 01:10PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

When heterosexual marriage was the only marriage option, obviously the belief that "consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they want" was not the prevailing legal doctrine. However, that belief has been asserted repeatedly by those favoring gay marriage. It's a worldview that taken on its face would support polygamy as well.[/quote]
See, I don't accept that any more than the claim it supports bestiality and pedophilia (as Bob said). [/quote]

Then you're not being intellectually honest or you're not trying very hard. MWhen pedophilia was brought up, it was quickly dismissed as being inapplicable to the gay marriage argument, because children cannot consent, and the argument was based on he freedom of [i]consenting adults[/i] to choose their marriage partners. Surely you can see that there is relevant distinction (as regards the argument) between polygamy and pedophilia in that one of them is excluded by the "consenting adults" caveat central to the argument being advanced, and the other is not. Potential polygamists (some of them, anyway) are all consenting adults.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 25, 2015 01:11PM)
No. But I'm not in one of the Mormon sects I was referring to either.

It's the notion that polygamy is something championed primarly by progressives that I find ridiculous. The notion has no historical support whatsoever.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2015 01:12PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
No. But I'm not in one of the Mormon sects I was referring to either.

It's the notion that polygamy is something championed primarly by progressives that I find ridiculous. The notion has no historical support whatsoever. [/quote]

Nobody (here) is saying that. What's being observed is that the "Consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they want" threshold used so often in the gay marriage discussion also supports polygamy.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 25, 2015 01:14PM)
So, I'll ask again. Who said that polygamy is something championed by progressives? Or are you just making things up?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 25, 2015 01:16PM)
Lobo- Nobody? Even though he later lamely denied the claim that he associated polygamy with progressives, rockwall nonetheless wrote [quote]
Well, there you go balducci. We have another progressive on the side of polygamy. I think Lobo's got it. [/quote]

You're not going to find Joseph Smith in the Progressive's Hall of Fame.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 25, 2015 01:18PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
...
Of course, those who are claiming that gay marriage will lead to polygamy include the same sub-geniuses who also claimed it would lead to bestiality and pedophilia. [/quote]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/28/scalia-during-gay-marriage-arguments-what-about-polygamy/

"According to The New York Times, the conservative justice (Alito) offered the court a hypothetical scenario where four people — two men, two women — wanted to marry and whether it was reasonable to allow them to do so.

“They are all consenting adults. Highly educated. They are all lawyers. What would be the logic of denying them the same right?” Alito asked, which drew laughs from the court audience."

Now, you may think Alito a 'sub-genius', but despite that, he could be one of those who could have one of the votes that might legalize it one day.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2015 01:22PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Lobo- Nobody? Even though he later lamely denied the claim that he associated polygamy with progressives, rockwall nonetheless wrote [quote]
Well, there you go balducci. We have another progressive on the side of polygamy. I think Lobo's got it. [/quote]

You're not going to find Joseph Smith in the Progressive's Hall of Fame. [/quote]

That was in response to Magnus's claim that it's difficult to see why it should be illegal. The only thing Rockwall did questionably there was to characterize Magnus as a progressive, but I do think it's fair to say that many of his views seem to be in line with progressives'.

The larger point is that progressives who don't support polygamy should reconsider whether statements like "Bottom line - it's nobody's business who anyone chooses to love or get married to" (might have missed a word, but that's just about 100% accurate) - cited in support of gay marriage in another thread - really does accurately reflect their position.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2015 01:24PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
...
Of course, those who are claiming that gay marriage will lead to polygamy include the same sub-geniuses who also claimed it would lead to bestiality and pedophilia. [/quote]

http://dailycaller.com/2015/04/28/scalia-during-gay-marriage-arguments-what-about-polygamy/

"According to The New York Times, the conservative justice (Alito) offered the court a hypothetical scenario where four people — two men, two women — wanted to marry and whether it was reasonable to allow them to do so.

“They are all consenting adults. Highly educated. They are all lawyers. What would be the logic of denying them the same right?” Alito asked, which drew laughs from the court audience."

Now, you may think Alito a 'sub-genius', but despite that, he could be one of those who could have one of the votes that might legalize it one day. [/quote]

Certainly the logic in denying them the same right must be something other than "Consenting adults should be able to marry whomever they want."
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 25, 2015 01:30PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

When heterosexual marriage was the only marriage option, obviously the belief that "consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they want" was not the prevailing legal doctrine. However, that belief has been asserted repeatedly by those favoring gay marriage. It's a worldview that taken on its face would support polygamy as well.[/quote]
See, I don't accept that any more than the claim it supports bestiality and pedophilia (as Bob said). [/quote]

Then you're not being intellectually honest or you're not trying very hard. MWhen pedophilia was brought up, it was quickly dismissed as being inapplicable to the gay marriage argument, because children cannot consent, and the argument was based on he freedom of [i]consenting adults[/i] to choose their marriage partners. Surely you can see that there is relevant distinction (as regards the argument) between polygamy and pedophilia in that one of them is excluded by the "consenting adults" caveat central to the argument being advanced, and the other is not. Potential polygamists (some of them, anyway) are all consenting adults. [/quote]
I've always understood phrases like "consenting adults should be allowed to marry whomever they want" to implicitly (there is that word again) refer to TWO consenting HUMAN adults. YMMV. And perhaps I am wrong for reading it that way.

I'm not taking a stand for or against polygamy among consenting adults. However, I do think polygamous marriages would be much harder to incorporate and implement (e.g. for legal reasons, and taxation implications) in our Western nations than gay marriage.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 25, 2015 01:33PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, rockwall wrote:
I think Bob said he had no problem with it. I'm not sure if that's implicit endorsement or not though. [/quote]
And where did he say this? [/quote]

[quote]On May 25, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:

Personally,I've got no problem with the idea. If anyone is crazy enough to want more than one wife, that's their problem. But I'd had to see the alimony and property settlement problems that would follow a mass divorce.
…[/quote]

Right there! (Nice of him to give me a save just when I needed it!)

But, you can see he does it reluctantly. I think the fact that he associates it with conservatives makes him want to hold his nose while not being able to come up with a good excuse to oppose it.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 25, 2015 01:37PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The only thing Rockwall did questionably there was to characterize Magnus as a progressive, but I do think it's fair to say that many of his views seem to be in line with progressives'.

[/quote]

No. Rockwall wrote "ANOTHER progessive" in favor of polygamy, suggesting that it is a progressive notion. It's not. There are progressives as well as conservatives who could, and do, support the notion that consenting adults should be able to marry whoever they wish.

Libertarians, too.

The point is, it is NOT a political position held exclusively by one side or the other and it really doesn't warrant a political label.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2015 01:38PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, balducci wrote:
I do think polygamous marriages would be much harder to incorporate and implement (e.g. for legal reasons, and taxation implications) in our Western nations than gay marriage. [/quote]

I agree, and I think that's the only principled and consistent position (other than supporting polygamy) for those who favor gay marriage on libertarian-type principles to take.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2015 01:40PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
The only thing Rockwall did questionably there was to characterize Magnus as a progressive, but I do think it's fair to say that many of his views seem to be in line with progressives'.

[/quote]

No. Rockwall wrote "ANOTHER progessive" in favor of polygamy, suggesting that it is a progressive notion. It's not. There are progressives as well as conservatives who could, and do, support the notion that consenting adults should be able to marry whoever they wish.

Libertarians, too.

The point is, it is NOT a political position held exclusively by one side or the other and it really doesn't warrant a political label. [/quote]


I agree that it makes for strange bedfellows (pun intended)! But it's certainly more consistent with a progressive philosophy (consenting adults = nobody's business) than a conservative one (traditional marriage).
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 25, 2015 01:44PM)
Consentng adults=nobody's business is actually the Libertarian position as well. And, generally speaking, Libertarians are more to the conservative side of the spectrum.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 25, 2015 03:47PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
...
No. Rockwall wrote "ANOTHER progessive" in favor of polygamy, suggesting that it is a progressive notion. ... [/quote]

No such suggestion if you're able to follow along.

ANOTHER progressive meant exactly what it said. Balducci said he was unaware of any progressives supporting polygamy to which I pointed out that you had said you weren't against it. Next thing you know, Magnus mentions that he doesn't have any objections to it either. Hence 'another'. That makes 2. I think past statements I have made make it quite clear that I DON'T think it a progressive notion but that it certainly seems as though it should be based on progressives arguments in favor of gay marriage. (As Lobo has clearly pointed out.)

I've speculated that the only reason I can think of WHY they don't support it is because they're afraid that it is a conservative idea and based on that, they want nothing to do with it.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 25, 2015 04:19PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, rockwall wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
...
No. Rockwall wrote "ANOTHER progessive" in favor of polygamy, suggesting that it is a progressive notion. ... [/quote]

No such suggestion if you're able to follow along.

ANOTHER progressive meant exactly what it said. Balducci said he was unaware of any progressives supporting polygamy to which I pointed out that you had said you weren't against it. Next thing you know, Magnus mentions that he doesn't have any objections to it either. Hence 'another'. That makes 2. I think past statements I have made make it quite clear that I DON'T think it a progressive notion but that it certainly seems as though it should be based on progressives arguments in favor of gay marriage. (As Lobo has clearly pointed out.)

I've speculated that the only reason I can think of WHY they don't support it is because they're afraid that it is a conservative idea and based on that, they want nothing to do with it. [/quote]


Didn't say I had no objections (although that kind of position would require some expansion and explanation). I did say that I can't think of grounds for polygamy or polyandry between consenting adult to be illegal. I disapprove of many things that should not be illegal.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 25, 2015 04:29PM)
Why are we talking about it if it is not our business? Is it because the government have poked their nose into other people’s business and so we have to tell them to mind their own business?
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 25, 2015 04:34PM)
Rockwall-

Do you think that everyone here has as short a memory as you? Have you already forgotten the disgusting allegations you made that progressives and liberals supported pedophilia? (NAMBLA)

"Progressivism," despite extremsts' attempts to make it a dirty word, was actually pioneered by REPUBLICAN President Theodore Roosevelt, now known as the "Father of Progressivism."
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 25, 2015 04:47PM)
Was NAMBLA funding the yes campaign in Ireland?
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 25, 2015 04:48PM)
And here I thought we were talking about polygamy. Are you really interested in returning to pedophilia and mis-representing (again) what I claimed?
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 25, 2015 04:52PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, rockwall wrote:

ANOTHER progressive meant exactly what it said. Balducci said he was unaware of any progressives supporting polygamy to which I pointed out that you had said you weren't against it.[/quote]
To be clear, I was responding to lunatik's post "Will the Progressives support polygamy?" The way he capitalized "Progressives" I thought it he was talking about the Progressive movement, political group, lobbying group, whatever. I said I doubted it as I had never heard of any progressives speaking out in favour of polygamous marriage. Sure, as you pointed out, some individual progressives may have spoken in favour of it. But really as a movement "the Progressives" have really never spoken in support of polygamy, as far as I know.

Anyway, I guess polygamy is popular and accepted around the world in various nations with differing political stripes.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 25, 2015 07:33PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, rockwall wrote:
And here I thought we were talking about polygamy. Are you really interested in returning to pedophilia and mis-representing (again) what I claimed? [/quote]

I didn't have to mispresent anything. Your words spoke for themselves and are probably the reason the thread was deleted (again). I wasn't the only one here who found it highly offensive.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 25, 2015 08:03PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Just goes to show that you have difficulty with comprehension or understanding context.

And, yes, the sense that I used the word IS the most common and is the FIRST definition given in the dictionary.

But what would I know about writing? I haven't quite completed writing my hundredth book yet. But my readers seem to have no problems understanding me.

The topic, BTW, is equal protection under the law. In case you missed it. [/quote]

OMG. You must be in the wrong thread. The topic is : Ireland leads the way. Referring to marriage of same sex individuals. But you are allowed to change the title of the thread because you are Bob.

Because one writes 100 or 1,000 books does not qualify them as knowing anything. BTW are these books you have written novels or text books on mentalism? Not busting you here. But how many copies of your books has been sold? You brought up this point not me. So do not say I am being sarcastic. Any best sellers? Again you brought this up. You may or may not know about how to write a book about mentalism. However that is far from knowing how to write.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 25, 2015 08:09PM)
As someone who spent quite a number of years making a living writing and editing other people's writing, and as someone who owns several of Bob's books, I'm happy to go on record as stating that Bob is an excellent writer IMO.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 25, 2015 08:10PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
Funny how some imply that polygamy is something championed by progressives. It's been around since ancient times and there are innumerable examples of it in the Bible itself. (And I'd hardly call those offshoot Mormon sects who still practice it progressives. Other than that they are among the most conservative folks you'd find.)

Personally,I've got no problem with the idea. If anyone is crazy enough to want more than one wife, that's their problem. But I'd had to see the alimony and property settlement problems that would follow a mass divorce.

Of course, those who are claiming that gay marriage will lead to polygamy include the same sub-geniuses who also claimed it would lead to bestiality and pedophilia. [/quote]

Well I think it is crazy to have even one wife if that wife is a male.

I would like you to meet my wife, Bruno.

I must say. Your wife has gorgeous hair and beard.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 25, 2015 10:44PM)
As someone who has spent several years reading Bob's posts here at the Café, I'm happy to go on record as stating that he'd be pretty good at writing fiction also.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 25, 2015 10:46PM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, rockwall wrote:
And here I thought we were talking about polygamy. Are you really interested in returning to pedophilia and mis-representing (again) what I claimed? [/quote]

I didn't have to mispresent anything. Your words spoke for themselves and are probably the reason the thread was deleted (again). I wasn't the only one here who found it highly offensive. [/quote]

And I was happy at the time that Lobo was willing to also point out that you were mis-representing what I posted as I recall.

But it's a common tactic of yours. Similar to your tactic of changing the subject when backed into a corner like how you're now changing the subject from polygamy and your mis-representation (again) of my position about progressives and polygamy.
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 25, 2015 11:06PM)
Btw, the topic was not deleted. So, please, show me where I stated that progressives currently support pedophilia.

Later in the thread, I did point out one largely progressive group of Hollywood elites that seem to support it behind closed doors according to news reports.

What you will find is classical faux outrage by Bob as he distorts and misrepresents to support said outrage.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 25, 2015 11:15PM)
Look on the bright side aces; after the many years of grand scale sexual abuse of little boys by homosexual Irish priests, the homosexual priests will now be able to get married, abuse each other and be satisfied enough with that to leave the little boys alone.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 25, 2015 11:48PM)
[quote]On May 26, 2015, tommy wrote:
Look on the bright side aces; after the many years of grand scale sexual abuse of little boys by homosexual Irish priests, the homosexual priests will now be able to get married, abuse each other and be satisfied enough with that to leave the little boys alone. [/quote]


I am sure you posted this with tongue in cheek. As the Church does not recognize same sex marriages and any priest that got married to another male would be excommunicated so that solved nothing. Besides that only solves the problem for Irish priests with problems in your made up scenario. :)

Also it seems like you feel from your post that homosexuals abuse one another rather than have sex. Is that your opinion? I thought you openly supported homosexuality and did not think of it as abuse. I have no prejudice against one's sexual preferences but it seems as though you do. Is this a change of heart for you or have you always felt this way? While I have nothing against gays, I feel that it is not the norm. But to each his or her own.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 26, 2015 03:08AM)
Buggery is sexual abuse by virtue of it not conforming to nature that’s all. It is, one might say, an "improper practice". Anything at all that does not conform to nature will not operate as efficiently as that which does in this natural world. It is not a question of condoning or condemning. Anything at all that does not conform to nature is repulsive to some degree. Homosexuals will as result of that natural repulsion alone will have problems in their daily life. Bigots will irrationally argue homosexuality conforms to nature and say it is them homophobic people that are the problem. Such is life.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (May 26, 2015 06:59AM)
The point is that it will be the Left, the Liberals who will give majority support for polygamy when it eventually becomes headlines and cases heard before our courts. Am I crazy for thinking so? Hardly.....It's just not a topic that they want to tackle right now as it doesn't fit their agenda at this point in time, but mark my words, take a screenshot of this post and I'll place a nice bet that I am right :)
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 26, 2015 07:52AM)
Tommy, we have had a problem with paedophelia in Ireland, and many priests have been jailed. But we still lag far behind the UK and USA in the rate of paedophelia.

And that, and polygamy, have nothing to do with marriage equality.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (May 26, 2015 09:29AM)
But at some point, polygamy WILL have something to do with marriage equality. That is my prediction and if Vegas was taking bets, if put my entire life savings in.

I wonder what those here who say that it's not going to happen or that it has nothing to do with marriage equality will say once it does hit fan. I wonder how many will backtrack and do and say exactly as some of us predict? Let me guess....your position "evolved"
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 26, 2015 09:53AM)
[quote]On May 26, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Tommy, we have had a problem with paedophelia in Ireland, and many priests have been jailed. But we still lag far behind the UK and USA in the rate of paedophelia.

And that, and polygamy, have nothing to do with marriage equality. [/quote]

Do you have a source for that Ireland/UK thing, or is that one of those things that you just know?
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 26, 2015 01:50PM)
There is a café by us that is owned by a Greek family and next door to that is a shop, which is owned by a gay couple. They were all on friendly terms, until one day the gay couple parked up outside the café and the Greeks saw then kissing in the presence of some children. That is when the trouble stated and is one of those things that we just know.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 27, 2015 05:37AM)
[quote]On May 26, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 26, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Tommy, we have had a problem with paedophelia in Ireland, and many priests have been jailed. But we still lag far behind the UK and USA in the rate of paedophelia.

And that, and polygamy, have nothing to do with marriage equality. [/quote]

Do you have a source for that Ireland/UK thing, or is that one of those things that you just know? [/quote]
Multiple sources, including UNICEF. That's what makes it one of the things I know.
Message: Posted by: imgic (May 27, 2015 07:29AM)
[quote]On May 26, 2015, tommy wrote:
Buggery is sexual abuse by virtue of it not conforming to nature that’s all. [/quote]

The only unnatural sex is sex that cannot be performed.
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 27, 2015 07:36AM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, imgic wrote:
[quote]On May 26, 2015, tommy wrote:
Buggery is sexual abuse by virtue of it not conforming to nature that’s all. [/quote]

The only unnatural sex is sex that cannot be performed. [/quote]

I hope your kidding. Think about what you are claiming. I mean really think about it. Unnatural being the Key Word. Not just the sex acts most commonly referred to as unnatural, but UNNATURAL sex acts...again, think about it. Don't ask me for more details. They can not be posted here.
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 27, 2015 11:32AM)
Imgic is quite right but when he implies that I said it was unnatural he is quite wrong. There is nothing supernatural about buggery or anything else that is possible. There exist many things that do not conform to nature however. It is the essence of art actually. One might consider all perverted acts as works of art as grotesque as they may be. Maybe we could open an art gallery with such works on pedestals. The mind boggles. Early to bed and early to rise makes and man healthy, wealthy and wise, as it conforms to nature, as opposed to the repulsive act of staying up all night watching poker games. Loosely speaking one might say such things are unnatural but strictly speaking they can’t be.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (May 27, 2015 03:28PM)
[quote]On May 27, 2015, imgic wrote:
[quote]On May 26, 2015, tommy wrote:
Buggery is sexual abuse by virtue of it not conforming to nature that’s all. [/quote]

The only unnatural sex is sex that cannot be performed. [/quote]


Not so in Tijuana.
Message: Posted by: The Hermit (May 27, 2015 05:36PM)
[quote]On May 26, 2015, TonyB2009 wrote:
Tommy, we have had a problem with paedophelia in Ireland, and many priests have been jailed. But we still lag far behind the UK and USA in the rate of paedophelia.
. [/quote]

I don't think you're trying hard enough.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 28, 2015 05:49AM)
Irish gay marriage vote a defeat for humanity.- The Vatican.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 28, 2015 06:44AM)
[quote]On May 28, 2015, magicfish wrote:
Irish gay marriage vote a defeat for humanity.- The Vatican. [/quote]
It is a good job we withdrew our embassy from the Vatican a few years ago then.
Message: Posted by: innercirclewannabe (May 28, 2015 07:21AM)
The result was a resounding NO to the Vatican/Catholic church. Of course they will never accept it as such & will continue to live in a nostalgic fantasy, all the while thinking that they still have a stranglehold on this country. They don't, & they never will again.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 28, 2015 08:08AM)
[quote]On May 25, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
As someone who spent quite a number of years making a living writing and editing other people's writing, and as someone who owns several of Bob's books, I'm happy to go on record as stating that Bob is an excellent writer IMO. [/quote]

I can't pass by this without expressing agreement.

Bob is a superb writers and would be a much wealthier man if he had not confined himself to a niche market, but it's the niche he loves so perfectly understandable.

Bob's writing on mentalism sparkles - it's full of wit and personality - anyone who doubts me should put out just a few bucks for anyone of his offerings and if you disagreed 'I'll happily PayPal you the cost of the book.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 28, 2015 08:10AM)
It looks like Australia will now soon move on marriage equality - we don't need a referendum but the major political parties wish to have a generally bi-partisan approach.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 28, 2015 08:10AM)
It looks like Australia will now soon move on marriage equality - we don't need a referendum but the major political parties wish to have a generally bi-partisan approach.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 28, 2015 08:46AM)
[quote]On May 28, 2015, Destiny wrote:
[quote]On May 25, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
As someone who spent quite a number of years making a living writing and editing other people's writing, and as someone who owns several of Bob's books, I'm happy to go on record as stating that Bob is an excellent writer IMO. [/quote]

I can't pass by this without expressing agreement.

Bob is a superb writers and would be a much wealthier man if he had not confined himself to a niche market, but it's the niche he loves so perfectly understandable.

Bob's writing on mentalism sparkles - it's full of wit and personality - anyone who doubts me should put out just a few bucks for anyone of his offerings and if you disagreed 'I'll happily PayPal you the cost of the book. [/quote]

Thanks guys. I really appreciate it. It's nice to know that at least two people read my stuff. :eek:
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 28, 2015 12:36PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2015, innercirclewannabe wrote:
The result was a resounding NO to the Vatican/Catholic church. Of course they will never accept it as such & will continue to live in a nostalgic fantasy, all the while thinking that they still have a stranglehold on this country. They don't, & they never will again. [/quote]
Sounds exactly like a several hundred year old English quote. I applaud your protestantism sir.
Message: Posted by: TonyB2009 (May 28, 2015 12:55PM)
Bob, as a professional writer I will add to the chorus. You do write well.
Message: Posted by: innercirclewannabe (May 28, 2015 01:02PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2015, magicfish wrote:
[quote]On May 28, 2015, innercirclewannabe wrote:
The result was a resounding NO to the Vatican/Catholic church. Of course they will never accept it as such & will continue to live in a nostalgic fantasy, all the while thinking that they still have a stranglehold on this country. They don't, & they never will again. [/quote]
Sounds exactly like a several hundred year old English quote. I applaud your protestantism sir. [/quote]

If you only knew how wrong your comment was about me, you might just p""s yourself! Then again, maybe you do that already without provocation!
:eek:
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 28, 2015 01:49PM)
Lol!
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 28, 2015 02:09PM)
That was a nasty comment that I shall rise above.
So it is your contention that supporting gay marriage is not a protest of the official position of the Vatican?
@Bob: how nice of you.
Message: Posted by: magicfish (May 28, 2015 02:12PM)
For the nasty fellow:
The Vatican once had a stranglehold on another country as well. They don't now, and they never will again. That is what I meant.
Please do not engage me with more profane insults.
Message: Posted by: innercirclewannabe (May 28, 2015 03:05PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2015, magicfish wrote:
For the nasty fellow:
The Vatican once had a stranglehold on another country as well. They don't now, and they never will again. That is what I meant.
Please do not engage me with more profane insults. [/quote]

LOL.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 28, 2015 04:31PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2015, magicfish wrote:
That was a nasty comment that I shall rise above.
So it is your contention that supporting gay marriage is not a protest of the official position of the Vatican?
@Bob: how nice of you. [/quote]

I LOL'd because you apparently missed innercirclewannabe's post in the Tsarnaev death penalty thread about his grandparent being with the original IRA. Hardly what you'd expect from an English Protestant.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (May 28, 2015 04:57PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2015, Destiny wrote:
It looks like Australia will now soon move on marriage equality - we don't need a referendum but the major political parties wish to have a generally bi-partisan approach. [/quote]

Oh sure, bring perversion into this. We want heteropartisan politics, dammit.
Message: Posted by: imgic (May 28, 2015 06:34PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On May 28, 2015, Destiny wrote:
It looks like Australia will now soon move on marriage equality - we don't need a referendum but the major political parties wish to have a generally bi-partisan approach. [/quote]

Oh sure, bring perversion into this. We want heteropartisan politics, dammit. [/quote]

And Ireland leads the way with their homopartisian politics...
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 28, 2015 08:04PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2015, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]On May 28, 2015, Destiny wrote:
It looks like Australia will now soon move on marriage equality - we don't need a referendum but the major political parties wish to have a generally bi-partisan approach. [/quote]

Oh sure, bring perversion into this. We want heteropartisan politics, dammit. [/quote]

Well the Englisg got us on the road to deviance with the bi-cameral parliament they bestowed on us. :)
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 28, 2015 09:51PM)
So apparently at least some Bible stories are gay friendly ...

[img]http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article10282105.ece/alternates/w620/noah2.jpg[/img]

"The image above, found in Arcturus' Children's Bible: Illustrated Stories from the Old and New Testaments, shows what at first looks to be a pretty standard depiction of animals boarding Noah's ark two-by-two. But, due to sexual dimorphism, adult female lions are unable to grow manes, so that's definitely two dude lions you are looking at being loaded on for sexual purposes."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/there-is-something-wrong-but-very-right-about-this-bible-illustration-10282057.html

Furthermore:

"A report in Pink News points out that wildlife experts discovered last year that gay bears enjoy oral sex, with 'the first observations of long-term, recurrent fellatio in captive brown bears kept in proper conditions' being recorded by the Polish Academy of Sciences Department of Wildlife Conservation. Kent zoo, meanwhile, has a gay penguin couple, which it claims make better parents than many of the straight ones."
Message: Posted by: rockwall (May 28, 2015 09:58PM)
I understand that 'misdirected mating', or animals having or attempting to have sex with different species is not unheard of either. It must also be natural!

http://grist.org/list/man-animals-are-kinkier-than-you-thought/
Message: Posted by: tommy (May 29, 2015 12:44AM)
Holly came from Miami F.L.A.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 29, 2015 09:36PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2015, rockwall wrote:
I understand that 'misdirected mating', or animals having or attempting to have sex with different species is not unheard of either. It must also be natural!

http://grist.org/list/man-animals-are-kinkier-than-you-thought/ [/quote]


You mean that story about the mouse asking the elephant 'is that good for you baby?' is not just a joke?
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 29, 2015 09:50PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2015, balducci wrote:
So apparently at least some Bible stories are gay friendly ...

[img]http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article10282105.ece/alternates/w620/noah2.jpg[/img]



Another case is in the film; "Mary Poppins." While singing about how robins have a "merry tune to toot" while building their nests, Mary looks out the window at two robins building a nest (robot birds) Both robins are clearly male! (Also, both robins are "American" robins. The English robin looks completely different.)
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 29, 2015 11:42PM)
[quote]On May 28, 2015, balducci wrote:
So apparently at least some Bible stories are gay friendly ...

[img]http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article10282105.ece/alternates/w620/noah2.jpg[/img]

"The image above, found in Arcturus' Children's Bible: Illustrated Stories from the Old and New Testaments, shows what at first looks to be a pretty standard depiction of animals boarding Noah's ark two-by-two. But, due to sexual dimorphism, adult female lions are unable to grow manes, so that's definitely two dude lions you are looking at being loaded on for sexual purposes."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/there-is-something-wrong-but-very-right-about-this-bible-illustration-10282057.html

Furthermore:

"A report in Pink News points out that wildlife experts discovered last year that gay bears enjoy oral sex, with 'the first observations of long-term, recurrent fellatio in captive brown bears kept in proper conditions' being recorded by the Polish Academy of Sciences Department of Wildlife Conservation. Kent zoo, meanwhile, has a gay penguin couple, which it claims make better parents than many of the straight ones." [/quote]


Well there you have it. Proof positive if "Pink News" says so. So we have gay bears, and gay penguin make better parents than straight penguins. This is definitely earth shattering news.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 30, 2015 12:42AM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, acesover wrote:
[quote]On May 28, 2015, balducci wrote:
So apparently at least some Bible stories are gay friendly ...

[img]http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article10282105.ece/alternates/w620/noah2.jpg[/img]

"The image above, found in Arcturus' Children's Bible: Illustrated Stories from the Old and New Testaments, shows what at first looks to be a pretty standard depiction of animals boarding Noah's ark two-by-two. But, due to sexual dimorphism, adult female lions are unable to grow manes, so that's definitely two dude lions you are looking at being loaded on for sexual purposes."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/there-is-something-wrong-but-very-right-about-this-bible-illustration-10282057.html

Furthermore:

"A report in Pink News points out that wildlife experts discovered last year that gay bears enjoy oral sex, with 'the first observations of long-term, recurrent fellatio in captive brown bears kept in proper conditions' being recorded by the Polish Academy of Sciences Department of Wildlife Conservation. Kent zoo, meanwhile, has a gay penguin couple, which it claims make better parents than many of the straight ones." [/quote]


Well there you have it. Proof positive if "Pink News" says so. So we have gay bears, and gay penguin make better parents than straight penguins. This is definitely earth shattering news. [/quote]

You're shooting the messenger - Pink News only reported it - Kent Zoo said it.

Having worked in a wildlife park it wouldn't surprise me if they made the claim simply to increase visitation - it's all about bums on seats.
Message: Posted by: lunatik (May 30, 2015 06:31AM)
[quote]On May 28, 2015, rockwall wrote:
I understand that 'misdirected mating', or animals having or attempting to have sex with different species is not unheard of either. It must also be natural!

http://grist.org/list/man-animals-are-kinkier-than-you-thought/ [/quote]


And of course we know that these animals have such great morals, they're upbringing must have been paramount to their development!
Message: Posted by: acesover (May 30, 2015 09:08AM)
Having worked in a wildlife park it wouldn't surprise me if they made the claim simply to increase visitation - it's all about bums on seats.

Sort of like lap dancing. :)
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 30, 2015 09:10AM)
Here's a short list of children raised by good Christian heterosexual parents with great morals: Josh Duggar.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 30, 2015 09:11AM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, acesover wrote:
Having worked in a wildlife park it wouldn't surprise me if they made the claim simply to increase visitation - it's all about bums on seats.

Sort of like lap dancing. :) [/quote]

Or magic shows, and there's often even a penguin suit. ;)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 30, 2015 01:58PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, Destiny wrote:
Here's a short list of children raised by good Christian heterosexual parents with great morals: Josh Duggar. [/quote]

The Duggars are find Christians. I know because Mike Huckabee said so in his recent statement supporting them

I'm sure Dennis Hastert is also a fine role model.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 02:36PM)
I wonder what the percentage is of children who would take the steps that would send one of their children to prison.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 30, 2015 05:10PM)
Lobo- I think that the fact that Josh Duggar committed his offenses AT THE SAME TIME as his father was publicly stating that rape and incest should be punishable by death raises some serious questions about the father's integrity, especially since he took steps to make certain that records regarding his son's offenses were destroyed.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 05:57PM)
I think most people who believe in the death penalty (or even life in prison) as an appropriate penalty for murder would nonetheless take steps to help their child avoid that penalty.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 30, 2015 06:57PM)
And didn't the Duggars intentionally delay things till the statute of limitations was passed?

At least so far as the father goes we know he's a vital and energetic fellow - he probably thinks of the show as '19 kids and mounting.'
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 07:25PM)
I'm still thinking David Kaczynski is the exception.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 30, 2015 07:34PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

I wonder what the percentage is of [parents?] who would take the steps that would send one of their children to prison. [/quote]
You send 14 year olds to prison now? (That being the age when Josh admitted his wrong doing to his pa.)
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 30, 2015 07:47PM)
I think the relevant point here is that Duggar and the organization he belongs to, as well as his supporters like Huckabee, are among the most outspoken against equal rights for members of the LGBT community.

It's simply about the sheer hypocrisy.
Message: Posted by: balducci (May 30, 2015 07:55PM)
The conversation when Josh confessed to his Pa.

"Dad, I ***ed sis."

"Whew, at least you're not gay."
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 08:01PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I think the relevant point here is that Duggar and the organization he belongs to, as well as his supporters like Huckabee, are among the most outspoken against equal rights for members of the LGBT community.

It's simply about the sheer hypocrisy. [/quote]

I'm not sure how that's relevant.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 08:02PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, balducci wrote:
The conversation when Josh confessed to his Pa.

"Dad, I ***ed sis."

"Whew, at least you're not gay." [/quote]


:rotf:
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (May 30, 2015 08:06PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On May 30, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

I wonder what the percentage is of [parents?] who would take the steps that would send one of their children to prison. [/quote]
You send 14 year olds to prison now? (That being the age when Josh admitted his wrong doing to his pa.) [/quote]


Haven't been allowed to execute them for years.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (May 30, 2015 09:32PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, balducci wrote:
[quote]On May 30, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:

I wonder what the percentage is of [parents?] who would take the steps that would send one of their children to prison. [/quote]
You send 14 year olds to prison now? (That being the age when Josh admitted his wrong doing to his pa.) [/quote]

There's a special "prison" called "Juvenile Hall" for minors who commit serious crimes. When they reach 18, they are released and their records sealed. Craig Price killed people here in Rhode Island and bragged that he would get out at 18. Then they found him violating rules in the Hall and transferred him to prison at 18. He claimed it was because he was black, and yet, his behavior keeps getting his sentence in prison extended.

Although, there are some areas where minors as young as 15 can be tried and sentenced as adults.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (May 30, 2015 10:29PM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, balducci wrote:
The conversation when Josh confessed to his Pa.

"Dad, I ***ed sis."

"Whew, at least you're not gay." [/quote]


The chances are there's a gay kid in that family somewhere, and it's going to be interesting to see if the parents are as forgiving when that comes up as they have been with Josh.

Lobo, this family hold themselves up as exemplars of traditional Christian marriage. They, and Josh in particular, use the family mores to assert the superiority of 'traditional' marriage over gay marriage. But their lifestyle failed at least 6 children - 1 son, 4 daughters, and someone else's daughter did not get the childhood they deserved.
Message: Posted by: mastermindreader (May 31, 2015 11:57AM)
[quote]On May 30, 2015, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]On May 30, 2015, mastermindreader wrote:
I think the relevant point here is that Duggar and the organization he belongs to, as well as his supporters like Huckabee, are among the most outspoken against equal rights for members of the LGBT community.

It's simply about the sheer hypocrisy. [/quote]

I'm not sure how that's relevant. [/quote]

Really? The relevance seems obvious to me. On the one hand you have people condemning gay marriage, and on the other, you have many of the same people supporting the Duggars.
Message: Posted by: acesover (Jun 1, 2015 02:05PM)
I don't even like the sound of the name, "Duggars". Good thing I am open minded and listen to reason. :)