world

Ireland says big 'Yes' to gay marriage in world first

128 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2015 AFP

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

128 Comments
Login to comment

Good thing.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

That's Grand!

6 ( +11 / -5 )

No doubt in my mind, Granny is rolling over in her grave.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

Europe is always one step ahead.

8 ( +14 / -6 )

Fantastic news. Its a great first step, and I hope we'll be seeing more.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

So proud of my Irish roots today! This is a fantastic day for equal rights and for humanity as a whole.

Though in this day and age we shouldn't be voting on whether gay marriage should be legal or not. It should be a given right! Love is love regardless of a persons' sexuality, love between a man and woman is no different to that of love between a man & man or woman & woman. Everyone should have the same equal rights to marry the person that they love.

I might be in a straight marriage. However I proudly support gay rights and it doesn't effect my marriage or anyone else's life whether Mr Smith is married to Mr Jones!

1 ( +9 / -8 )

"Drag queen and gay rights activist Rory O'Neill, also known as "Panti",

Panti is a good name for him.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

And now it's over to you, Japan. At least be the first in Asia.

1 ( +9 / -8 )

So in Ireland would they say "God Save the Queens?"

-6 ( +7 / -13 )

Excellent news; are you taking notice, Japan?

3 ( +7 / -4 )

Isn't it wonderful that they would have a referendum to decide this kind of thing.

This is democracy.

There is a lesson for Mr Abe in this.

Isn't his party supposed to be liberal and DEMOCRATIC?

1 ( +9 / -8 )

Congratulations. Ireland certainly has changed in the last few decades; the Catholic Church's vise-grip on the country seems to have loosened dramatically

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Indeed, people's rights are not an issue to be decided by majority vote. It is nice to know that a majority voted for fairness and equality though.

But I especially feel the need to ATTACK some wording in the article that is not only false, but promotes the idea that our government bureaucrats are our masters and overlords. No, gay marriage was not illegal nor banned, and in most places it isn't and never was. Its just that the bureacrats will not recognize your gay marriage or file any paperwork making it official. A marriage is between two people, NOT two people and the government. Pencil pushers can push their pencils in various directions and places, but at the end of the day its just a pencil scratching on paper. What they won't write down does not make a thing banned.

Yes, yes, homosexual sex was banned, but sex is not marriage and marriage is not sex.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

Massachusetts???

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

'“I think the church needs to do a reality check right across the board… Have we drifted away completely from young people?” he said.'

Organised religion is on its last legs in Europe even in traditionally religious countries like Ireland. The Catholic Church for many is bloated, corrupt and has become an outdated and increasingly irrelevant organisation for the young. Their irrelevance is their own fault.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I take umbrage with the archbishops comments however, and i will be disheartened if another church puts aside the teachings of the bible to cater to the whims of a group coming to power. for man to decide that the bible, especially the new testament is no longer valid is wrong, this was a book written by witnesses of Jesus under the hand of the Holy Spirit.

it was not just knocked together by a drunk in a bar for a couple of chuckles.....

-16 ( +3 / -19 )

@praak The churches have been gradually 'putting aside' the more embarrassing or downright nasty ideas found in the bible for centuries or 'reinterpreting' such verses. I'm sure the PR people in the Vatican can put a positive spin on gay marriage. Perhaps they can justify it by stating that there is no mention of homosexuality in the gospels.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

“I think the church needs to do a reality check right across the board… Have we drifted away completely from young people?”

No, you've drifted away from the teachings of the Bible. Jesus was very much in favor of tolerance and acceptance.

Oh, the new Pope has also been very understanding on the issue of LGBT rights, much more of a true disciple, including his famous, "Who am I to judge?" quote.

So perhaps Archbishop Diarmuid Martin you need to instead question why you and the church have willfully ignored the stellar leadership of Pope Francis and Jesus?

3 ( +6 / -3 )

I'll just say I don't like it and agree one man one woman.

-16 ( +7 / -23 )

0 Good Bad JimizoMAY. 24, 2015 - 10:56AM JST @praak The churches have been gradually 'putting aside' the more embarrassing or downright nasty ideas found in the bible for centuries or 'reinterpreting' such verses. I'm sure the PR people in the Vatican can put a positive spin on gay marriage. Perhaps they can justify it by stating that there is no mention of homosexuality in the gospels.

Nope, it's very specific on the topic of a "man uniting with his wife". Regardless of what people decide, there it is

-20 ( +1 / -21 )

Joe DuncanMay. 24, 2015 - 11:15AM JST I'll just say I don't like it and agree one man one woman.

The quoted post demonstrates a very common mistake.

No-one is asking the poster to like it.

No-one is asking the poster to do it.

It is not all about the poster.

I know it is hard for some people, but honestly try to imagine the shoe on the other foot, and being told you can't live with the person you love, you can't be at their bedside when they die, and you can't get married, simply because someone else doesn't share your love for that person.

10 ( +14 / -4 )

@Christopher Glen I know that quote is there but there still isn't any direct condemnation of homosexuality in the gospels. The point I'm making is that the Catholic Church and others are very adept at glossing over, ignoring or reinterpreting the parts of the bible they find inconvenient or embarrassing. This is an obscenely rich organisation able to say it is the church of a man who railed against wealth and materialism - remember the camel and the eye of the needle and to give all you have to the poor quotes? To gloss over, ignore or reinterpret ''a man uniting with his wife" would be child's play for this organisation.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

What about Japan? Japan is very unpredictable. For example, suddenly out of nowhere, Shibuya ward in Tokyo set up a "partnership" for gays. Nobody was demonstrating for it or anything. It just suddenly happened. So Japan could do it, suddenly and unexpectedly. Remember PM Abe's wife rode on a float with some drag queens in last years Pride Parade here in Tokyo. Anyway, I will marry my partner if this happens here.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Joe Duncan: I'll just say I don't like it and agree one man one woman.

How can you say that while having the Oscar Meyer Weinermobile as your avatar pic? That thing is pretty much obligatory at every gay pride parade! lol :)

4 ( +6 / -2 )

i will be disheartened if another church puts aside the teachings of the bible to cater to the whims of a group coming to power. for man to decide that the bible, especially the new testament is no longer valid is wrong, this was a book written by witnesses of Jesus under the hand of the Holy Spirit.

Considering a lot of Christians wear gold, eat pork, get remarried/divorced, and allow women to speak within church, I think it is safe to say that things have already become "loose" across the board concerning the bible rules.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

I still say you need separation between legal and religious marriages as is does in my home county.

The christian church can only speak for Christians and shouldn't try to influence non Christians via the government.

Hence the separation of church & state. Doesn't affect me who someone wants to partner with or what they on their own property.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

If for religious purposes you decide a gay marriage is not a real marriage, fine.

However, this is not about religion. This is a civil matter. Its now officially valid in many places.

But like I said earlier, a marriage is between two people, and not two people and the government. If its between two people and YOUR particular god, well that's fine in your church and your head. Welcome to the 21st century.

Another thing to remember is that Christian colonizing countries did not recognize marriages in the non-Christian countries they colonized either. Some of them changed yet Christianity remained and wasn't obliterated. In fact, Christian beliefs and tolerances have changed greatly over the centuries. So much so, that Christians from 600 years ago would no doubt feel the need to kill a modern Christian if we resurrected them, and that is without tolerating gay marriage.

So get over it.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

@Christopher Glen I know that quote is there but there still isn't any direct condemnation of homosexuality in the gospels. The point I'm making is that the Catholic Church and others are very adept at glossing over, ignoring or reinterpreting the parts of the bible they find inconvenient or embarrassing. This is an obscenely rich organisation able to say it is the church of a man who railed against wealth and materialism - remember the camel and the eye of the needle and to give all you have to the poor quotes? To gloss over, ignore or reinterpret ''a man uniting with his wife" would be child's play for this organisation.

Christianity takes a "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach to the issue.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Christopher GlenMay. 24, 2015 - 03:16PM JST Christianity takes a "love the sinner, hate the sin" approach to the issue.

No, it doesn't. Otherwise you wouldn't have so-called "Christian" ministers and politicians equating being gay with child abuse, or claiming that giving PERSON equal rights would somehow undermine their rights, or that somehow gay people were responsible for Hurrican Katrina, and other idiocy that definitely ISN't about what they do, but rather their very existence.

Unless you're claiming these people aren't Christians? In which case stand up and say so in public.

Oh, and none of the apostles have anything bad to say about homosexuality. It is all in Paul (aka Saul) who never even MET Jesus and who's inclusion in the new testament is a complete mystery since it seems to contradict Jesus' teachings at every turn.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

I see this as a backlash against the Catholic Church in Ireland and I'm disappointed that the Irish have made this mistake.

For the record, I support anti-discrimination law and I want the relationship property rights of homosexuals respected.

That said, for me marriage should always be exclusively a marriage between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is not what god intended.

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

In principle, my previous post stands. I am not on this post to bash homosexuals, merely to state the facts. I am not condoning the excesses of priests or clergymen by any means.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

The Irish Referendum ! Nothing to do with Christianity. More to do with mental health and changing the Irish constitution. The big Christian argument will start when the RC' Church refuses to marry a same sex couple in one of the empty state funded church buildings. Guess what ? The couple can sue the church and state for discrimination . Now that's what I call a nice bit of PaddyWhackery in putting the Church House argument in Order.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Thought the referendum question was good, it relates directly to contract law neatly sidestepping religion. From the State's perspective at least, marriage is indeed a contract. Nicely done Ireland.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

This is NOT my opinion, but, in answer to questions about the Christian view of homosexuality, the Bible is quite specific on the subject. There are many more quotes, but here are two:

Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."

1 ( +5 / -4 )

'That said, for me marriage should always be exclusively a marriage between a man and a woman. Homosexuality is not what god intended.'

There are plenty of verses in the Jewish and Christian scriptures which clearly outline things god doesn't approve of but Christians choose to ignore. These would include stoning adulters to death and executing unruly teenagers. Christians seem perfectly content to ignore those particular examples of what 'god intended'. Jesus told people to abandon their families, take no thought for the morrow, give everything to the poor and to cut off limbs or gouge out eyes if they cause you to sin. It seems very clear what 'god intended' but I'm sure you and others don't follow these injunctions.

I find it very suspicious when people select bits and pieces of the bible here and ignore bits and pieces of the bible there to support an argument. This is very common when the church and the subject of homosexuality comes up.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Jimizo.

Agree the church has always been selective what to include and what to leave out if the old and new testament.

Granted a church needs to be flexible to a degree to retain value and relevance, Going through Christian history is rather interesting.

Good for Ireland to have had the referendum(true democracy) and they have strong Catholic and Protestant population.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Good stuff, and remember near every US / Canadian citizen and their dog loves to be coming from Ireland. Congratulations!

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@Joe, in The Republic of Ireland, no, that is not what they'd be saying, the clue is in the nation's title. Well done to everyone involved, tolerance brings peace.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Or maybe it should be, over to you middle America. Show the world how you support the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

8 ( +9 / -1 )

@IT"S ME

Agree with all you say except for the "strong Protestant population" bit. It's less than 5% of the population; there are more aetheists....

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Big bravo for Ireland. For people who can say yes to commitment to another person. I see nothing wrong in this. A big thumbs down for those who discriminate against legislation that cannot harm them or their society. Bravo!

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Jimizo- the reason the word Homosexuality was not mentioned in the bible is that they used to use the word sodomite- the Germans were a tad offended by the use of the label.

you will shortly see a change to using the Cis lable as they are also driven by psychiatry.

When God sent his Son to die for us many of the laws in the old book were scrubbed, but if it was reiterated in the New Testament we were to follow them- not just ignore them.

If the current trend of society is that Gays Marry- let them Marry by Judge- that is the way of Caesar. If a Church decides to change the bible to meet Society - then it has lost God's way, for the church is now telling God it knows better.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

BertieWoosterMay. 24, 2015 - 04:51PM JST

This is NOT my opinion, but, in answer to questions about the Christian view of homosexuality, the Bible is quite specific on the subject. There are many more quotes, but here are two:

Leviticus 18:22: "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them."

Any so-called Christian who relies on the old testament laws is a hypocrite if they're wearing poly-cotton, or if their clothes don't have tassels on all four corners, or if they drive anywhere on Sunday, or if they eat seafood, etc., etc., etc.

Anyway, Jesus was pretty clear he considered of people who said one thing and did another: " But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in." (Matthew 23:13).

Or to put it simply, they're not Christians in Jesus' opinion. And that's pretty much the ONLY opinion in the bible that matters.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@Praack You still haven't answered my question. Why do you decide to follow the bible in regarding homosexuality as a sin but decide not to follow the teachings of Jesus in terms of giving all you have to the poor ( you bought a device capable of accessing the internet ) and amputating hands and removing eyes ( have your eyes ever looked where they shouldn't )? Do you take no thought for the morrow or are these things just too inconvenient to live by? By the way, it was man who decided they knew better than god by abolishing slavery. Were they wrong in doing this? I can't remember a single verse in the bible which says slavery should be abolished. Perhaps you know some.

I suppose picking out a few biblical verses on homosexuality and justifying your own dislike by doing so is so much easier than actually living according to the beliefs you say you follow. Isn't that called cafeteria Christianity? I'd say the Catholic Church with its cover-up of truly horrific sexual behaviour by some of its priests should actually start living closer to the teachings of the man who founded their church before passing sanctimonious judgement on the sex lives of consenting adults.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Just wondering when the homophobes will lurch out of the closet.

As for some of the comments:

The big Christian argument will start when the RC' Church refuses to marry a same sex couple in one of the empty state funded church buildings.

State funded church buildings? Schools, perhaps, but not churches. This is 2015.

Guess what ? The couple can sue the church and state for discrimination .

No they can't. There's no obligation for churches, or synagogues or mosques for that matter, in this regard.

Now that's what I call a nice bit of PaddyWhackery in putting the Church House argument in Order.

How should we read into that anti-Irish slur?

3 ( +5 / -2 )

This is not about Christianity or religion, it's about human rights. If two consenting adult want to legalise their relationship it's no one's business but their own. If you don't like same sex marriage, don't do it.

Well done Ireland, a wonderful result.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

Whatever

-10 ( +0 / -10 )

Just wondering when the homophobes will lurch out of the closet.

Glad to read you have "outed" yourself. Don't worry you're among friends

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Why does everyone keep talking as if its a Christian thing. Japan has never been Christian but still doesn't have gay marriage.

So it's got nothing to do with Leviticus, or Paul or priests. No country has had gay marriage.

People opposed to gay marriage in Japan couldn't care too hoots about what the church says.

Most people just think homosexual marriage is....weird.

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

For those who are going on and on about the tales in the bible, just take out your frustration by going out and stone an adulterer, punish those who have gotten a divorce and follow everything else in the bible. It'll make you less of a hypocrite. Society is progressing. We no longer get thrown into jail for saying the earth goes round the sun.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

gaijinpapaMay. 25, 2015 - 12:20AM JST Why does everyone keep talking as if its a Christian thing. Japan has never been Christian but still doesn't have gay marriage.

Actually Japan DID have something like gay marriage up until late Edo era - although it was more similar to adopting the person into the family rather than marriage.

The same "adult adoption" loophole existed in Japanese law up until less than a decade ago, and conferred similar tax benefits, rights and privileges as marriage.

So it's got nothing to do with Leviticus, or Paul or priests.

Yes, it really does. Wherever poisonous and false interpretations of "Christianity" spread you see this homophobia and hatred. And it isn't even real Christianity, which is actually pretty simple and accepting.

No country has had gay marriage.

Ireland, Argentina, Brazil, France, Iceland, Canada, Denmark, Luxemborg, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Uruguay, Spain, Sweden, Scotland, England, Wales....

All these countries legally allow equal marriages to LGBT individuals.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Well done to the person who corrected joeintokyo. If you can't even get simple geography right joeintokyo, you should not be commenting on issues such as this.

Ireland has come a long way from being under the power of the Catholic Church. The referendum was about giving gay people the opportunity to marry. Ireland voted yes. Get over it.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

By the way the person in the picture is known as Panti Bliss not just Panti and given the result making a lot of gay people blissfully happy (knowing they have the choice, if they even want to make that decision, to get married), it IS quite appropriate.

People who feel the need to call gay people freaks probably have issues with their own sexuality....?

Human Rights is ALWAYS an issue worth getting 'worked up' about.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@MoonrakerMAY. 24, 2015 - 08:48AM JST And now it's over to you, Japan. At least be the first in Asia.

@Ian RobertsonMAY. 24, 2015 - 09:05AM JST Excellent news; are you taking notice, Japan

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]\

Both of you don;t know Japanese custom of Mekakes. Open polygamy.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

In Japan a Gay couple one do female role is callied OtokoMekake/ Gay and lesbians in Japan has never been s big deal a boy and a girl fall in love, they ger ostracized.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Who cares what is written in some old book full of made-up nonsense? Believe what you like, but keep it to yourself and don't tell me what I can and cannot do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Most people just think homosexual marriage is....weird.

Fair enough. People do have to think of the kids being raised

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Most people just think homosexual marriage is....weird.

A gay kid in my street killed himself at 15, overwhelmed by all the people who thought he was weird.

People do have to think of the kids being raised

What exactly should we be worried about, Christopher?

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Kids being able to identify with a "mother" and "father" figure. All this agitation to legalise everything is just a slippery slope. What next? Legalisation of incest? Legalisation of paedophilia? (People are after all arguing for freedom of sexual orientation - which paedophilia undoubtedly is) Legalisation of polygamy? People will agitate that a man should be able to legally love many women. If there is anything that life teaches us, it's one thing leads to another. In Ireland the people have most certainly spoken. Just be careful what you wish for.

-8 ( +2 / -10 )

Christopher Glenn, the new legislation will give people in stable relationships equal rights and responsibilities to title, property and financial and personal matters. Linking homosexuality to incest, paedophilia and even polygamy is nonsense and has no basis in science. However the damage those activities cause are well enough recorded to offer a strong case for maintaining their illegal status. Don't fret, homosexual marriage will not be compulsory.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Kids being able to identify with a "mother" and "father" figure.

You know what's more important than a mother and a father figure? Two loving parents. Lots of mothers, and lots of fathers are absolute crap. So an absolute statement that kids would be better off with one of each of these is misplaced, since there is no guarantee that the father figure and mother figure would be good parental figures.

All this agitation to legalise everything is just a slippery slope. What next? Legalisation of incest? Legalisation of paedophilia?

Or even legalization of murder! Any other completely unrelated things that we are worried about slippery sloping to? Or shall we stay in the realm of reality for a little while?

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Most people in a homosexual relationship either chose the male or female role.

And I fully agree that mother and father roles are not depending on sex as there are many great stay at-home dads where the mother works.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Same sex marriage being legalised has nothing to do with becoming a parent. Nor do I buy the old slippery slope' fear mongering that comes with any kind of human rights legislation. The same objections were used by those who disagreed with women getting the vote.

The world hasn't ended in countries where same sex marriage is legal.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

And I fully agree that mother and father roles are not depending on sex as there are many great stay at-home dads where the mother works.

What does working responsibilities have to do with it?

The world hasn't ended in countries where same sex marriage is legal.

No, but has it gotten any better? This government sponsored sociologist has some interesting info to say. I found this in a somewhat left wing publication. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9908951/Gay-marriage-will-destabilise-family-life-sociologist-warns.html

Two loving parents. Lots of mothers, and lots of fathers are absolute crap.

As the link shows, it isn't.

Linking homosexuality to incest, paedophilia and even polygamy is nonsense and has no basis in science

I did not do that. Once one group gets what they want, the others will follow. Thus it has been thoughout history. In this case, it's leading to the erosion of anything resembling "moral". Hence a somewhat slippery slope.

Or shall we stay in the realm of reality for a little while?

By all means return to it

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Glen.

You mistake I think Mother and Father for Models/Roles that can even come from outsiders.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"I did not do that. Once one group gets what they want, the others will follow. Thus it has been thoughout history. In this case, it's leading to the erosion of anything resembling "moral". "

Well you did do that and continue to do. I don't see how the State providing legal status and equality to stable personal relationships is anything other than moral. You argument around sexual orientation (your link, not mine) is a red herring and simply erroneous There is no slippery slope, paedophilia et al are demonstrably extreme and harmful activities unconnected to homosexuality.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

**No, but has it gotten any better? This government sponsored sociologist has some interesting info to say. I found this in a somewhat left wing publication. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9908951/Gay-marriage-will-destabilise-family-life-sociologist-warns.html

I would check your sources before posting them. Dr Patricia Morgan may have been advising the previous Government (who ignored her and went ahead with the Bill to legalise same-sex marriage) and she has written extensively about how terrible things like co-habitation and homosexuality are using quotes from small studies. What the article you posted doesn't say is the Dr Morgan is a committed Christian and most of her articles are taken with a pinch of salt by the non-religious. The item also fails to note many other Governemnt advisors saw no problems with same sex marriage. It's called cherry picking.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

No, but has it gotten any better?

Yes, they are not discriminating against homosexuals anymore in these countries. It's gotten much better.

Lots of mothers, and lots of fathers are absolute crap.

As the link shows, it isn't.

You're trying to argue that lots of mothers and lots of fathers aren't crap? Yeah, right.

Once one group gets what they want, the others will follow.

Each group has to prove on its own that whatever it wants is not against the public good. You won't find many people agreeing with that on paedophelia. You won't find many supporters for incest either.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

"I did not do that. Once one group gets what they want, the others will follow. Thus it has been thoughout history. In this case, it's leading to the erosion of anything resembling "moral". "

Well you did do that and continue to do. I don't see how the State providing legal status and equality to stable personal relationships is anything other than moral. You argument around sexual orientation (your link, not mine) is a red herring and simply erroneous There is no slippery slope, paedophilia et al are demonstrably extreme and harmful activities unconnected to homosexuality.

We shall agree to disagree about "harmful".

I see you didn't read the link I provided. Rather good actually. The Daily Telegraph is a fairly liberal rag. As this thread seems to be rather one sided I'm happy to be the "devil's advocate" as it were. Again, with Ireland in mind, be careful what you wish for

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

The Daily Telegraph is not a liberal newspaper in any sense. The owners would be quite offended that you think otherwise.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Congratulations to the people of Ireland! A huge leap forward in attaining equal human rights.

"Homosexuality is not what god intended."

Try telling that to god's most senior advocates, the gay cardinals in the Vatican, including the many who have committed sexual acts with underage boys.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

What Elizabeth Heath said re the paper. Re "harmful" no, we won't agree to disagree. The science is there to demonstrate it. That you think the world is going to hell in a hand basket and Ireland is about to introduce some sort of 'doorway legislation' is your subjective opinion. And it's wrong.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

The Daily Telegraph is a fairly liberal rag.

Rag it certainly isn't - it's a top quality read and intelligent, if very old school Conservative.

Thankfully not everyone on the right is in thrall to Rupert Murdoch, or as thick as a brick.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I'm an Irish citizen who returned to Ireland from Japan 3 months ago.

I proudly voted YES in this referendum.

I hope that the result will prompt other countries to believe they can fight this fight too.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Women's Rights next please!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

2 Good Bad Elizabeth HeathMAY. 25, 2015 - 10:18PM JST The Daily Telegraph is not a liberal newspaper in any sense. The owners would be quite offended that you think otherwise.

Well it's certainly not right wing either. (It has pleaded the case of rehabilitation for criminals numerous times)

What Elizabeth Heath said re the paper. Re "harmful" no, we won't agree to disagree. The science is there to demonstrate it. That you think the world is going to hell in a hand basket and Ireland is about to introduce some sort of 'doorway legislation' is your subjective opinion. And it's wrong.

What's wrong is willynilly legislation of every conceivable thing. I am not a home phobe but neither am I a homophile. Homosexual and lesbian people already have the freedom to practice their sexual orientation without fear. Plenty of people in the world would give their right arm for such freedoms. Marriage is a sanctified agreement between a man and a woman. People who are forcing this issue without allowing others to follow their own conscience, throwing slurs and other insults at those who disagree. They are the ones in the wrong

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

Wikipedia on the Telegraph:

The Daily Telegraph has been politically conservative in modern times.[26] The personal links between the paper's editors and the leadership of the Conservative Party, along with the paper's generally right wing stance and influence over Conservative activists, have resulted in the paper commonly being referred to, especially in Private Eye, as the Torygraph.[26] Even when Conservative support was shown to have slumped ... the newspaper remained loyal to the Conservatives.

But I guess it's bleeding heart liberal compared to these real conservatives:

http://www.ranker.com/list/top-10-anti-gay-activists-caught-being-gay/joanne?page=3

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I myself prefer media roughly around the centre: the point of that article was to illustrate what a British government sponsored sociologist had to say on the subject of gay marriage. Everyone's entitled to their say on this, as am I.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

Christopher Glenn, this has not been forced on the Irish people, it has been agreed. No one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do. The overwhelming majority of the nation, who in the main are believers, see no problem with the sanctity of the relationship. That you would prefer to see a significant group of people live their lives in inequality speaks volumes. Homophobe, homophile or just plain indifferent, look to your heart and ask yourself how much damage this does to you and yours.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

What's wrong is willynilly legislation of every conceivable thing.

Grouping a human rights issue with 'every conceivable thing' is pretty ridiculous. It's not like people are trying to legalize murder or pedophilia, they are trying to get homosexuals the same rights that heterosexuals have.

I am not a home phobe but neither am I a homophile.

If you're against gay marriage, you are a homophobe, whether you want to admit it or not.

Homosexual and lesbian people already have the freedom to practice their sexual orientation without fear. Plenty of people in the world would give their right arm for such freedoms.

And they are only asking to have the same rights as the rest of us - to spend the rest of their lives with the person they love, in a manner that is supported equal to the support that heterosexuals receive. You are saying 'they've got enough'. Well what if you were denied the right to marry the woman you love, because someone else thought it was offensive. Do you really thing you'd be satisfied with the fact that you were allowed to practice your sexual orientation? Do you think that people telling you 'you can be heterosexual without worry' would make you feel better about the fact that those same people were saying '...but you can't get married, as that's an abomination'? No, you wouldn't. Or if you think you would, then you have a serious lack of empathy.

Marriage is a sanctified agreement between a man and a woman.

Voting used to be a right for white males only. At that time someone could easily have said 'voting is a sanctified agreement between white men and their government'. Does that mean we should have never let women or black people vote? Just because something 'is', doesn't mean that it 'should be'.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

If you're against gay marriage, you are a homophobe, whether you want to admit it or not.

I'm afraid that these gay gentlemen would disagree with you http://morningmail.org/gay-marriage-irish-referendum/ http://www.wnd.com/2015/05/gays-oppose-same-sex-marriage-before-irish-vote/ http://australianmarriage.org/powerful-video-gay-men-against-gay-marriage/ http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/05/18/gay-lads-for-no/

Perhaps you can take up your arguments with Mr Mills and Mr Manning. They are fairly qualified to answer your concerns.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

They are homophobes as well then.

And thanks, but I'll talk to pretty much every other gay person on the planet first thanks.

I hope you don't feel that finding an exception to the rule invalidates the rule? That would be a major failure in logic.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Well there are links to all sorts of websites, if there has been political intimidation I hope it gets dealt with. If you're just concerned that people get passionate about issues that affect them, grow up, that's politics.

I for one hope everyone that gets married, enters a civil partnership or or just cohabits with their loved one treats than as a partner.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Mr Manning and Mr Mills are homophobes? Interesting. Personally I think "civil partnership" would be a more diplomatic word to use, and more acceptable for all parties. In fact that's what Mr Manning and Mr Mills, of Ireland, advised.

talk to pretty much every other gay person on the planet first thanks.

I imagine a lot of time will be involved. Keep me updated. These Irish gentlemen show that there is two sides to every coin.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Mr Manning and Mr Mills are homophobes?

If you are against equal rights based on sexuality, then yes, you are a homophobe.

Personally I think "civil partnership" would be a more diplomatic word to use, and more acceptable for all parties.

No, it's not more acceptable. It's saying 'you're different, so you don't deserve the right to use the same language as us'. Frankly, it's insulting. It's the homophobic equivalent to saying 'you black people can ride the same bus, you just have to sit at the back. That's more diplomatic, and acceptable for all parties'.

I imagine a lot of time will be involved. Keep me updated. These Irish gentlemen show that there is two sides to every coin.

No, they show that there will always be a small minority on the opposite side of anything. They are the small minority you can safely discount.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Wow, that was fast. I think we shall agree to disagree on what constitutes a homophobe - as these two Irish gentlemen have different ideas about the matter. It sort of muddies the waters a little. I don't subscribe to this "if you're not with us, you're against us mentality". I prefer the middle road

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

I think we shall agree to disagree on what constitutes a homophobe

I'm not agreeing with you at all - I'm telling you that you are entirely wrong. Anyone who denies equal human rights based on sexuality is a homophobe, whether you want to disagree or not. If you say you want to disagree that green is green, and actually green is red, I'm not going to agree to disagree, I'm going to point out that you are wrong, and there is something wrong with your eyes.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

1 Good Bad StrangerlandMAY. 26, 2015 - 04:53PM JST I think we shall agree to disagree on what constitutes a homophobe

I'm not agreeing with you at all - I'm telling you that you are entirely wrong. Anyone who denies equal human rights based on sexuality is a homophobe, whether you want to disagree or not. If you say you want to disagree that green is green, and actually green is red, I'm not going to agree to disagree, I'm going to point out that you are wrong, and there is something wrong with your eyes.

Thank you for reinforcing my point about freedom of opinion, which is what this thread is about. We shall agree to disagree. A very balanced perspective from Mr Manning and Mr Mills

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Thank you for reinforcing my point about freedom of opinion

People have the right to hold racist, bigoted, and/or homophobic opinions. Same as I have the right to hold the opinion that they are messed up with their beliefs. And I'm not afraid to tell them so.

which is what this thread is about.

No, this thread is about the people of Ireland making the right decision to treat their homosexuals like human beings, instead of lesser animals.

We shall agree to disagree.

No, we shall not. I'm telling you that you are wrong. I'm not agreeing with you on anything.

A very balanced perspective from Mr Manning and Mr Mills

Homophobia is not balanced, even if it's worded to appear as if it is.

I notice you avoided my questions asking how you would feel if you were told as a heterosexual that you weren't allowed the same rights as others, but that you should be happy because you were allowed to be heterosexual. That's the most telling thing in this thread - your unwillingness to face the truth.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

2 Good Bad StrangerlandMAY. 26, 2015 - 05:08PM JST Thank you for reinforcing my point about freedom of opinion

People have the right to hold racist, bigoted, and/or homophobic opinions. Same as I have the right to hold the opinion that they are messed up with their bel

Bully for you. As for me I will hold to what I've been taught since childhood, the sanctity of marriage. And I see no reason why people should be abused and branded homophobic for standing up for it. "Homophobic" would be Saudi Arabia, which executes homosexuals. Homophobic would be 1940s England which drove Alan Turing to suicide. As for Ireland, a segment of the population has undeniably spoken - and intimidation into voting yes certainly played a part. Will this change my stance? Not in the slightest

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

the sanctity of marriage.

This is simply a speaking point people use to justify their homophobia. If you think that two people of the same sex getting married is going to have an impact on the quality (or lack thereof) of your own marriage, then you have some serious problems in your marriage.

I see no reason why people should be abused and branded homophobic for standing up for it.

You're branded homophobic because you're speaking in a homophobic manner. If you don't want to be branded homophobic, then don't be homophobic. It's a pretty simple solution.

"Homophobic" would be Saudi Arabia, which executes homosexuals. Homophobic would be 1940s England which drove Alan Turing to suicide.

On top of the above examples, homophobic is preventing two people who love each other from getting married based purely on their sexuality.

And you still haven't answered the question - how would you feel being told you couldn't marry the person you love, and that you should be ok with that because you are allowed to 'practice' your sexuality?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

This is simply a speaking point people use to justify their homophobia. If you think that two people of the same sex getting married is going to have an impact on the quality (or lack thereof) of your own marriage, then you have some serious problems in your marriage.

I'm not concerned about the present. I'm concerned about the future. As for gays having the right to marry, how will that play out with the people who get to marry them? Will they be branded homophobic for following their conscience, or will they be compelled by legal means. There is such a thing as equal rights, for women, for race etc. And there is such a thing as freedom of conscience.

And you still haven't answered the question - how would you feel being told you couldn't marry the person you love, and that you should be ok with that because you are allowed to 'practice' your sexuality?

I would say take "kids" into consideration with that one. It might seem all well and good for some, but you have to think of giving them every chance to have a normal life. Rather interesting link http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/8/gay-couples-children-oppose-same-sex-marriage-tell/?page=all As always, it cuts both ways.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

As for gays having the right to marry, how will that play out with the people who get to marry them? Will they be branded homophobic for following their conscience, or will they be compelled by legal means. There is such a thing as equal rights, for women, for race etc. And there is such a thing as freedom of conscience.

If they are homophobic, they will be branded homophobic. As to whether or not they can be excused for following their (lack of) conscience, that's a separate issue as to whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

Do you think it's alright for businesses to not serve black people or women, simply because the owners don't feel that black people or women should have the right to go to their business? Remember, this is what a lot of Muslims want, are you ok with helping support Sharia law in order to further your homophobic beliefs?

I would say take "kids" into consideration with that one. It might seem all well and good for some, but you have to think of giving them every chance to have a normal life.

Kids don't get those odds with heterosexual parents, why should it be different for gay people?

And besides, all the studies by real scientists have shown that kids of homosexual parents generally do better.

No are you going to answer the question? Would you be ok with not being able to marry the person you love, and being told you should be ok with that since you are allowed to practice your sexuality? You have dodged the question multiple times, one can only surmise that it's because you don't like the fact that the answer points a big mirror in your face.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

"Well done to the person who corrected joeintokyo."

Corrected me? Seems to me like anyone who takes silly jokes too seriously is probably not Irish.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

If they are homophobic, they will be branded homophobic

Remember, this is what a lot of Muslims want, are you ok with helping support Sharia law in order to further your homophobic beliefs?

Shifting the goalposts. As before, we will agree to disagree

one can only surmise that it's because you don't like the fact that the answer points a big mirror in your face.

Be my guest

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Shifting the goalposts.

It's not shifting the goalposts at all. I've pointed out how your desire for a religious exemption allowing for homophobic actions is the same as a religious exemption allowing for misogyny or for racism. The fact that you don't like the comparison just shows that your homophobia isn't as clean and nice as you would like it to be.

As before, we will agree to disagree

We have never agreed on this. I've only told you that you are wrong, and will continue to do so.

Be my guest

And you still haven't answered the question. Would you be ok with being told you were not allowed to marry the person you love, and that you should be happy because you are allowed to practice your sexuality?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Christopher Glenn, it was the attitude you are displaying, prevelant at the time, that drove Alan Turing and countless others to take their own lives. Disallowing people a normal life as you seem to advocate, is oppression. You seem to be in denial, however the fact is many societies have now come to accept diversity. That is a high moral standpoint and one to be defended. It's an advancement of marriage as an institution, not an attack on it.

4 ( +4 / -1 )

As for gays having the right to marry, how will that play out with the people who get to marry them?

Just to clarify, I was referring to wedding celebrants (at future gay weddings in Ireland) Peace

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

You still didn't answer the question.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

And you still haven't answered the question. Would you be ok with being told you were not allowed to marry the person you love, and that you should be happy because you are allowed to practice your sexuality?

I'm happy because I will never be in a position where I'll have to answer it. (I feel sorry for those arranged marriages in India) As for my sexuality, I'm pretty normal.

-7 ( +0 / -7 )

And you still didn't answer the question.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

That ends discussion on this point. Readers are not obliged to answer your question.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I feel a need to address the above long, drawn out tit for tat dialogue between those two above, if not only to change the angle so as to affectuate a moving on of sorts...

the sanctuary of the womb or sanctity of mariage, we agree that intimacy is first and foremost when it comes to lifetime partnering, eh? Well without children- as the joyous payoff to loving commitment- with a fair dose of the accompagning pain and suffering- you just can't call yourself devoted )devil ad.) devoted to child rearing, giving up your freedom and time for those rug rats...

well, unfortunately some people have a negative image of promiscuity in general that warps big time when they start to imagine non-hete..well it is a clear prejudice, despite what can be said about wild lifestyles or wild personas or stickin it to mr. conservative or trying to be a lady ( but oh for ever why??). don't need to go on. The issue with rights to marriage is on those religious lines, identifying historical images of the family and society by extension...

simple rebuttal is that some couples DONT ever wish to have children, whether they can bear them or not, and some couples dont care for the blessing from God or a god. Sanctity is therefore a concept limited to the minds/hearts and the walls of the religious and those sanctuaries, right? Adoption has always been a civil thing, no? therefore in my book, Glen may be misguided and i recommend silence...

Strangeland is almost my hero...for his/her clear and relentless argumentation. thanks

BTW i am me and i live common law with two kids...a marriage ceremony would be a fun thing to do...bless my Irish veins! Grandma would be vehemently preturbed, bless her soul...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Again, as somebody who witnessed the campaign, the slurs and scaremongering came from the No campaigners, who tried to make the debate about anything but gay marriage.

Surrogacy, adoption, tax, even consummation, you name it, they used it to misinform.

And when they were called on their lies, they cried 'intimidation'.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

“Today Ireland has made history—the first country in the world to vote for equal marriage,” - Prime Minister Enda Kenny told reporters

In the end, it is all too tedious. If you love your mate, hurrah! If you make something of value in that bond, hurrah 2x.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

therefore in my book, Glen may be misguided and i recommend silence...

Silence because I disagree? Like it or not, I am entitled to my opinion and I am by no means alone in it

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

19th country to legalize gay marriage, when there are 195 countries in the world. It gives a sense of how much this whole lgbt movement is related to anglo-saxon sphere of cultural influence.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Legalisation of polygamy? People will agitate that a man should be able to legally love many women.

Why not? The same tales from which you derive the sanctity of marriage were totally okay with this.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Christopher Glen. Yes you have an opinion, but your fighting a losing battle. Soon, this generation or next, your narrow-minded "opinion", and those (the few) who concur with it will wash out, and equality and love will prevail. Y

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Christopher Glen I admire you for sticking to your beliefs and principles no matter what other people think or say. That's very difficult in this day and age.

One has to step back and wonder, why in just the last 30-40 years there has been a change in the views society had toward homosexuality. Well, it's not by accident. One has to step back and look at what's really happening. The Global elites have long been planning population control for decades, and one of the ways to do that is by promoting homosexuality, (since by nature homosexual couples can't procreate.) Since the elites control the media, they control, manipulate and have been influencing people in how and what they think, say or do. And they have been doing this for decades. Basically, many people have been duped and bought into the globalists' agenda without their knowing it.

http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/01/exposing-global-effort-behind-homosexual-agenda/

http://newsflavor.com/opinions/population-control-programs-in-use-by-the-us-government/

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/engel/110324

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

genjuro: The Global elites have long been planning population control for decades

I don't see why they would do that. It's not like they're going to share more in the future, or care more about how what they do share with the rest of us is divvied up.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

So in Ireland would they say "God Save the Queens?"

Extra craic.

No one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do.

Those opposed to gay marriage are being forced to subsidize spousal benefits to people they don't regard as spouses, so your statement is not factually accurate.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Everything big starts with a small step. Now it's time to see how the world will respond.

Personally, this makes me extremely happy. Just given the circumstances and then the outcome, truly, love does win.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If marriage is "...between two people, and not two people and the government...", then why do I care if they get their marriages recognized by the government or not? The fact is, marriage is all about legal contracts, unions made in front of witnesses, and the government. They obviously aren't fighting to get PEOPLE to recognize their union because people seem to be in favor of it (at least in Ireland). This absolutely is about the people vs the state. My only issue with gay relationships is that it's not what nature intended. The evolution of gender and sexual reproduction developed to further genetic diversity, greater opportunity for favorable genetic combinations in the next generation, and the survival and advancement of the species. But Kore wa kore. sore wa sore. In the world of human society, we can't force people to do what we want, and we have to let everyone be who they want to be. A very mild, but valid, argument can be made that at least some gay couples raise adopted babies (that may never otherwise have been raised by loving parents, and could hold great evolutionary potential if taken out of the foster system and allowed to flourish). I'm just surprised America wasn't the first. We parade our freedom around like a religious rosary worn around our necks, saying things like "I may not agree with it, but I'd die to protect it.". But in the end, this is their fight, not mine.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nessie at May. 31, 2015 - 08:30AM JST So in Ireland would they say "God Save the Queens?"

Extra craic.

No one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do.

Those opposed to gay marriage are being forced to subsidize spousal benefits to people they don't regard as spouses, so your statement is not factually accurate.

A fair point

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Nessie, 'Those opposed to gay marriage are being forced to subsidize spousal benefits to people they don't regard as spouses'.

The tax credits available to married couples are no different from those available to civil partners. Nothing changes. Of course people are forced to pay their taxes but again nothing changes there. So whilst your point is technically correct, there is no impact from the referendum. Whether some people don't regard others as spouses is irrelevant, the country has made its mind up and they will now be recognised as such.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I will leave you all with this thought: "a lie doesn't become truth, wrong doesn't become right and evil doesn't become good just because it's accepted by a majority". I have no regrets about what I believe

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

That statement is entirely correct - but it is incomplete. It should be:

"a lie doesn't become truth, wrong doesn't become right and evil doesn't become good just because it's accepted by a majority". But on the other hand just because the majority believes something doesn't automatically mean it's false, wrong, or evil."

In this case, homosexual marriage is neither wrong, nor is it evil. What is wrong and evil is denying rights to others one wants for one's self, based purely on sexuality.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What is wrong and evil is denying rights to others one wants for one's self, based purely on sexuality.

We will agree to disagree on that point. You can quibble all you like about the wording - we will find no agreement on this issue

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

We will agree to disagree on that point.

You can do whatever you want, but you don't speak for me. I'm not agreeing with you on anything. I'm pointing out how you are wrong in your beliefs. The litmus test being that you want these rights for yourself, and are not willing to have them for others based purely on their sexuality.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I'm not agreeing with you on anything. I'm pointing out how you are wrong in your beliefs.

Neither am I. I'm pointing out how wrong you are in your beliefs. All people are equal - yes. But ultimately marriage is an institution for a man and a woman. Gays and lesbians already have plenty of freedom to pursue their sexuality, and have the option of civil partnerships. The words "I pronounce you husband and husband", have no weight for me. So again, because lots of people are pro-LGBT doesn't mean it's right

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I'm pointing out how wrong you are in your beliefs.

I'm saying bigotry is wrong. You are saying I'm wrong. Therefore you are saying that bigotry is correct and ok. That's your right to hold that belief, but personally, even if I was a bigot, I'd be embarrassed to admit that in public.

All people are equal - yes.

You say that, but then you go on to advocate for discrimination against certain people. So I think the more correct statement for you would be "all people are equal, except those who are a little less equal".

ultimately marriage is an institution for a man and a woman

No, it's not. There are plenty of married homosexuals all over the world.

Gays and lesbians already have plenty of freedom to pursue their sexuality, and have the option of civil partnerships.

And now we are back to "you can already be what you are, you should be happy with that, without expecting to be treated like the rest of us". Sorry, but I can't agree with a bigoted stance like that.

So again, because lots of people are pro-LGBT doesn't mean it's right

You're right. It's not right because lots of people are pro-LGBT. Homosexual marriage is right, because denying equal rights based on sexuality is wrong. That would be true whether one person was pro-LGBT or 7 billion were so.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Readers, please be tolerant of opposing views.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Basically, your whole argument comes down to "someone once told me marriage is between a man and a woman, and therefore it's not right that homosexuals should be allowed to marry".

Again, jumping to assumptions. It's what I've believed my whole life, and what I've been taught. I've also looked at the gay side of things, and found what they are demanding is not what marriage should be (And I've attended plenty of weddings in my life) Marriage is designed for a woman to match the man, as equals. It's designed for a mother and father to be parents to their child. I would go further and say love in the purest sense of the word - is between a man and a woman. Anything else is wrong, just as it is wrong for a father to marry his daughter, or to have multiple wives. Claim that incest activists are unrelated all you want. This success of one group at acheiving legalisation just emboldens the next. Incest and polygamy advocates will look at the success of LGBT legislation in western countries, and argue that to deny them the same rights is discrimination. Why, if people of the same sex can marry, can a man not have many wives? (And there is a precedent in history for this) So again, one thing invariably leads to another. Legalising gay marriage is really opening a pandora's box.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Basically, your whole argument comes down to "someone once told me marriage is between a man and a woman, and therefore it's not right that homosexuals should be allowed to marry".

Again, jumping to assumptions. It's what I've believed my whole life, and what I've been taught.

Yes, that's exactly what I said in the text you quoted.

I've also looked at the gay side of things, and found what they are demanding is not what marriage should be

And what you think a marriage should be is what you were told - again, exactly what I said in the text you quoted.

Marriage is designed for a woman to match the man, as equals.

Who designed that? When and where? Because what you say is not correct in many areas of the world. In Islam, the woman is not the equal of the man. For that matter, and I may be incorrect here, it's not even true in Shinto here in Japan.

It's designed for a mother and father to be parents to their child.

So are heterosexual couples that decide not to have children not in valid marriages? Or conversely, does this not mean that homosexual marriages with children are then in fact validated since they fit your definition of marriage?

I would go further and say love in the purest sense of the word - is between a man and a woman.

Is it now? The purest love I know is between my son and myself. Or did you mean between couples? Is that different love then? Please define love, so that we can know exactly how to judge whether or not it is pure.

Claim that incest activists are unrelated all you want.

Ok: they are entirely unrelated.

This success of one group at acheiving legalisation just emboldens the next.

Yes, kind of how like the success of women at getting the vote emboldened black people (or was it vice-versa?).

The fallacy in your argument is that you are determining all things to be bad, rather than judging them on their own merit.

If you think that people are going to suddenly say it's ok for fathers to marry their children, simply because we've allowed homosexuals to marry, you are sadly mistaken. People will evaluate each issue on its own merits, same as we did for black people, same as we did for women, and same as we are doing for homosexuals.

Why, if people of the same sex can marry, can a man not have many wives?

In Islam, a man is allowed to have multiple wives, so I'm not sure why you think this can't happen.

Legalising gay marriage is really opening a pandora's box.

You're right! We never should have emancipated the slaves. Look what it's led to. Women voting, homosexuals wanting rights. The world was perfect 150 years ago, we never should have changed anything.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

In Islam, the woman is not the equal of the man.

Well, happily I believe that to be the case. I also don't hold the extreme view towards homosexuality that Islam does.Moderation is always the key.

You're right! We never should have emancipated the slaves. Look what it's led to. Women voting, homosexuals wanting rights. The world was perfect 150 years ago, we never should have changed anything

Not talking about racial equality.

The world was perfect 150 years ago, we never should have changed anything.

If you say so. Why are you so adamant about LGBT issues then?

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Well, happily I believe that to be the case. I also don't hold the extreme view towards homosexuality that Islam does.

That's fine, neither do I. But the fact is, their marriages are just as much marriages as any other marriage. So your definitions of marriage do not fit the existing definitions of marriage. Therefore, trying to restrict equal rights to homosexuals because it doesn't fit your definition of marriage is ignoring the fact that many marriages in this world don't fit your definition of marriage.

Not talking about racial equality.

No, you're talking about slippery slopes. My example was to point out how sometimes slippery slopes can be a good thing, because they bring us to a better place as humanity, not worse.

If you say so. Why are you so adamant about LGBT issues then?

Of course I was being sarcastic. 150 years ago, the world had a lot of messed up ideas. We have improved since then, which required tolerance among the bigoted. I'm pointing out how your ideas of discrimination are outdated, and that by dropping them, we will move forward to be a better race than we are now. The point being that just because something is one way now, does not mean that it is right now.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit". Oscar Wilde.

Well I totally disagree with your humanistic viewpoints. Removing this important moral pillar from our lives will just lead to further deterioration of the standards by which we live. Provide all the links you want, I will match them.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites