It's out of touch with what most people now think in ROI, hence why it's legal.

Edited by titlechance (25 May 2015 3.20pm)

There's a marryyourpet.com. Says it all really.

No sh!t Sherlock. I think I might have even pointed that fact out myself.
It's the out of touch part I don't get.
Your saying what most people think, does that make it right, or trendy or fashionable or...... what??

You should check out Islamic countries.

It doesn't make it right or wrong just legal.

You hold a minority view now. Whenever you're unlucky enough to meet someone as intolerant as yourself, you'll get treated just like the minorities you dislike have been. What goes around...

Edited by titlechance (25 May 2015 7.03pm)

Minority view, how do you work that one out. Because about 60% of the people that actually bothered to vote, in Ireland, voted for gay marriage. I doubt the whole country voted, and Ireland is a very small part of the world.
Still, all because you think I'm in the minority, should I not be allowed to have an opinion, or a view that is different to yours.
Whatever makes you assume I am intolerant.
And I'll get treated like what minorities I dislike.....!??!?! According to you, I'm the minority. Also please note, I haven't once said I dislike any group of people, nevermind numerous groups. I just think the whole gay marriage thing is wrong.

Is the "what goes around" a question, or the start of a joke?

The majority of the world's population is intolerant then?
Or are they just uneducated? Or maybe culturally dissimilar (that sounds quite nice!)?

The point is that if you make these majority/minority points of argument then you're not really getting anywhere.
Both sides of the argument can get into "I'm more righteous than you and your views" territory.

Demonising others because of their opposing views is intolerant in and of itself. Some people (not necessarily you) think that everyone who doesn't support gay marriage has to be homophobic. That kind of stance makes someone like me feel uncomfortable and unacceptable to some others.
What people should have is an opposition to people's fundamental views, not a person themselves or their rationale/right to believe in something. In many cases beliefs on gay marriage do not have homophobic bases.

I ain't got nuthin' funny to say. Sorry.

Dunno if he is ... I reckon if he waved his finger at you, you 'd jump right on it!!!!!!

Sorry, but I asked you what makes you think I'm intolerant, what minorities I disliked, what did the whole "what goes around" comment mean.

You have completely blanked this.

My comparison between gay marriages and others is merely my (some might say"poor" attempt to highlight how cheap and unworthy the term/legality of the word marriage has now become. And me asking, where exactly do we draw the line on who should get married?

I have gay friends, shock horror.

I also have gay friends who do not believe in gay marriage, check that sh!t out.

Pushing the boundaries is not always a good thing.

But then who decides what is deemed good!?

The church, should, most definitely not, have to accept this new "law", if it is not something they "preach".
It makes it even more bullsh!t, than the bullsh!t they preach.

I don't really care much about this gay marriage thing, but find society's fetishization of it a bit weird.

Seems self-evident to me that the origins of marriage lie in benefiting society by: providing children with a secure environment, providing certainty about the paternity of children. None of that is very relevant to homosexuals.

The earliest law code was written by Hamurappi, thousands of years ago in the Middle East. Despite Hamurappi being a practicing bisexual in law code marriage was a heterosexual institution. You have to wonder why, don't you?

I think what's going on here is not society becoming increasingly 'enlightened'. It's that we've had technological changes (e.g. the pill, test tube babies, etc.), and ideological changes (e.g. third wave feminism).

I'm all for homosexuals having the same rights as heterosexuals - i.e. freedom to practice their sexuality, have their relationships legally recognized, equal access to all social benefits, health services, etc.

New Zealand recognized gay civil unions years before it recognized gay marriage, and personally I think the 'civil union' versus 'marriage' distinction makes some sense.

At the end of the day, a gay marriage is not exactly what a marriage has traditionally been (i.e. the parties involved in a gay marriage aren't going to be producing new humans), so I'm not sure calling it a marriage makes complete sense. No question that this is a redefinition of marriage.

Marriage is a man made concept so it's only fair it should only involve men. In fact, think of all the housing stock that would be freed up if women were banned from it totally.

We should hold a referendum.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]