Cabinet to discuss same-sex marriages

[madura]

Religion is mere superstition and should not come into the debate on gay-marriage. Our moral compass is not dependent on belief in a deity, but rather on evolution which is what actually frames broad concepts of right and wrong on matters like these. From what I can see, homosexuality is evolutions method of population-control, and is no less worthy of recognition as a legitimate sexual-orientation than heterosexualism.

This is the kind of talk that gives a push to creationist fundies. (I am a Christian but I disagree wioth those fundies).

Evolution is not a basis for a moral compass. it is a scientific theory. A well accepted theory, too. But it was never intended to be used they way you use it! It would be just as "proper" to base a moral compass on nuclear physics.

In the general thread, what I don't understand is why gays would even want marriage as it is defined in Ireland. A 4 year separation period before divorce?!

Genetic evolution is a fact.

The term "evolution" does not just apply to genetics however. I think FT was talking about memetics - the way information is passed from mind to mind. Religion is one meme which has had a lot of nfluence over our moral compass, but the religious meme has been waning for decades and a lot of our thinking is no longer informed by it. I see no problem in a secular progressive meme. As is evidenced in this thread, religious thinking (a wonderful oximoran) is not helpful in these debates.

And, gay people want marriage for the same reasons that hetrosexual people want marriage.

Which are what exactly? Though I'm heterosexual myself, I haven't got any pat formulation to hand.

Bit of a fan of Dawkins, are you?

[secularireland]

Which is what exactly? Though I'm heterosexual myself, I haven't got any pat formulation to hand.
Bit of a fan of Dawkins, are you?

I don't think a discussion on biological pattern formulation is the thing for this debate. :wink:

Fan of Dawkins - guilty as charged.

[stringjack]

[quote=White Horse]

As for your silly comment about the Old Testament and infallibility, do you not now that only the Gospels are considered the Word Of God in Christianity.

I only tell you these things out of pity for your ignorance. I would be embarassed to enagage in discussion on a topic I know so little about.

Matthew 5:17-20.

And?[/quote:2m4bwrr3]

And the Gospels endorse the content of the Old Testament. Also, what Gunnungagap said.

I think FT was talking about memetics - the way information is passed from mind to mind.

[secularireland]

[quote=stringjack]

As for your silly comment about the Old Testament and infallibility, do you not now that only the Gospels are considered the Word Of God in Christianity.

I only tell you these things out of pity for your ignorance. I would be embarassed to enagage in discussion on a topic I know so little about.

Matthew 5:17-20.

And?

And the Gospels endorse the content of the Old Testament. Also, what Gunnungagap said.

I think FT was talking about memetics - the way information is passed from mind to mind.

[/quote:1tfhqodp]

mmmm....over-simplification

information in an individual's memory, which can be copied to another individual's memory.

[stringjack]

information in an individual's memory, which can be copied to another individual's memory.

Excepting those poor souls who appear to be read-only.

[FutureTaoiseach]

Full civil partnership (as opposed to the more limited type for non-marital opposite-sex couples) appears to provide all the benefits (including adoption) and restrictions (eg 4 year wait for dissloution) as marriage. If equality has been achieved in substance, why fall out over form?

I get what you're saying but calling it marriage would help emphasise that the State considers homosexual relationships to be equally valid and that's why it has to be called marriage, though civil-unions would be a major step forwards.

That is like women arguing that is order to achieve equality, they will hereto be called men and not women.

No it isn't.