voxUnius,

We can all be thankful for "John Joly FRS (1 November 1857 – 8 December 1933)[who] was an Irish physicist, famous for his development of radiotherapy in the treatment of cancer. He is also known for developing techniques to accurately estimate the age of a geological period, based on radioactive elements present in minerals." (Wikipedia).

One of many notable Irish persons, and be thankful, if you rent, that you live under Irish derived law and not British law.

Old Man

thankyou, you are wiser than you realise.

Old Man

Why should an atheist be expected to oppose gay marriage? I am a Christian, and I support it, as do most Christians I know (in admittedly rather liberal Anglican circles).

Re monogamy – the nexus between child-raising and marriage has long been broken. We can have sex without having kids, and even have kids without having sex. Being a sole parent is no longer a guarantee of destitution and social ostracism. Marriage is neither necessary nor sufficient to raise a child successfully; lots of stable loving couples don't bother marrying. Many married couples choose to have no children. Nor is marriage a guarantee of monogamy.

The nuclear family as we understand it is quite a recent phenomenon. Extended family groups were much more common until recently, and in many places still are.

There is no reason why allowing gay marriage should be a step on the road to polygamy.

Marriage is an important social institution, but its form is not governed by immutable laws of nature. It varies between cultures and has changed over time, and can change again.

' Mate, it is fitting that sodomy does not apply to priests - as their Good Works absolves them.'

strangely enough plantagenet a more accurate position is the earth worshippers doctrine

' is fitting that sodomy does not apply to secularist - as their Good Works absolves them.' First and foremost they bow to mother earth and preach the warmist doctrines.

anyway I dare say many countries (gleeing in their regressive family destroying doctrines) are likely to go back to the 6th century at the rate they are going. Especially Europe. And of course we know how tolerant the bedfellows of secularism (Islam) is towards homosexual acts.

Homosexuality is a normal part of the range of human sexuality and has nothing whatever to do with heterosexual marriage or reproduction.

Flamboyant, exhibitionist homsexuality of the sort that most exercises those of small mind and poorly calibrated moral compasses is a tiny subset of the homosexual population. The vast majority of homosexual men and women go completely unnoticed by the rest of the world, despite the prurient interest of the small subset of heterosexual nincompoops who infest the more rat-eaten church pews and vestries (and apparently, quite mystifyingly, the occasional medical clinic).

If good people who happen to love people of their own gender want to show that love by signing a marriage contract, then I say more power to them. It's gotta be better than the miserable, loveless horror of having to wake up in the same house as the likes of Runner every day.

Every time this topic comes up on OLO, I read through the comments looking to finally see a sound, rational and evidence-based argument against same-sex marriage, and every time I'm disappointed.

The entire article is naive from a developmental-psychological perspective and Is Mise is here nit-picking over the numbers in the vote with the pretense of being concerned with facts; Leo Lane makes a whole bunch of assertions without providing any reasoning to support them, and then chastises James O'Neill for apparently doing something similar; Old Man has listed three historically and sociologically naive arguments not supported by the evidence, and then finishes with the slippery slope fallacy for good measure; and runner, well, he's just runner, and is still on track to being the only person on OLO to have never said anything that was in the slightest bit accurate.

I hope I haven't missed anyone.