Gay Marriage (same-sex civil partnerships) ahoy!

samb

Is anyone against gay marriage, and if so why?

I think this could be a good thread. I'll watch my language.

lili

i'm for people do what they want if that doesn't affect my own life. what's the prob frankly? if they love each other, who i am for decide what they have to do of their lives?

BuffyBot

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054858959

rsynnott

Bear in mind the civil partnership and civil marriage are not quite the same things. NI will have civil partnership, (as will Ireland, if Norris' bill goes through). A few European countries have marriage, as does Massachusetts, and South Africa's high court is forcing it to adopt marriage as well.

Maskhadov

I dont want gay marriage, but im all for same sex partnership. A seperation from the religious orders should be made.

AARRRGH

I believe everyone should have the same rights and do whatever they want to do as long as they're not hurting anyone. This does not mean I believe being gay is right. But whether I think it is right or wrong, gays should be able to do whatever I do...

rsynnott

Maskhadov wrote:

I dont want gay marriage, but im all for same sex partnership. A seperation from the religious orders should be made.

Common point of confusion; marriage is not intrinsically a religious institution, at least in this country. Civil marriage, which is marriage, is nothing to do with any church. In any case, there are religious orders (at least the Unitarians and some more liberal Jewish sects) who are willing to perform gay marriages - might as well let them do it.

dublindude wrote:

But whether I think it is right or wrong,

Surely if it's not hurting anyone it can't be wrong? Am I missing something here?

lili

Maskhadov wrote:

I dont want gay marriage, but im all for same sex partnership. A seperation from the religious orders should be made.

if god is love then i don't see why homosexuals couldn't get benediction of their love. after all, they are believers like the others.
i think that religions should take in consideration that we are in the 3rd millenaire.

AARRRGH

rsynnott wrote:

Surely if it's not hurting anyone it can't be wrong? Am I missing something here?

Indeed it's not hurting anyone. But if I believe a man putting his peepee into another mans asshole is wrong, it still wouldn't stop me from letting them have the same rights as me.

gandalf

samb wrote:

Is anyone against gay marriage, and if so why?

I think this could be a good thread. I'll watch my language.

You have 24 hours to put your own opinion in this thread as per the rules. If you don't the thread will be locked.

Maskhadov

i dont really give a hoot about religion. But the word marriage seems to be associated with region. I thought the churchs would be up in arms. Still the best of luck to them. they should have equal rights as the rest of us.

The Corinthian

I’ll make an observation, if I may. A common argument being used here in favour of homosexual unions (be they civil or otherwise) is that it does not harm those not directly involved.

This may be the case, however it seems based upon the fact that people do not see a direct and immediate effect upon their lives. As an example, tax evasion could be viewed in the same light. It does not affect people in a direct and immediate manner, however if enough people evade their taxes for long enough, then the effect will eventually be felt.

This may be the case with homosexual unions, or it may not. However arguing that it causes no harm simply because you’re not directly and immediately effected is ultimately irrelevant to whether you will be harmed or not.

rsynnott

Not a good analogy, as tax evasion does clear and demonstrable harm.

Really, I think that where rights are being denied to a certain section of society, the onus is on those who wish to continue denying those rights to show why they SHOULD be denied.

pretty*monster

I personally don't think any couple, regardless of wheather they are married, co-habbiting, joined by a civil partnership, gay, or straight, should be able to avail of tax breaks unless they have children. Since it's cheaper to live as a couple than as a single person anyway there's no reason why a childless couple should get tax breaks.

That aside, gay people should be entitled to the security of marriage, and able to avail of next of kin laws and all that jazz.

I'm a little bit wary of this civil union as opposed to civil marriage distinction. If it's only the word that's different than I think there's an implied assumption of the superiority of a straight relationship, and a very petty unwillingness to let 'them' use 'our' word. And if it's more than just the word that's different, well then the fight for equality is going to have to continue.

rsynnott

pretty*monster wrote:

I'm a little bit wary of this civil union as opposed to civil marriage distinction. If it's only the word that's different than I think there's an implied assumption of the superiority of a straight relationship, and a very petty unwillingness to let 'them' use 'our' word. And if it's more than just the word that's different, well then the fight for equality is going to have to continue.

That is, to a large extent, the case. And petty isn't the word. It's beyond belief.

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

Not a good analogy, as tax evasion does clear and demonstrable harm.

It would have been a really bad analogy if it didn’t

I was trying to give an analogy of something that does not cause immediate and direct harm, yet that would still be easily demonstrable that it causes harm.

Really, I think that where rights are being denied to a certain section of society, the onus is on those who wish to continue denying those rights to show why they SHOULD be denied.

True.

rsynnott

The Corinthian wrote:

I was trying to give an analogy of something that does not cause immediate and direct harm, yet that would still be easily demonstrable that it causes harm.

Is it easily demonstrable that same-sex civil unions cause harm (besides negligible loss to the exchequer?)

lili

The Corinthian wrote:

I’ll make an observation, if I may. A common argument being used here in favour of homosexual unions (be they civil or otherwise) is that it does not harm those not directly involved.

This may be the case, however it seems based upon the fact that people do not see a direct and immediate effect upon their lives. As an example, tax evasion could be viewed in the same light. It does not affect people in a direct and immediate manner, however if enough people evade their taxes for long enough, then the effect will eventually be felt.

This may be the case with homosexual unions, or it may not. However arguing that it causes no harm simply because you’re not directly and immediately effected is ultimately irrelevant to whether you will be harmed or not.

do you think it could be a threat to the society?

damien

rsynnott wrote:

as will Ireland, if Norris' bill goes through).

There is no Norris Bill. His last "bill" got nowhere it was so moronic and was shot down as it was introduced. His bill stated marriage in all but name and for a man who argued the constitution he seemed to forget that the bill was an attack on and an undermining of marriage in this state, which has constitutional protection.

Unless there's a constitutional change (which there won't be as FG and FF have already rigged the findings of the Committee on Constitutional Change) then at most same-sex couples can have some but not all of the rights heterosexuals have. But notso for couples from NI who marry and then move down here. The Good Friday agreement says the state here has to honour the rights they had in NI.

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

Is it easily demonstrable that same-sex civil unions cause harm (besides negligible loss to the exchequer?)

That’s not the point I was making. If something is not easily demonstrable as causing harm does not mean it is not causing harm. I simply used am easily demonstrable example because easily demonstrable examples work better at illustrating points.

lili wrote:

do you think it could be a threat to the society?

Hey, I'm wasting enough time arguing with some bloke who’s one whore short of a brothel in another thread, so I’ve no intention of getting into this one in further.

You kids can figure this one out.

rsynnott

lili wrote:

do you think it could be a threat to the society?

Do you have any reason to suppose that it is? Few nations who have adopted a civil union system have collapsed in chaos due to crazed homosexuals roaming the streets, looting, raping and killing.

The thing is that there are (gasp, shock, horror) already long-term same-sex couples. Civil unions will simply give them access to a set of benefits which their straight counterparts already have access to. These are fundamental enough - the right to inherit without being taxed on it, the right to be treated as a couple for tax free purposes, and by far the most important, the right to be named as next of kin. There have been cases where the long-term partner is excluded from their partner's deathbed and funeral because the family disapprove of them being homosexual.

In response to the Corinthian, yes, it is possible that same-sex civil unions will cause harm somewhere. Any societal change, or change of any sort, carries some risk of causing harm. I would submit, however, that in the case of same-sex civil union, the risk of societal harm (and no-one has, as far as I've seen, been able to bring forward convincing possibilities for said harm) is vastly outweighed by the benefits of the introduction of such an institution.

What upstanding stalwart of Fine Gael once told the nation, and within the past 15 years mind, that he simply could not understand how one person would have such a fascination with another person's back passage...:eek:

rsynnott

Deleted User wrote:

What upstanding stalwart of Fine Gael once told the nation, and within the past 15 years mind, that he simply could not understand how one person would have such a fascination with another person's back passage...:eek:

Oh, few of the mainstream political parties are entirely innocent of this sort of thing.

Perhaps, but there was one particularly odious character - some guy from Louth afaik...

samb

My opinion is that gay marriage is fine. Nobody has made any sort of argument against it yet.

Daithio

I think that most people's problem with gay marriage has to do with a deep entrenched notion that marriage, by definition, is the union of a man and a woman. Not a man and a man, nor a woman or a woman. This is probably because for most of us marriage began as a concept in our minds with religious overtones, and to get away from those influences is pretty difficult. So I think it's fair enough to call gay marriages civil unions for the mean time rather than actual marriages. This is not intended to offend anybody, nor is it any decree about the rightness or wrongess of gay marriage, but merely a way of giving people time to adjust to the new concept of what marriage is; a union of two people, regardless of what sex they are.

lazydaisy

Just wait for gay divorce and gay custody battles. That will be a trip.

ArthurDent

lazydaisy wrote:

Just wait for gay divorce and gay custody battles. That will be a trip.

Course heterosexual ones are just great crack.:eek: :rolleyes:
Breakdown of relationships especially when there is property or kids involved has any number of ways to turn nasty, I'm pretty sure very few (if any) have to do with your sexuality

Cronus333

damien.m wrote:

There is no Norris Bill. His last "bill" got nowhere it was so moronic and was shot down as it was introduced. His bill stated marriage in all but name and for a man who argued the constitution he seemed to forget that the bill was an attack on and an undermining of marriage in this state, which has constitutional protection.

Unless there's a constitutional change (which there won't be as FG and FF have already rigged the findings of the Committee on Constitutional Change) then at most same-sex couples can have some but not all of the rights heterosexuals have. But notso for couples from NI who marry and then move down here. The Good Friday agreement says the state here has to honour the rights they had in NI.

we protect 'the family' and I think marraige, but no specifics were made....

lazydaisy

It often has to do with your gender - who gets the house, who raises the kids, who pays the child maintenance. Who is the mom and who is the dad.

rsynnott

lazydaisy wrote:

It often has to do with your gender - who gets the house, who raises the kids, who pays the child maintenance. Who is the mom and who is the dad.

Bear in mind that few, if any, gay couples will have kids. Even assuming it's allowed, adoption certainly won't be a mainstream thing. And to be honest, it'll be decided like it is, or at least should be, for heterosexual couples - who has been doing most of the child raising up to this point?

Also, "mom" is a hideous Americanism.