Should gay marriage be legal in Ireland?

O'TOOLE79

In my opinion without a doubt, I mean its absolute nonsense that in the 21st century a religous nut from the sticks in some backwater in Ireland can restrict the freedom of a person who lives hundreds of miles away.

I'm not gay and if I seen two gay guys I might have a little snigger to myself on the odd occassion but when it comes down to it I fully support same sex marriage.

I have added a poll, please give me some faith in the people of this country because sometimes I just don't know.:rolleyes:

Random

It's not that it should be legal .. it's more a case of it shouldn't be illegal.

What 2 people want to do is up to them.

Dennis the Stone

Yes.

mikemac

Civil Partnership - Yes
Marriage - hell no!

thelordofcheese

Godamn it, yes.

There isn't a single good reason as to why it shouldn't.

aoibhebree

mikemac wrote: »

Marriage - hell no!

But why do you think that? Religious reasons?

smk89

if 2 people want to enter a partnership resulting in extreme unhappyness i dont think we should stop them

galwayrush

Why marriage? Civil partnerships are recognised and legal, surely that's enough.

thelordofcheese

mikemac wrote: »

Civil Partnership - Yes
Marriage - hell no!

Hey, the 60's called. They wanted to let you know that 'separate but equal' is a really terrible idea.

The_Minister

I posted this (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html) in the thread for the Expand your Horizons forum, and I think it asks some good questions regarding gay marraige and it's introduction. (It looks really long, if you look at the sidebar - but that's mostly comments)

Overall, I'm in favour of it, but I don't see it as 'disgraceful' or 'backward' that we don't have it, and I don't look down on people who disagree with it.

Oh, and opposition to gay marriage is not just to do with religion. Or bigotry.
There are valid sociological concerns regarding messing around with marriage and how it is constituted.

nehcola

Yes!

Sleipnir

Random wrote: »

It's not that it should be legal .. it's more a case of it shouldn't be illegal.

What 2 people want to do is up to them.

Meh, the church is a club and makes up rules for its members to follow. If they don't want gay people to marry within the church then that's up to them. Why try to force them to? They spent a long time forcing people to do thing and now we think it's right to the the same to them? I say let them have their crazy religion.

Civil partnerships for gay people should be allowed. Immediately, and with the same legal rights as married heteros.

AlmightyCushion

No. The problem is when two gay guys get married they'll then start having gay kids. Then before you know it the gayness will spread like wild fire.

Vinta81

Yes.

mateo

galwayrush wrote: »

Why marriage? Civil partnerships are recognised and legal, surely that's enough.

They are not the same. Civil unions do not offer the same privileges.

mikemac

Sleipnir wrote: »

Civil partnerships for gay people should be allowed. Immediately, and with the same legal rights as married heteros.

I would agree.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Hey, the 60's called. They wanted to let you know that 'separate but equal' is a really terrible idea.

I've only heard of separate but equal rights to do with civil rights in America which ain't the topic of this thread and that went in 1954, not the 1960's!

shenanigans1982

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

No. The problem is when two gay guys get married they'll then start having gay kids. Then before you know it the gayness will spread like wild fire.

Thats the negative side, on the plus side if two camp ghey's get married one will assume the role of the wife and remain indoors thus reducing the amount of annoying campness inflicted upon normal non camp people.

thelordofcheese

Sleipnir wrote: »

Meh, the church is a club and makes up rules for its members to follow. If they don't want gay people to marry within the church then that's up to them. Why try to force them to? They spent a long time forcing people to do thing and now we think it's right to the the same to them? I say let them have their crazy religion.

Civil partnerships for gay people should be allowed. Immediately, and with the same legal rights as married heteros.

*ahem* There is a legal marriage which means something, and a religious one, which means diddlysquat. The former is the one we're concerned with.

though as to your reasoning, Fuck that noise, the church (any church) does not own the word marriage or dictate how it gets to be applied.

thelordofcheese

mikemac wrote: »

If you're referring to civil rights in America which ain't the topic of this thread then "seperate but equal" went in 1954, not the 1960's!

the Civil rights act of 1964 wants a word with you.

Also, it is very much the topic as people who advocate civil partnerships for same sex couples are making the exact same bullshit excuses as the original proponents of 'seperate but equal'.

mikemac

O'TOOLE79 wrote: »

In my opinion without a doubt, I mean its absolute nonsense that in the 21st century a religous nut from the sticks in some backwater in Ireland can restrict the freedom of a person who lives hundreds of miles away.

Cool, that's your opinion

O'TOOLE79 wrote: »

I have added a poll, please give me some faith in the people of this country because sometimes I just don't know.:rolleyes:

OP, I've started threads in this forum, in fact I started one 20 minutes ago before a mod moved it to a more appropiate forum.
And in my opinion you can't realy start a poll and then add a sarcastic line about everyone who will disagree with you. Poor form if nothing else

But it's done anyway, and it's an interesting topic

markok84

This video was posted around the time of the Miss America debacle, I found it interesting, and I like cartoons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zbpDe_QhS0

Mac Masters

I think they should be allowed! It's aload of crap that some people feel that they should deny others this right. We say we live in a free world and everybody is equal but aparently some are 'more' equal than others!

The problem I see though is generally gay people are not very religious and I think people who don't believe in God and religion shouldn't be allowed to get married, the same goes for straight people. It is a religious ceremony, so what is the point of performing it if you do not believe in religion?

bronte

smk89 wrote: »

if 2 people want to enter a partnership resulting in extreme unhappyness i dont think we should stop them

LOL! True!

I think there's no reason in the world it shouldn't be legal

FearDark

No.
Its just wrong, Im not coming from a religious point of view at all but when I see two guys kissing or being intimate I physically feel sick, I know its cool these days to be gay but Im not buying it. Savage me all you want people but I thnk its wrong.

AnonoBoy

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

No. The problem is when two gay guys get married they'll then start having gay kids. Then before you know it the gayness will spread like wild fire.

Yeah - gay guys are always getting each other ass pregnant. It's a fuppin' disgrace.

galwayrush

Mac Masters wrote: »

I think they should be allowed! It's aload of crap that some people feel that they should deny others this right. We say we live in a free world and everybody is equal but aparently some are 'more' equal than others!

The problem I see though is generally gay people are not very religious and I think people who don't believe in God and religion shouldn't be allowed to get married, the same goes for straight people. It is a religious ceremony, so what is the point of performing it if you do not believe in religion?

That's like my kids fighting over not having equal pieces of Pepporoni on their pizza. then one of them pulled the pieces off coz, she didn't like pepporoni, she just wanted what her sister had.:D

mikemac

thelordofcheese wrote: »

the Civil rights act of 1964 wants a word with you.

True enough, that was the main case.
But in 1954 was the main Supreme Court case.

Realy, that are several cases in different years which changed things.
You picked the main one, I picked one of the earliest.

Tar.Aldarion

Of course it should be, I'm not a philistine.

The_Minister

Random wrote: »

It's not that it should be legal .. it's more a case of it shouldn't be illegal.

What 2 people want to do is up to them.

That arguement doesn't really apply here, since gay people aren't asking to be allowed to call each other husband and husband.
They want tax breaks etc, which involve state recognition, which means it's not a case of "Ah sure, leave them alone", but rather "Give us money and recognise/approve of our union and let us adopt children".
It's not a case of them being stopped from doing something (they can already get 'married'), but of the government actually actively recognising their unions, and treating them like normal marraiges.

The arguement that "the state should stay out of the bedroom" does not apply in this instance.

AnonoBoy

FearDark wrote: »

Savage me all you want people but I thnk its wrong.

But if I savaged you wouldn't that make you physically sick? Or would it only do that if we were in front of a mirror and you could see me savage you?

El_Dangeroso

Yes, yes, for the love of god yes!

If someone has objections on a basis of religion, there is separation of church and state for that very reason.

This is the civil rights movement of our generation.