Should gay marriage be legal in Ireland?

L1011

gcgirl wrote: »

I think i am more affended by 2 gingers trying to pro create!!

The idea of ONE ginger trying to procreate even. Rusty pubes everywhere :eek:




:P

Splendour

MYOB wrote: »

What, that legalising homosexuality (as there were discussions about 100 years ago, but no serious attempts) would lead to legalising incest? Yes, if we'd been having this conversation 100 years ago I'd have said it was a scare tactic, and I'd be right. There isn't a single chance of it happening, so referring to it is a scare tactic.

In fact, it WAS used as a scare tactic (as was the suggestion that the age of consent would be removed) in 1960s Britain against the campaign for legalisation there. And again, it hasn't happened nor is it going to happen.

Darn, have to answer this before I go!
You picked me up wrong MYOB. I meant if we'd had been having a conversation 100 years ago about homosexuality being legalised neither of us would've believed it was possible. We would've more than likely been scared of the thoughts of it.
Hope that's a bit clearer...

Tyler MacDurden

Splendour wrote: »

Marriage has always been a contract between a man and a woman.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

(With thanks to pts, who posted this over on Atheism & Agnosticism the other day.)

Zillah

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Apologies MYOB for any confusion. I'm against gay marriage, gay adoption and gays because i HATE gays. Glad to clear that up for you though.

I am really, genuinely grateful that you've stopped wasting our time by pretending. I wish more bigots would just get over themselves, stop pretending that they have rational reason for their positions and just be honest about their visceral, ignorant hate.

L1011

Splendour wrote: »

Darn, have to answer this before I go!
You picked me up wrong MYOB. I meant if we'd had been having a conversation 100 years ago about homosexuality being legalised neither of us would've believed it was possible. We would've more than likely been scared of the thoughts of it.
Hope that's a bit clearer...

It was legalised in much of the world by that time, particularly Western Europe (Belgium, France, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Italy...); and moves were afoot to push for legalisation in the United Kingdom (which we were part of). So no, there isn't a hope that neither of us would have thought it possible. You might have been scared by it, I doubt a 100 year ago version of myself would have been.

By comparison, I doubt theres a country in the world which has legalised incest in the past 100 years...

Take a quick lesson in history before you make historical claims.

BlitzKrieg

Tyler MacDurden wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFkeKKszXTw

(With thanks to pts, who posted this over on Atheism & Agnosticism the other day.)

I was watching that earlier, made me laugh and in the spirit of christianity went out afterward and got a hooker

kieranfitz

Of course it should, the gheys deserve the right to be as miserable as everyone else.

KnifeWRENCH

bronte wrote: »

Knife-WREEENCH, You make a sh it-load of sense.

Thanks! Really I was just stating what should be obvious to any rational thinking person.

javaboy

TheInquisitor banned for trolling.

The_Minister

neddas wrote: »

Why would you want to alter their sexuality?

I'm jerking your chain

neddas wrote: »

Hate to get mired in semantics but 'seems to indicate' is intimating causation.

Yes, but I still acknowledged that there was some doubt.
Very rarely can you ever point to something and say "THAT is the truth".
Normally you just get circumstancial evidence and build a hypothesis.

neddas wrote: »

Also, there is a high proportion of red-haired people in Ireland compared to spain, does that mean that having red hair is not purely a function of biology?

No, that's genes. AFAIK we have not identified a gay gene.

neddas wrote: »

The thing is, I don't think there are any legitimate reasons to oppose this. The only ones I have seen so far are fronts for thinly veiled prejudice.

I still think that the article I linked raised some issues that have not been satisfactorily addressed.

Splendour wrote: »

Unless of course it's two brothers or two sisters or maybe a father and son getting married. No problem there with genetic abnormalities...

Hopefully they are only half-brothers, and their mother had sex with a black man.

Then we will have an incestuous, interracial gay marriage, and get to watch Jackass explode.:pac: (I keeed, I keeed)

KeyLimePie wrote: »

By that logic barren women and men with low sperm counts shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I think that people who make this argument seperate homosexual and hetrosexual couples.
Homosexual couples - 0% able to reproduce without outside intervention
Hetrosexual couples - c90% able to reproduce without outside intervention (figure made up)

By and large the first class cannot fulfill the purpose of state-recognised marriage in their eyes, and so their marriages are not recognised, the second class largely can, and so are recognised.

MYOB wrote: »

Incest is illegal (well, actually, due to badly crafted laws I'm not sure man on man incest is illegal, more later...). Homosexual relations are not. Legalising gay marriages won't open the door to incestuous marriages and to claim so is desperation.

The incest argument was brought up because ALL arguments justifying gay marriage, can also apply to incest.
It's not 'desperation' to point this out, especially since the pro-SSM side are accusing the anti-SSM side of not having real reasons for not being pro-SSM.

Tago Mago wrote: »

17 pages and still no solid reasons... what a surprise.

There have been reasons.
They are just lost in the noise.

gcgirl wrote: »

My friend comes from a Normal married parents set up his parents have 7 kids his father drags them to mass every sunday his father has never treated him like his other brother, his father also treats his mother like crap 75%of the time! said guy has very low self estem and suffers from depression !

How do you not get this?
He believes that in general hetrosexual couples make better parents then homosexuals.
He never said or intimated that all hetrosexual couples are better than all homosexual couples.
Pointing to one bad hetro family does not disprove his statement.

L1011

The_Minister wrote: »

The incest argument was brought up because ALL arguments justifying gay marriage, can also apply to incest.
It's not 'desperation' to point this out, especially since the pro-SSM side are accusing the anti-SSM side of not having real reasons for not being pro-SSM.

Except for the massive problem of incest being illegal - and known to cause serious genetic problems if procreation repeated - and homosexuality being neither illegal nor capable of procreation.

Its rather like comparing chalk and cheese, except the anti side have put the chalk in to the nearest empty Mitchelstown wrapper they've found.

markok84

MYOB wrote: »

Its rather like comparing chalk and cheese, except the anti side have put the chalk in to the nearest empty Mitchelstown wrapper they've found.

so what you're trying to say is that Mitchelstown is full of gays?

bronte

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

Thanks! Really I was just stating what should be obvious to any rational thinking person.

I know! But It needed to be posted!

The_Minister

I am an athiest.
I am pro gay marriage.
I think that you are deliberately ignoring the valid concerns of the anti-SSM side because it's easier for you to dismiss them all as bigots and religious whiners, rather than actually address their concerns.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

*Because if any two consenting adults love each other and want to spnd the rest of their lives together, then no-one should be allowed get in the way of that.

We aren't talking about letting them romp away on their own, minding their own business. We are talking about our collective taxes funding these unions, and our laws being changed to recognise, facilitate and approve of them.
There is nothing stopping gay couples "spending the rest of their lives together", the issue is us subsidising that relationship.
It's disengenuous to pretend that not recognising gay unions we are actively stopping them staying together. At the moment we are just letting them do what they want, and we aren't getting in the way. SSM requires action on behalf of the State to recognise/subsidise/facilitate these unions.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

*Homosexuality is NOT unnatural and is NOT a choice. Anyone who says otherwise is actually just stupid.

Your the one childishly throwing your toys out of the pram by calling people who disagree with you "stupid".

I believe on the balance of probabilities that homosexuality is inborn. However, this has not been proven, and the idea has only recently gained widespread acceptance.
There has been some success in animals in changing their sexuality (it was done in bulls for the purposes of breeding stock), and while IMO human sexuality is probably too complex to be changed by any chemical process, it does not follow that everyone who believes it can be done is an idiot. Indeed, there has actually been very little research done (real research, not praying) on changing human sexuality, for ethical and practical reasons.
Furthermore, I think that you are purposefully misunderstanding the meaning of the word 'choice' in this context.
No-one (that I am aware of) believes that people look in the mirror and decide that they will be gay today, bi tomorrow, and keep their options open for Wednesday. It is normally used in the context of
(1) Homosexual lifestyle being a choice. Homosexual lifestyle being rampant promiscuous sex, empty physical relationships, sexual gluttony, risky sexual behaviour, which is popularised by the media, and often presented as being part of mainstream gay life by shows such as Queer as Folk.
(2) Homosexuality is not an inbuilt, unchangeable aspect of a person, but a changeable part of their personality. It can be altered by will power, 'treatment' etc. It is an impulse, but one which may be resisted or tempered.
I don't agree with either, I think it is probably unchangeable, but people aren't 'stupid' for thinking that it might be changed, particularly if they have limited interactions with gay people.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

*Civil partnerships are not good enough because they don't offer all the rights that married heterosexual couples have.

Not really true at all.
In America, because marriage law occurs at both the State and Federal level, civil partnership cannot give the same rights as marriage (however due to the Defense of Marriage Act, this is still the case even in States with gay marriage. Gay marriage is NOT the same as straight marriage).
In Ireland, if we choose, we can give civil partnership every right that marriage has.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

*The function of marriage (despite what some people living in the past will say) is NOT to bear children, so the procreation argument fails miserably.

I know I keep pimping the same article, but the article I linked to on the first page addresses this a little.
While marriage has not been solely about raising children, it has always (for centuries, when anyone bothered to think of it) been listed as one of the prime functions of marriage, and one of the main reasons that the state favors and encourages marriage. If you remove the procreation element, there is a legitimate question as to why the state should grant any rights at all to marriage, and not just 'privitise' it, and let people just contract between each other.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

*If gay marriage leads to gay adoption, all that means is that there are more couples out there who can offer a child a loving home.

We aren't short of loving homes.
We are short of children.
Although, I have to acknowledge that more competition for children might slightly raise the standard, there are so few children for adoption (due to our rediculous adoption law) that the standard is already as high as it's going to get. What we need to do is liberalise our adoption laws, and then, once we have a rough idea of how many children need to be rehoused, reexamine the figures, and work out how many couples want children, and how many children are available.
Still, you're essentially right.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

*"affecting people of faith" - I would have lol'd at that if I didn't know Jakkass was actually being serious.

I don't see whats funny - there are legitimate concerns in this area.
For instance, to use several US examples:
A faith based organisation was threatened with the withdrawel of it's tax exempt status if it didn't allow a gay wedding to happen on it's property.
A religious retreat (it was Jewish, but for an Irish equivilant think of the Glendalough retreat) was found to have breached discrimination law for not allowing a gay couple to stay over.
A Catholic adoption agency in America (which abused nobody, and was one of the most successful in the city - IBCS (In before cheap shot)) had to close because it could not in good conscience give babies to gay couples. This means that religious people cannot give their babies up for adoption in case they are given to gay couples.
There are real concerns for religious people that while they will never be forced to officiate over a gay marriage, they will be effectively forbidden from participating in society as members of their religion if they will not recognise gay unions.
Other possible trouble is expected to come up regarding marriage counsellors and kosher caterers.

I think that what should be done is what was done in America when abortion was legalised - exemptions were made for people with religious objections.
For instance, doctors can refuse to perform an abortion.
I think that if you would meet Jackass half-way, and allow him certain legal protections to avoid the situations that have arisen elsewhere, then, while he would still oppose gay marriage, he would not be so stringent on it.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

I don't know how it can be made clearer and simpler to you or anyone else here opposing gay marriage why your "opinions" and arguments are so wrong.

Maybe if you got your head out of your ass, stopped being so condescending, and actually listened to their concerns, you might get a bit further.
Like it or not, gay marriage DOES have an impact on those with religious beliefs, and while you may not like the fact that they believe in something you don't, they still deserve respect and tolerance, and they should be able to exercise their rights to dissassociation.

The_Minister

MYOB wrote: »

Except for the massive problem of incest being illegal - and known to cause serious genetic problems if procreation repeated - and homosexuality being neither illegal nor capable of procreation.

Its rather like comparing chalk and cheese, except the anti side have put the chalk in to the nearest empty Mitchelstown wrapper they've found.

If we had this discussion in 1990 then they both would have been illegal.

And we allow people with inheritable diseases to breed, people with cystic fibrosis for example, even though they have a far higher chance of producing genetically damaged children than an incestuous couple.
And women over 40 having kids are worse as well - should they not be allowed have kids?

L1011

The_Minister wrote: »

If we had this discussion in 1990 then they both would have been illegal.

In Ireland, which was many decades behind most of the rest of the Western world. In those many decades, I don't see any country legalising incest.

Its a scare tactic, and a terrible one at that. Up there with "they'll chip our babies" from some side in the No to Lisbon campaign (and I voted no...).

The_Minister wrote: »

And we allow people with inheritable diseases to breed, people with cystic fibrosis for example, even though they have a far higher chance of producing genetically damaged children than an incestuous couple.
And women over 40 having kids are worse as well - should they not be allowed have kids?

I've no idea about the details of cystic fibrosis sufferers children (I take it its highly inheritable from your post though?), other than that I doubt there's too many of them in Ireland due to the extremely poor treatement of CF here... different subject however.
The issue with genetic damage from incest really requires it to be done on a 'wash, rinse, repeat' basis over a number of generations to get really serious though. After many generations inbreeding you get the Russian royal family, who definitely had more problems than a kid born to an older mother.

L1011

markok84 wrote: »

so what you're trying to say is that Mitchelstown is full of gays?

Nobody ever informed me; all that time I wasted sitting in traffic there I could have put to good use:mad::p

Hogzy

Same sex marriage is allowed in Belgium, Canada, Norway, Holland, South Africa Spain and Sweden as well as some US states and as far as i am aware there has been no social break down in these countries and the amount of homosexual people has not drastically increased, Spain is a predominantly catholic country just like Ireland. Why cant Same sex marriage be adopted here? Cos of muppets who think religion and law should run hand in hand...

God when divorce went through referendum the results were like 51% in favor and 49% opposed. People though society would break down and the institution of marriage would be corrupted and seen as a joke... Well they were all wrong, and in my opinion opposers of Same sex marriage are just like the opposers to divorce...

YOU ARE WRONG!

The_Minister

Hogzy wrote: »

Same sex marriage is allowed in Belgium, Canada, Norway, Holland, South Africa Spain and Sweden as well as some US states and as far as i am aware there has been no social break down in these countries and the amount of homosexual people has not drastically increased, Spain is a predominantly catholic country just like Ireland. Why cant Same sex marriage be adopted here? Cos of muppets who think religion and law should run hand in hand...

Not enough time has passed to make a judgement on the long-term effects of same-sex marriage.

Hogzy wrote: »

God when divorce went through referendum the results were like 51% in favor and 49% opposed. People though society would break down and the institution of marriage would be corrupted and seen as a joke... Well they were all wrong, and in my opinion opposers of Same sex marriage are just like the opposers to divorce...

YOU ARE WRONG!

Actually, the number of failed marriages has sky-rocketed, and if you look at Ms. Sprears three-day marriage in Vegas - it has become a joke.
'They' were actually right, and thats speaking as someone who strongly supports the ability to get a divorce, and making it much easier.

Hogzy

The_Minister wrote: »

Actually, the number of failed marriages has sky-rocketed, and if you look at Ms. Sprears three-day marriage in Vegas - it has become a joke.
'They' were actually right, and thats speaking as someone who strongly supports the ability to get a divorce, and making it much easier.

The reason it has sky-rocketed is because people were forced to stay in marriages they didnt want to be in.Divorce allowed them to escape those marriages.
FYI that Vegas Marriage was annulled. Nullity has been legal in Ireland long before divorce and its completely different!!! It makes a marriage void/voidable

The_Minister wrote: »

Not enough time has passed to make a judgement on the long-term effects of same-sex marriage

So basically your saying that there is no evidence to support the argument that a law for same sex marriage will in fact lead to a change in sexual preferences! There is NO evidence to support the arguement that allowing same sex marriage will result in more people turning gay!

KnifeWRENCH

The_Minister wrote: »

I am an athiest.
I am pro gay marriage.
I think that you are deliberately ignoring the valid concerns of the anti-SSM side because it's easier for you to dismiss them all as bigots and religious whiners, rather than actually address their concerns.

Firstly, I don't care if you're an atheist or not. It doesn't make any difference to me. (I'm not an atheist myself, I'm more of an apathetic agnostic! :P)
Secondly I didn't ignore these concerns, I pointed out why I think their concerns are not valid and why I think their beliefs are wrong, as many others have done on this thread.

SSM requires action on behalf of the State to recognise/subsidise/facilitate these unions.

Which is what the State does with heterosexual marriages and so should also do for gay marriages.

Your the one childishly throwing your toys out of the pram by calling people who disagree with you "stupid".

I did not say anyone who disagreed with me was stupid. I said that anyone who thinks that homosexuality is unnatural and/or a choice is stupid. And I stand by that. That's not throwing toys out of a pram, it's saying things the way I see them.

There has been some success in animals in changing their sexuality (it was done in bulls for the purposes of breeding stock), and while IMO human sexuality is probably too complex to be changed by any chemical process, it does not follow that everyone who believes it can be done is an idiot. Indeed, there has actually been very little research done (real research, not praying) on changing human sexuality, for ethical and practical reasons.

I don't really see the relevance here tbh. Animals are not people.
Incidentally, I wouldn't necessarily object to research being done for humans to change their sexuality as long as
(a)nobody would be forced to try it
(b)it would only be offered to those people who actually wanted to change their sexuality
(c) those that did want to change were first assessed comprehensively by medical experts/psychologists, and
(d) there was equal research into changing people from heterosexual to homosexual

Furthermore, I think that you are purposefully misunderstanding the meaning of the word 'choice' in this context.
No-one (that I am aware of) believes that people look in the mirror and decide that they will be gay today, bi tomorrow, and keep their options open for Wednesday. It is normally used in the context of
(1) Homosexual lifestyle being a choice. Homosexual lifestyle being rampant promiscuous sex, empty physical relationships, sexual gluttony, risky sexual behaviour, which is popularised by the media, and often presented as being part of mainstream gay life by shows such as Queer as Folk.
(2) Homosexuality is not an inbuilt, unchangeable aspect of a person, but a changeable part of their personality. It can be altered by will power, 'treatment' etc. It is an impulse, but one which may be resisted or tempered.
I don't agree with either, I think it is probably unchangeable, but people aren't 'stupid' for thinking that it might be changed, particularly if they have limited interactions with gay people.

Point (1) is a gross generalisation and I would have no issue with calling anyone who believed in point (2) stupid. If you want to give people the benefit of the doubt fair enough. I admire your tolerance. But while I consider myself open minded but I have no time for opinions like 1 or 2 because quite frankly I see those opinions as being ridiculous.

Not really true at all.
In America, because marriage law occurs at both the State and Federal level, civil partnership cannot give the same rights as marriage (however due to the Defense of Marriage Act, this is still the case even in States with gay marriage. Gay marriage is NOT the same as straight marriage).
In Ireland, if we choose, we can give civil partnership every right that marriage has.

If civil partnerships were introduced that offered exactly the same rights as heterosexual marriages, then it's pretty much gay marriage except in name. I wouldn't have an issue if that was the case.

If you remove the procreation element, there is a legitimate question as to why the state should grant any rights at all to marriage, and not just 'privitise' it, and let people just contract between each other.

I wouldn't see that as being a legitimate question myself. I would expect the State to continue granting rights to a married couple, regardless of whether or not they have children or plan to do so.

We aren't short of loving homes.
We are short of children.
Although, I have to acknowledge that more competition for children might slightly raise the standard, there are so few children for adoption (due to our rediculous adoption law) that the standard is already as high as it's going to get. What we need to do is liberalise our adoption laws, and then, once we have a rough idea of how many children need to be rehoused, reexamine the figures, and work out how many couples want children, and how many children are available.
Still, you're essentially right.

Not much to say here, we're pretty much in agreement.

I don't see whats funny - there are legitimate concerns in this area.
For instance, to use several US examples:
A faith based organisation was threatened with the withdrawel of it's tax exempt status if it didn't allow a gay wedding to happen on it's property.
A religious retreat (it was Jewish, but for an Irish equivilant think of the Glendalough retreat) was found to have breached discrimination law for not allowing a gay couple to stay over.
A Catholic adoption agency in America (which abused nobody, and was one of the most successful in the city - IBCS (In before cheap shot)) had to close because it could not in good conscience give babies to gay couples. This means that religious people cannot give their babies up for adoption in case they are given to gay couples.
There are real concerns for religious people that while they will never be forced to officiate over a gay marriage, they will be effectively forbidden from participating in society as members of their religion if they will not recognise gay unions.
Other possible trouble is expected to come up regarding marriage counsellors and kosher caterers.

I think that what should be done is what was done in America when abortion was legalised - exemptions were made for people with religious objections.
For instance, doctors can refuse to perform an abortion.

Actually I do agree with you here. If gay marriage actively and often interfered with the practice of a religion, then allowances should be made for religious people whereby Catholics/Jews/whoever can ask that gay people not attend faith based-events or have their ceremonies at places of worship. I personally hate religions that speak out against homosexuality but that's their prerogative.
However, those examples you referred to in America are not really the fault of gay marriage itself but rather political correctness going a bit over the top.

It should be a case of "gay marriage should be allowed but should not interfere with our religion" rather than "gay marriage should not be allowed at all because it interferes with our religion".
The former view is fine, the latter view isn't imo.

I think that if you would meet Jackass half-way, and allow him certain legal protections to avoid the situations that have arisen elsewhere, then, while he would still oppose gay marriage, he would not be so stringent on it.

I would accept religious people being offered those protections IF they in turn accepted gay marriage.

Maybe if you got your head out of your ass, stopped being so condescending, and actually listened to their concerns, you might get a bit further.

You're the first person who's put in a decent post explaining those concerns, and I may have even given you a "thank you" if you hadn't been petulent and accused me of having my head up my ass. Believe me, my head is above my shoulders and thinking clearly (although it's a bit tired right now because it's so late)
If I come across as condescending towards people, that's because there have been so many pathetic arguments raised on this thread that deserve to be mocked (I'm not talking about you here btw)

I don't know what you mean by "get a bit further" - if getting further means having concede that gay marriage might not be the right thing, than I'll happily stay right where I am because I do believe it's the right thing.

JupiterKid

Yes of course. This is beyond question IMO and as a gay chap myself, shame of you homophobic bigots who think otherwise.

...because despite your excuses, that's all ye are...:mad:

CrazyRabbit

Just ban all marriages!

Zillah

The_Minister wrote: »

Actually, the number of failed marriages has sky-rocketed

Once again you draw conclusions based on a faith in the infallibility of statistical methodology, you really must let me borrow your psychic polling machine, don`t be selfish. I think it would be far more reasonable to conclude that the number of failed marriages that were acknowledge as such have increased, whereas before people were compelled to remain in loveless nightmares.

JimiTime

Zillah wrote: »

If you had bothered actually reading the thread dear you'd see that I had already drawn a difference between gay people getting married and gay people committing the supposed sin of sodomy. There are plenty of gay couples out there who are not actively offending your God by evilly expressing love for each other in that particular fashion.

Ok, if you are arguing the Bill Clinton style of what constitutes sexual relations I'll leave you and Bill to your dishonesty. However, if you are saying that there are gay couples who wish to get married, but never have sexual encounters with each other, then I think you are bringing up a very exceptional (probably fairly non-existant) case to make your point. Its still a silly comparrison to the colour of a mans skin. If someone is defined by their 'sexual preference' its still a behaviour or at least a thought. The colour of ones skin is not. Simple. Its certainly not a valid comparrison. The only time such comparrisons are drawn, is when folk want to equate those who object to homosexuality with racism. To make them guilty by association. Its dishonest at worst, stupid at best.

philologos

KeyLimePie wrote: »

It's not the fact that the people refused to take photos of a gay marriage, it's the fact that they SAID IT. It'd be the same if the photographer said that he won't take photos of two people cause they're black.

So we should encourage dishonesty? I personally think there needs to be a compromise between the rights of those who are believers and have issues with homosexuality, and those who wish to have gay marriages should this pass otherwise I definitely could not see myself seeing it as a favourable or a positive development.

BTW, comparing gays with blacks is not the same thing. Homosexuality is not the same thing as race, and we have no evidence to say that it is determined as such, whereas being black is completely genetic.

Photographers should be allowed to take whatever business they want. If they don't take enough that is their own loss not anybody elses.

joes girls

why not...yes!
they could be alot happier than alot of straight married couples

philologos

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

Secondly I didn't ignore these concerns, I pointed out why I think their concerns are not valid and why I think their beliefs are wrong, as many others have done on this thread.

No you haven't, but let's carry on

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

Which is what the State does with heterosexual marriages and so should also do for gay marriages.

That is only if we are satisfied on what is a marriage. Personally and legally currently in Ireland, I would see a marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I would see a civil union as a union between same sex couples. Whether we like it or not a marriage or a union between two of the opposite sex is different to a union between two of the same sex in relation to ease of reproduction, and in being the best family structure for raising children in. These factors although people do not like to discuss them are worthy of consideration. I personally happen to think that children are entitled to have both a mother and a father, and that we should try to minimise cases in which this doesn't happen, although they inevitably will due to divorce and premarital sex.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

I did not say anyone who disagreed with me was stupid. I said that anyone who thinks that homosexuality is unnatural and/or a choice is stupid. And I stand by that. That's not throwing toys out of a pram, it's saying things the way I see them.

We have no scientific reason to suggest that it is either a choice or determined. I choose to remain agnostic on the issue until it is cleared up.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

I don't really see the relevance here tbh. Animals are not people.

Hold the press here. I've heard gay marriage proponents say the same thing from the other side of the fence. Homosexuality is found in nature, therefore it is natural. Then those who oppose gay marriage will cite numerous cases of behaviour which occurs in the animal world that is frowned upon amongst humanity. So I agree with you on the lack of relevance, just be careful in case you use the afforementioned argument later on.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

Point (1) is a gross generalisation and I would have no issue with calling anyone who believed in point (2) stupid. If you want to give people the benefit of the doubt fair enough. I admire your tolerance. But while I consider myself open minded but I have no time for opinions like 1 or 2 because quite frankly I see those opinions as being ridiculous.

I agree on point 1. However on point 2 I would call it ignorance not to allow doubt on something that hasn't been clarified. By doing this you are attempting to stifle what is legitimate debate on a certain subject.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

If civil partnerships were introduced that offered exactly the same rights as heterosexual marriages, then it's pretty much gay marriage except in name. I wouldn't have an issue if that was the case.

See my point above concerning the differences between a union between a man and a woman, and two of the same gender. These also need to be considered to have a clear discussion on the issue. If marriage is the basis of the family that brings in a whole other kettle of fish for me anyway.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

I wouldn't see that as being a legitimate question myself. I would expect the State to continue granting rights to a married couple, regardless of whether or not they have children or plan to do so.

They are related however and as such it should be given full consideration in any formal union for same sex couples.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

Actually I do agree with you here. If gay marriage actively and often interfered with the practice of a religion, then allowances should be made for religious people whereby Catholics/Jews/whoever can ask that gay people not attend faith based-events or have their ceremonies at places of worship. I personally hate religions that speak out against homosexuality but that's their prerogative.
However, those examples you referred to in America are not really the fault of gay marriage itself but rather political correctness going a bit over the top.

You are a touch reasonable at least

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

It should be a case of "gay marriage should be allowed but should not interfere with our religion" rather than "gay marriage should not be allowed at all because it interferes with our religion".
The former view is fine, the latter view isn't imo.

Both views are acceptable. People should be entitled to oppose gay marriage irrespective of how they view the impact on their religion. If the legalisation of gay marriage is correlated with discrimination against faith groups in public then I would see that as a reason to oppose the legalisation of gay marriage here due to the precadent that has been set elsewhere. That's only logical.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

I would accept religious people being offered those protections IF they in turn accepted gay marriage.

So freedom of religion is dependant on agreeing with you?

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

If I come across as condescending towards people, that's because there have been so many pathetic arguments raised on this thread that deserve to be mocked (I'm not talking about you here btw)

Actually, if you want to get into mature debate with anyone, you shouldn't resort to using ad-hominems and insults when the other side has given you the courtesy of not doing the same to you. Although this is a heated debate there is no need to mock anyone, and there is no reason why we cannot have respectful discussion despite our disagreements.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

I don't know what you mean by "get a bit further" - if getting further means having concede that gay marriage might not be the right thing, than I'll happily stay right where I am because I do believe it's the right thing.

Look, it's fine that you think that gay marriage is the right thing as long as you accept, and at least show a little respect to others that mightn't share your position.

mickydoomsux

Of course it should be legal. What difference would it make if it was?

I think a lot of people who are against it seem to think that they'll end up being stealth gay-married to someone or something if it's made legal. :pac: That's the only reason i can see for being against it :pac:

Dravokivich

Sharpshooter wrote: »

Morlar wrote: »

You can not have gay marriage without gay adoption being the next logical step. Anyone who says you can is either naive or disingenous. Gay adoption is the part I would object to & that is why I voted no.

Just as a matter of interest can I ask why?:pac:

Just think how arkward it would be at fathers day...

Anyhow... jokes aside.

It aint my fight. I don't see why there should be a shocking difference between Hetreo and Homo Relationships / marraiges / families...

The main issue here isn't entirely recognition by Catholic Church. To me the thread was to see what the social standing is among AH on this topic, which is either going to be made with rough or soft responses...

Hell from a legal stand point though, Is it even possible for Gay's to be civilly married in Ireland?

Also... would a Gay marraige go against that Blashpemy Law? 0o"

- Drav!