Should gay marriage be legal in Ireland?

thelordofcheese

Jakkass wrote: »

Adoption is related to marriage.

No, marriage is related to marriage. Adoption is a seperate issue. And as you well know, single people can adopt right now. Hell, GAY single people can adopt right now.
Adoption is not the issue.

Jakkass wrote: »

All potential impacts need to be considered and need to be cleared up. As such removing the discussion of adoption from the gay marriage debate is effectively impossible if we are to consider marriage to be the foundation of the family.

We can and we should. We do not impose these restriction on straight people, and the law should be gender blind.

Jakkass wrote: »

Look, it's rather simple thelordofcheese. You brought in interracial marriage which was completely off topic and said that it was consistent with my line of reasoning. I brought in incest, and polygamy. Lets not be hypocritical here.

Ohh if only you would.
You are using reasoning that was employed in the past to deny people rights based on how they're born. I brought it up to highlight in terms that you might be able to appriciate, why your wrong. Now you're asking me to consider imagined and future scenarios as a downside.

So, basically you're asking me to give the same weight to your fevered imagination as to actual history.
How about no.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm objecting to the impact of gay marriage on society. I don't need you to tell me what is reasonable or what isn't.

Well someone needs to.

Jakkass wrote: »

The mere fact that people all over the world share my concerns is enough to substantiate whether or not it is reasonable or not.

Argumentum ad populum won't fly with me. try harder.

Jakkass wrote: »

I couldn't care if you find my views to be insulting if they were never intended to be such. Be as insulted as you want. Infact if you could leave your emotions at the door it would actually be beneficial to the argument.

I find your views to be terrible, but i find your method of arguing them to be insulting to the intelligence of anyone capable of reading.

Jakkass wrote: »

You totally missed the point though. I was referring to legal action that has taken place in the USA by those who were unwilling to provide their services for gay marriages due to disagreements of conscience. The courts in various states have brought these people to trial.
It primarily has to do with individuals rather than churches and synagogues.

I've no problem with this. If you're going to tell people that you're not going to do something because they're gay, then it's discrimination. The same would hold true if they said no because of religion, ethnicity or gender.

You don't get a free pass on being a dick just because you've decided that it's icky.

mehfesto2

mobius42 wrote: »

It is unfortunate that gay marriage tends to be seen as forcing the church to recognise and officiate over gay marriage. I think the best solution is having a State marriage system for all people who want to get married which is completely independent from religious organisations. This approach is taken in Eastern Europe. A friend of my father's from there went to a registry office for the legal ceremony and then went to a church for a religious one. This allows gay people all the rights of straight people while also not invading the rights of the religious organisations.

I agree.

'Union' for all! 'Marriage' for some! Equal rights and miniature American flags for all!

Crucifix

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJGR8YDd_lU

thelordofcheese

mehfesto2 wrote: »

I agree.

'Union' for all! 'Marriage' for some! Equal rights and miniature American flags for all!

Flags you say?

MEHFESTO2 FOR GOD-EMPEROR OF MANKIND!!

mobius42

Jakkass wrote: »

It has everything to do with it considering that after gay marriage legislation was passed in Massechussetts it was when this cirriculum or should I say propoganda came in, and that kids had to learn it even if their parents disagreed. It's very much on the same debate.

But that is not what is being argued here. In fact, children weren't even mentioned in the original post. I understand that all aspects must be examined but you cannot justify banning gay marriage with an issue that is independent of gay marriage. This is just a ridiculous "won't someone think of the children!" reaction. The same arguments apply to the teaching of evolution as well. If you don't want your child learning the state-sanctioned curriculum then send them to private school. Personally, I don't think that parents have the right to dictate what their children should and should not learn, but that argument is for another day.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not incase they get offended. People have been sent to court and fined for disagreeing with gay marriage and being unwilling to take part in gay marriage ceremonies if their beliefs disagreed.

If these were private photographers then those court cases are a load of rubbish. You can't force someone to take a job if they don't want to do it! If, however, they were some sort of state-sanctioned photographers then I think the case is valid. If you don't agree with the law then don't work for the state.

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't mind if it was just that these people were offended, I do mind when freedom of religion becomes a legal issue.

I fail to see how letting gay people get married affects your religious freedoms. If this was about forcing churches to marry gay people then you would have a point, but that is not the issue here.

thelordofcheese

mobius42 wrote: »

If these were private photographers then those court cases are a load of rubbish. You can't force someone to take a job if they don't want to do it! If, however, they were some sort of state-sanctioned photographers then I think the case is valid. If you don't agree with the law then don't work for the state.

Actually, you can refuse custom for any reason you feel like, the problem arises if you tell them why.

So you can not photograph a same-sex wedding if you want, for any personal reaosn you feel like, but if you turn around and go "no, coz yer a homo!" well then, you're in trouble.

mobius42

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Actually, you can refuse custom for any reason you feel like, the problem arises if you tell them why.

So you can not photograph a same-sex wedding if you want, for any personal reaosn you feel like, but if you turn around and go "no, coz yer a homo!" well then, you're in trouble.

That sounds a bit odd. If someone's dumb enough to be a bigot then let them say it. Makes it easier to pick out the stupid people!

baileyjackson

Im male, straight and believe Marriage is a right, not a privilege.

What difference will it make to my life if 2 women or 2 men get married? NOTHING! but it will make them incredibly happy. Its selfish and old-fashioned to think otherwise!

MARRIAGE FOR ALL!!

Carsinian Thau

baileyjackson wrote: »

Its selfish and old-fashioned to think otherwise!

I think ignorant, intolerant and incredibly stupid are better adjectives. IMO

KnifeWRENCH

Jakkass wrote: »

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

I feel like I have, but if it suits you better to ignore me than huzzah for you.

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.

But why should the ability to have children be a factor in determining whether two people can get married? Not every married couple even wants children.

You are a touch reasonable at least

Lol, I'm not the one speaking out against gay marriage. I believe I'm being far more reasonable here.

Both views are acceptable.

Not in my mind.
Case 1: Christians (or any major faith) don't want gay people attending their church or getting married in their church, but will accept gay marriage in society as long as it doesn't interfere with them practicing their faith. That's reasonable.

Case 2: Christians don't want gay people getting married anywhere because they say "Down with this sort of thing" and frown upon homosexuality in general. That's not reasonable or acceptable as far as I'm concerned.

So freedom of religion is dependant on agreeing with you?

I believe it's possible for gay marriage and freedom of religion to coexist. If that's entirely impossible, then I believe that freedom of religion should be compromised.

The rights of a loving same sex couple > The rights of someone practicing a religion that may be entirely false.

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.

I haven't personally insulted anyone here. If your definition of a mature debate means emotionally dettaching myself from the subject, then I'm afraid I can't do that because it is an emotional subject and it does mean a lot to me. I am genuinely outraged that not only is gay marriage not legal here yet but that there are a fairly large number of people continuing to speak against it.

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.

But I don't respect your position on this subject, Jakkass. I respect your right to opinions and your right to express them, that doesn't mean I have to have any respect for them.

The_Minister wrote: »

I reread my post, and I'm sorry that I implied that you had your cranium up your anus.:o I shouldn't have said that.

It's ok, I forgive you.

aDeener

The_Minister wrote: »

I reread my post, and I'm sorry that I implied that you had your cranium up your anus.:o I shouldn't have said that.
It is just one of those things that gets to me; a pet hate.
I always see shades of grey - I don't believe that more than a handful of issues are black and white.
I always see the other side (or nearly always), and I just weigh up the good and bad, acknowledging both, and then decide which one outweighs which (this is why I could never be a politician).
I can't stand when people try and pretend (and I'm not specifically talking about you, you just happened to be the post I responded to) that there is no valid opinion on the other side. That the other side is completely wrong, and their opposition or proposition is entirely without basis, when, very often, they do have some basis.

I think there are downsides to gay marriage:
I do think it will damage the institution of marriage, in much the same way as I believe that divorce damaged it by turning it from a permanent commitment to a temporary arrangement.
I don't think any oppression of the religious will be as bad here as it is in the USA (we tend to be a bit more sensible here), but I think that religious organisations will find their actions restrained, and their members put in awkward positions.
I think that it will open the door to polygamy (and possibly the decriminalisation of incest).

But on the balance, I am in favour of it.
I see no reason to ignore the downsides, and not seek some way to ameliorate them.

beastiality?

The_Minister

aDeener wrote: »

beastiality?

Animals can't consent (although I have horrible flashbacks of that documentary on More4 where a man who regularly had sex eith a donkey claimed that since it didn't kick him, it was consenting and obviously liked it).

BlitzKrieg

I think that it will open the door to polygamy (and possibly the decriminalisation of incest).

I have to ask how that logic works?



just my warped sense of curiosity.

The_Minister

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

I have to ask how that logic works?



just my warped sense of curiosity.

Incest or polygamy?

Incest has been gone over in detail earlier in the thread, polygamy - just common sense.
How can you say yes to gay marriage and say no to polygamy?

McArmalite

It shouldn't be allowed, in fact I think homosexuality itself should be outlawed. This may sound contradictory, but I can understand maybe two women been attracted to one another. But two men ............ :mad::mad:

BlitzKrieg

I'll have a look back at the incest discussion

I was thinking the polygamy point was a matter of precedent, but I was curious if there was more to it then that.

philologos

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

I feel like I have, but if it suits you better to ignore me than huzzah for you.

I'm just saying that I don't think that you have been interested in showing us how our concerns may be mistaken, but you have been concerned like a few others on this thread with making people who do have genuine concerns look like bigots.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

But why should the ability to have children be a factor in determining whether two people can get married? Not every married couple even wants children.

If we are to truly consider the prospect of gay marriage we also need to assess the impacts it could have on adoption or in the formation of families. The Irish Constitution says that a marriage is the foundation of the family.

If the rights of a child to have both a mother and a father were considered in this argument and if the rights of children to have both a mother and a father weren't compromised I'd certainly be a lot closer to coming to your position.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

Lol, I'm not the one speaking out against gay marriage. I believe I'm being far more reasonable here.

I support traditional marriage for a reason. I think I'm being more reasonable than most of the people in these threads. I'll need assurances that gay marriage will not impact the right of children to have both a mother and a father, and I'll need assurances that religious freedoms will not be compromised before I can ever support such a measure.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

Case 1: Christians (or any major faith) don't want gay people attending their church or getting married in their church, but will accept gay marriage in society as long as it doesn't interfere with them practicing their faith. That's reasonable.

I would love homosexuals as much as any other minority to come and attend my church. In a church a marriage is to be between a man and a woman so that option will not be available. However, I think homosexuals are entirely welcome to know about the truth and the life of Jesus Christ.

You are implying that Christians in general hate homosexuals when they really don't.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

Case 2: Christians don't want gay people getting married anywhere because they say "Down with this sort of thing" and frown upon homosexuality in general. That's not reasonable or acceptable as far as I'm concerned.

I don't want gay marriage to go ahead because there are so many concerns that aren't being dealt with. I would need assurances on these concerns before I could ever get behind it.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

I believe it's possible for gay marriage and freedom of religion to coexist. If that's entirely impossible, then I believe that freedom of religion should be compromised.

The rights of a loving same sex couple > The rights of someone practicing a religion that may be entirely false.

I think this is wrong, and if people are going to have such a flippant attitude towards my religious freedom I won't be supporting anything they propogate that affects this religious freedom.

Mind you were my rights to religious freedom restricted, I would continue in my faith as I had done before even if it were illegal to do so.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

I haven't personally insulted anyone here. If your definition of a mature debate means emotionally dettaching myself from the subject, then I'm afraid I can't do that because it is an emotional subject and it does mean a lot to me. I am genuinely outraged that not only is gay marriage not legal here yet but that there are a fairly large number of people continuing to speak against it.

Ad-hominems have been thrown where they weren't necessary. Having concerns about gay marriage does not make you stupid. It only means that you want assurances as to the effects that gay marriage could have, and the fact that the pro gay marriage lobby are so unwilling to deal with these concerns exasperates them. It makes people think that they don't want to clarify them or to put people at ease about them. The second these concerns are cleared up I will be more open to the concept. Until then I cannot support it.

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

But I don't respect your position on this subject, Jakkass. I respect your right to opinions and your right to express them, that doesn't mean I have to have any respect for them.

I'm not asking you to respect my position. I'm asking you to respect those who disagree with you (i.e the people), and have a civil discussion with them instead of engaging in smear tactics like implying that those who aren't convinced of what you are convinced of are stupid.

pinkfeather

galwayrush wrote: »

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

Why not marriage, your saying that gay people should have to settle for second best so to speak, how is that fair?

dimejinky99

Gay people should be allowed and extended the rights and protections of the constitution every other person who is a citizen of the state is and without exception or exemption. But with that our constitution needs to be amended to include and protect everyone. it wasn't written for these types of situations and we're in a different world now.

Also free/compulsory lobotomies for all the brain dead people who think gays shouldn't be allowed marry/adopt.

mink_man

they are as like as 2 gays in a pod!

That_Guy

McArmalite wrote: »

It shouldn't be allowed, in fact I think homosexuality itself should be outlawed. This may sound contradictory, but I can understand maybe two women been attracted to one another. But two men ............ :mad::mad:

No "may" about it. It is bloody contradictory.

You sound exactly like my "homophobic" friend who hates the thought of two men with each other but can yet be aroused by two women. It's completely contradictory and I hear this all the time from lads and it absolutely wrecks my head.

When any guy I know here's the word homosexual being uttered they automatically think of two guys. Very bloody annoying.

I hate the fact that people look down on homosexuality. It's more so guys though that seem to be targeted more from the stories I've often heard. It's as if there's something "wrong" with these people. Guys getting beaten up for liking other men is just absolutely ridiculous and disgusting.

It's all down to the church saying that it's wrong etc and then we have cases of priests molesting young boys.

In this day and age surely it should be allowed to happen.

citizen_p

they should be allowed marry.....
but not allowed adopt

bronte

McArmalite wrote: »

It shouldn't be allowed, in fact I think homosexuality itself should be outlawed. This may sound contradictory, but I can understand maybe two women been attracted to one another. But two men ............ :mad::mad:

I hope you're taking the piss.

Dennis the Stone

bronte wrote: »

I hope you're taking the piss.

Probably not is the depressing thing.

coffee_cake

McArmalite wrote: »

It shouldn't be allowed, in fact I think homosexuality itself should be outlawed. This may sound contradictory, but I can understand maybe two women been attracted to one another. But two men ............ :mad::mad:

Have you just a bad sense of humour or did your mother drop you on the head a lot?

bevan619

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.

You can't have a 'gay kid' lol.

Back to the topic.

I am all for this. My cousin has had a boyfriend for like 5 years now and they're going to England to live and get married (they live in Tenerife at the moment and his boyfriend is English). My cousin left here because he was gay and because of the homophobia here.

And just so you know I'm 14 (and not gay) and all for this. My friend is gay and he's a nice guy.

That_Guy

bevan619 wrote: »

You can't have a 'gay kid' lol.

Back to the topic.

I am all for this. My cousin has had a boyfriend for like 5 years now and they're going to England to live and get married (they live in Tenerife at the moment and his boyfriend is English). My cousin left here because he was gay and because of the homophobia here.

And just so you know I'm 14 (and not gay) and all for this. My friend is gay and he's a nice guy.

Thank you. Gay people are people too and I know plenty of them. They're all really nice guys and I get on well with all of them.

Just like people with disabilities they should not be treated differently.

KeyLimePie

Gay marriage will not lead to incestual marriage for the simple reason that straight marriage didn't lead to gay marriage

Gay marriage came from governments respecting our human rights after being persecuted after so many years, it's not like people sat around and went HMM WHAT CAN WE MARRY NEXT.

So anyone who says that a brother and sister can marry cause of adam and steve can screw themselves =D

javaboy

KeyLimePie wrote: »

So anyone who says that a brother and sister can marry cause of adam and steve can screw themselves =D

You can have homosexuality, incest, bestiality, polygamy and origami but I'll be cold in my grave before I'll stand for people marrying themselves! :mad:

twinytwo

have no problem with gay marriage... said couple being able to adopt that a different issue