Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Should gay marriage be legal in Ireland?

Options
1…34689…16

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    It should be legalised. Not having any form of legal recognition for same-sex relationships is treating the LGBT community as second-class citizens.


  • Options
    #153
    El_Dangeroso
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    The_Minister wrote: »
    the fact that several species of animals seem to show that sexuality can be altered to straight.

    Why would you want to alter their sexuality?
    The_Minister wrote: »
    I said 'seems to indicate', I did not state is as fact.
    I made no leap of reason, I suggested that the difference in rates may have been due to cultural differences, because if homosexuality was purely biological, then you would expect to see a roughly even distribution between countries (assuming the biological different was not due to genes, if it was, then like with genetic anomolies such as cystic fibrosis, the figures would be expected to vary from country to country).

    I want to reiterate - I support gay marriage.
    I just don't think that people who oppose it don't have some legitimate concerns.

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

    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?

    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.


  • Options
    #154
    andrew
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 3,372 Mod ✭✭✭✭andrew


    MYOB wrote: »
    Should the government ban divorce, seperation and parents dying then?

    Huge numbers of children are raised by a single parent due to circumstance. The vast majority of them turn out no different to those raised by both parents - and most certainly better than those raised by an abusive mother and an abusive father, a situation the state will almost never intervene in.


    Well, if the govt. somehow had a magical machine which meant kids didn't have to be raised by single parents, I think they'd use it. Or at the very least, i'd support it's use anyway.


  • Options
    #155
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,806 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jakkass wrote: »
    No, it is religious discrimination to force people to be a part of a gay marriage ceremony when their religious conscience doesn't allow them to do so. Arrangements even exist in the UK where people who have disagreements of conscience do not have to sign civil partnerships or be involved in any form with tehm.

    If someones religious conscience prevents them from taking part in a gay marriage, is it not likely that their religious conscience would prevent them from taking part in any marriage not of their religion? The idea that someone that religious would become a registrar for non-religious marriages is rather hypocritical on their part.


  • Options
    #156
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Goodshape wrote: »
    - as a fellow human being I'd ask that, given the option, you grant me equal rights with regards partnership (marriage, that is) that you take for granted for yourself. We can all come back later to discuss adoption, the part you object to..

    I would still vote no on this issue for the reasons given.

    This comes from a point of view of having nothing against you personally (or on the basis of your orientation).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    dr.bollocko
    Moderators, Music Moderators Posts: 35,943 Mod ✭✭✭✭dr.bollocko


    And now ladies and gentlemen.
    Mr. Conway Twitty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2aeRg_yMSE


  • Options
    #158
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    dr.bollocko wrote: »
    And now ladies and gentlemen.
    Mr. Conway Twitty.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2aeRg_yMSE

    video no worky.


  • Options
    #159
    Morlar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,273 ✭✭✭Morlar


    Actually got it working now - very ron burgundy/action news team.


  • Options
    #160
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,002 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It seems that the tolerance card only applies one ways. There has been cases of discrimination of those who have faith in the light of these court decisions in the USA. Particularly photographers who do not want to be involved with a gay marriage ceremony being brought to court, or people in registry offices who do not wish to be involved with gay marriage (in other countries there has been allowance for people of faith not to be involved in this particular area due to their consciences disagreeing). There are several reasons to be concerned given what we have seen so far in other experiences for people of faith so I can understand their concern while being one myself.
    Those cases do need to be thrown out of court. However, its hard to relate them to say, a surgeon who doesnt want to do breast implants, or abortions, as a doctor can simply argue its not their expertise. A photographers skills translate seamlessly regardless of who is being married. And unfortunately the right to refuse entry/service doesnt apply here because its a matter of discrimination.


  • Options
    #161
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    MYOB wrote: »
    If someones religious conscience prevents them from taking part in a gay marriage, is it not likely that their religious conscience would prevent them from taking part in any marriage not of their religion? The idea that someone that religious would become a registrar for non-religious marriages is rather hypocritical on their part.

    How is that hypocritical in any sense?

    I don't believe that marriage is solely a religious act. If you are to have a church marriage it is about you and your spouse coming together and confirming your relationship before God, and pledging to keep the Christian understanding of marriage between eachother.

    In a marriage in a registry office it is about bringing a man and a woman who love one another together who probably aren't interested in the religious aspect of marriage. Or they could have arrangements to get their marriage blessed at a later stage. If there is an issue of ethical conscience at work whereby it would be violating your constitutionally endowed freedom of religion alternative work should be given in that context.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,806 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jakkass wrote: »
    How is that hypocritical in any sense?

    I don't believe that marriage is solely a religious act. If you are to have a church marriage it is about you and your spouse coming together and confirming your relationship before God, and pledging to keep the Christian understanding of marriage between eachother.

    In a marriage in a registry office it is about bringing a man and a woman who love one another together who probably aren't interested in the religious aspect of marriage. Or they could have arrangements to get their marriage blessed at a later stage. If there is an issue of ethical conscience at work whereby it would be violating your constitutionally endowed freedom of religion alternative work should be given in that context.

    If your faith is so strong that it prevents you from working at a non-religious marriage between two men or two women; I fail to see how you can possibly work at a non-religious marriage at all.

    The law of the land does not exclude registrars from discrimination laws on religious grounds and anyone who took a job as a registrar would have been completely aware of this at the time. Your freedom of religion does not allow you to discriminate based on it, this is handled by the law of the land.

    Would you think it acceptable if a registrar refused to officiate a 'mixed marriage' (be it religiously mixed or racially mixed) because their faith said so?


  • Options
    #163
    orestes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,972 ✭✭✭orestes


    Yes, and that civil partnership attempt at a compromise is a load of shite, some are not more equal than others


  • Options
    #164
    KeyLimePie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 861 ✭✭✭KeyLimePie


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think the Government needs to rethink about this, as to whether or not the child has a right to both a mother and a father. I think they do. They also have the right to know and be able to contact their biological parents.

    That was the same argument used in the fifties for single parents wanting to adopt :\ and look what's happened now.

    And in case you don't know, unless it was a closed adoption adopted children CAN contact their parents if they choose to.


  • Options
    #165
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    MYOB wrote: »
    If your faith is so strong that it prevents you from working at a non-religious marriage between two men or two women; I fail to see how you can possibly work at a non-religious marriage at all.

    Non-religious isn't the issue. Presiding at a union between two of the same gender is against what Muslims, Jews and Christians in particular believe that God has commanded. Hence why their religious conscience prevents them from carrying out such a union. Bear in mind that marriages that are carried out in churches, mosques, synagogues and so on also have to be organised through the registrar.
    MYOB wrote: »
    The law of the land does not exclude registrars from discrimination laws on religious grounds and anyone who took a job as a registrar would have been completely aware of this at the time. Your freedom of religion does not allow you to discriminate based on it, this is handled by the law of the land.

    The law of the land also has a lot to say about discrimination in employment practices concerning religious beliefs. An employer is not allowed to refuse someone who is a Christian purely on the basis that they are a Christian.
    MYOB wrote: »
    Would you think it acceptable if a registrar refused to officiate a 'mixed marriage' (be it religiously mixed or racially mixed) because their faith said so?

    I think there would be room for the one who was being forced to do so to bring it to the Labour Court or other means if they felt that they were being discriminated against in the workplace.


  • Options
    #166
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Why not marriage? It used to be a religious ritual but a non-religious man and woman can now get married in a registrar's office with some bureaucrat officiating, therefore a same-sex couple should be afforded the exact same opportunity - it does not affect anyone else.

    Civil partnership only? **** that! Give me a same-sex couple marrying in a registry office over a hetero couple who normally don't go near church being married by a priest/minister.


  • Options
    #167
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,806 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Non-religious isn't the issue. Presiding at a union between two of the same gender is against what Muslims, Jews and Christians in particular believe that God has commanded. Hence why their religious conscience prevents them from carrying out such a union. Bear in mind that marriages that are carried out in churches, mosques, synagogues and so on also have to be organised through the registrar.

    And marriages not in the presence of god aren't also against those peoples religions, then? Right so... And handling details of marriages of other religions also isn't?

    If your faith allows you to marry people non religiously, and through other religions, but not gay marriages I think you need to seriously reconsider how even handedly you're taking it up.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The law of the land also has a lot to say about discrimination in employment practices concerning religious beliefs. An employer is not allowed to refuse someone who is a Christian purely on the basis that they are a Christian.

    However, if someone's religious beliefs makes them unable to do a job, you do not have any obligation to hire them. A fully practicing Jew or Muslim trying to sue Tesco for not employing them as a butcher isn't going to get anywhere.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I think there would be room for the one who was being forced to do so to bring it to the Labour Court or other means if they felt that they were being discriminated against in the workplace.

    And they'd get laughed out of court, and ridiculed in the media if they did such. I notice you didn't answer if YOU thought it was acceptable there, by the way. Silence speaks volumes.


  • Options
    #168
    Splendour
    Registered Users Posts: 1,580 ✭✭✭Splendour


    ScienceNerd wrote: »
    Incest is slightly different due to the slightly increased level of genetic abnormality, but thats an issue for another day.

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


  • Options
    #169
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Dudess wrote: »
    Why not marriage? It used to be a religious ritual but a non-religious man and woman can now get married in a registrar's office with some bureaucrat officiating, therefore a same-sex couple should be afforded the exact same opportunity - it does not affect anyone else.

    If this were true it would be a somewhat decent argument, however I don't think this is the case. It has affected people, and it has marginalised those who disagree. This is before we get into the arguments over whether or not a child has the right to a mother and a father, and before we get into the risks that this could pose in education, and the rights of the parents to provide for the moral education of their child.


  • Options
    #170
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,806 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jakkass wrote: »
    If this were true it would be a somewhat decent argument, however I don't think this is the case. It has affected people, and it has marginalised those who disagree. This is before we get into the arguments over whether or not a child has the right to a mother and a father, and before we get into the risks that this could pose in education, and the rights of the parents to provide for the moral education of their child.

    The debate has affected people. The act itself will not. Gaping difference.

    There isn't a chance that you can successfully arguing that me marrying a hypothetical husband in the future has any affect, whatsoever, on you.


  • Options
    #171
    KeyLimePie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 861 ✭✭✭KeyLimePie


    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...

    I don't think by allowing gays to marry doesn't mean two brothers can get married, like a sister and brother can't get married :\


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    KeyLimePie wrote: »
    I don't think by allowing gays to marry doesn't mean two brothers can get married, like a sister and brother can't get married :\

    Why not if they love eachother? It's effectively the same argument people make with gay marriage.


  • Options
    #173
    KeyLimePie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 861 ✭✭✭KeyLimePie


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Why not if they love eachother? It's effectively the same argument people make with gay marriage.

    Well if we go back to the bible on this, who did adam's and eve's son Cain marry ? :)


  • Options
    #174
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,806 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    KeyLimePie wrote: »
    Well if we go back to the bible on this, who did adam's and eve's son Cain marry ? :)

    We're going to be told that the Old Testament isn't used; except of course for the lines about man lying with man.

    Which are conveniently alongside the bits about not wearing cloth woven from two fibres - wonder have they managed to make sure that no cassocks are made of polycotton...


  • Options
    #175
    gcgirl
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,044 ✭✭✭gcgirl


    galwayrush wrote: »
    Why marriage?:confused: Civil partnerships are recognised and legal, surely that's enough.:confused:

    Civil partnerships are not the same as marriage !!

    we should be able to let Gary Marry Barry !!
    its 2009 people!!


  • Options
    #176
    KeyLimePie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 861 ✭✭✭KeyLimePie


    MYOB wrote: »
    We're going to be told that the Old Testament isn't used; except of course for the lines about man lying with man.

    Which are conveniently alongside the bits about not wearing cloth woven from two fibres - wonder have they managed to make sure that no cassocks are made of polycotton...

    and don't forget eating shrimp :) but i'm vegetarian so i'm inching my way slowly back to heaven :cool:


  • Options
    #177
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    MYOB wrote: »
    And marriages not in the presence of god aren't also against those peoples religions, then? Right so... And handling details of marriages of other religions also isn't?

    No they aren't. Coming to be married in God's presence is something that is associated with the union of those who believe in God. If people do not believe in God they will evidently form different arrangements.
    MYOB wrote: »
    If your faith allows you to marry people non religiously, and through other religions, but not gay marriages I think you need to seriously reconsider how even handedly you're taking it up.

    Religious or non-religious doesn't matter when dealing with non-believers. For them to have a religious marriage they should believe in God first. If they don't it is entirely normal that they would attain a marriage through other means. However it is wrong to collaborate in sin in Christianity anyway. Secular marriage isn't a sin, homosexual activity is.
    MYOB wrote: »
    However, if someone's religious beliefs makes them unable to do a job, you do not have any obligation to hire them. A fully practicing Jew or Muslim trying to sue Tesco for not employing them as a butcher isn't going to get anywhere.

    You aren't allowed to dismiss someone without any other cause apart from the fact that they are Christian. It's against the law and they would be entitled to quite a nice settlement if it ever did happen.
    MYOB wrote: »
    And they'd get laughed out of court, and ridiculed in the media if they did such. I notice you didn't answer if YOU thought it was acceptable there, by the way. Silence speaks volumes.

    No, they wouldn't. Employment Equality Acts deal with this entirely and if they were to follow the law as it is written there would be a settlement made.

    I have no problem with inter-racial marriage at all. The people in this world are all in common in my opinion. Why did you want me to say that I am a racist just to justify your position? It's a strawman for you to pull that into an argument. What I do advocate is freedom of religion and so that people won't be discriminated for their faith even if I disagree with it.


  • Options
    #178
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    KeyLimePie wrote: »
    Well if we go back to the bible on this, who did adam's and eve's son Cain marry ? :)

    Go to the Christianity forum if you want to discuss theology. I'd like you to answer my question. What is so different between the general argument for gay marriage, and one for incestual marriage?


  • Options
    #179
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,806 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jakkass wrote: »
    You aren't allowed to dismiss someone without any other cause apart from the fact that they are Christian. It's against the law and they would be entitled to quite a nice settlement if it ever did happen.

    You're allowed dismiss someone for failing to do their job, something you're nicely ignoring. If someone's religion prevents them from being able to do a job, they can't get that job. End of.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    No, they wouldn't. Employment Equality Acts deal with this entirely and if they were to follow the law as it is written there would be a settlement made.

    Eh, no, they would. Go to court seeking compensation for being fired for failing to do your job, on a racially/religious discrimination defined line and not only would you not get a cent the media would have a field day on you.

    Again, you don't state whether you think it would be acceptable for someone to do this.


  • Options
    #180
    sdanseo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,233 ✭✭✭sdanseo


    Civil Partnership yes, no problem if they want to do it. A civil marriage in its current form though, no. It carries rights as a given regarding children, divorce etc which stem from the state's love affair with the catholic church that I would object to should a child become involved, and in fact I don't believe a child or children should become involved.

    I'd be vehemently against same-sex couples getting kids no matter how they manage it, adoption/IVF or whatever. I wouldn't have a problem with it per se, if everything turned out perfect, but at the end of the day I reckon it's not only detremental to the child in not having a father/mother figure, but also harmful in that the child then has no choice about the social arrangements and of course could be subjected to terrible abuse from peers etc. Anything that puts a child at any risk in terms of their development both with other kids and with family etc, in my view shouldn't be allowed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    L1011
    Registered Users Posts: 68,806 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'd like you to answer my question.

    I'd like you to answer mine before you go running off demanding others to answer yours.


Advertisement