Should gay marriage be legal in Ireland?

sdanseo

KeyLimePie wrote: »

So you've basically slammed

Widows with children.
Widowers with children.
Single foster parents.
Single people who adopt.

Now how you can allow these family units and not one with two men ?

Missing one half of the "ideal" family unit is not compensated for by doubling the other half, in fact I'd say that only makes it worse.

I come from a family where my dad left me and my Mam when I was 9 - even though I see him every week or two, and always have done, I firmly believe the lack of having my Dad around all the time has affected me. I can't imagine what it must be like to have one parent not around at all.

I'm not saying a lot of my reasoning for being against gay couples having kids isn't because of the stigma attatched to it and the idea that it's not "normal" - but I try to attatch a bit of common sense to it as well.

gcgirl

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Heterosexual people that can safely support financially and emotially a child

Well i am screwed i was basically brought up by 3 women my mum my aunt and my nan the same 3 people help bring up my 3 kids !
a few of my friends that have came through the normal channell are pretty f**ked up compaired to the one parent family one's ! there is no such thing as a normal family, I used to think i came from a different family but i have totally seen worse and my family are normal in my eyes!

TheInquisitor

Zillah wrote: »

Right, so by the same argument a gay couple should be allowed to get married and adopt.

I'm always intrigued by people who have horrible opinions and present ridiculous arguments in support of them. Do they not realise they don't make sense? Do they secretly have more logical but horrible reasons, but don't want to state them? Clearly the stated reasons can't be the real reasons because they make no sense and if they were then those beliefs should change when someone points out how patently irrational the argument is.

In the words of Spock looking upon some gooey horror from the depths of space; Fascinating.

I could say the exact same about you to be honest. We both have opinions as the extreme opposite sides of the line. Sure i can say none of your agruments make sense either but thats just pointless and petty and sure whats the point of being on boards if thats your view. (And this is response to your last question )

KeyLimePie

sdonn wrote: »

Missing one half of the "ideal" family unit is not compensated for by doubling the other half, in fact I'd say that only makes it worse.

I come from a family where my dad left me and my Mam when I was 9 - even though I see him every week or two, and always have done, I firmly believe the lack of having my Dad around all the time has affected me. I can't imagine what it must be like to have one parent not around at all.

But surely you wouldn't go up to an orphaned child and say he can't have a home with two loving MEN cause it might adversely affect him in some way or another ?

TheInquisitor

gcgirl wrote: »

Well i am screwed i was basically brought up by 3 women my mum my aunt and my nan the same 3 people help bring up my 3 kids !
a few of my friends that have came through the normal channell are pretty f**ked up compaired to the one parent family one's ! there is no such thing as a normal family, I used to think i came from a different family but i have totally seen worse and my family are normal in my eyes!

That was towards adoption, please stop taking things out of context. Obviously there are going to be one parent families

andrew

KeyLimePie wrote: »

So you've basically slammed

Widows with children.
Widowers with children.
Single foster parents.
Single people who adopt.

Now how you can allow these family units and not one with two men ?

If I could somehow magically make it so that these families didn't have to exist, then I would. But obviously, short of genocide, this isn't possible. But with adoption there's the choice, so I think only hetero couples should be able to adopt. I think Single parents shouldn't be able to adopt/foster either.
BTW I'm not saying all single parent families/homosexual families are compete crap. I'm just saying that they come short of a hetero ideal.

havana

KeyLimePie wrote: »

So you've basically slammed

Single foster parents.
Single people who adopt.

Now how you can allow these family units and not one with two men ?

No apparently i can adopt or foster (see above) Don't want to but i can. Cos i'm straight you see. Lucky ol me!

JimiTime

Zillah wrote: »

You're such a coward.

And by your comparrison below, you seem quite dim, but name calling aside....

1 - You claim your religious beliefs entitles you to discriminate against homosexuals.
2 - Therefore, religious beliefs can justify discrimination.
3 - Would you support a religious person discriminating against black people for religious reasons?
4 - If not, is there a reason aside from that the fact that you happen to share discrimination against homosexuals?

Being black is not a behaviour. Having intercourse with someone is. I would have thought someone of your obvious learning could see a difference. Did you just ignore this for some reason, or did it not actually occur to you? Whether you're for or against, this difference is quite astoundingly obvious.

thelordofcheese

andrew wrote: »

If I could somehow magically make it so that these families didn't have to exist, then I would. But obviously, short of genocide, this isn't possible. But with adoption there's the choice, so I think only hetero couples should be able to adopt. I think Single parents shouldn't be able to adopt/foster either.
BTW I'm not saying all single parent families/homosexual families are compete crap. I'm just saying that they come short of a hetero ideal.

wow, that's twice tonight i've been stunned by peoples awful opinions.

*shakes head*

"Hetro ideal", what a pathetic imagined idea. Also, i like how your solution to single parent families isn't to find them someone else so they can live up to your 'hetro ideal' but to murder them.

It's a horrifying glimpse into your mind andrew.....

L1011

JimiTime wrote: »

And by your comparrison below, you seem quite dim, but name calling aside....


Being black is not a behaviour. Having intercourse with someone is. I would have thought someone of your obvious learning could see a difference. Did you just ignore this for some reason, or did it not actually occur to you?

You seem quite dim in not having read the full thing before replying.

The hypothetical cases which Jakkass refused to answer to properly were of a mixed racial marriage and a mixed religious marriage. Religion is a behaviour, for starters - and if who you love is, as you claim, so is the basis for a mixed racial marriage.

rc28

Jakkass wrote: »

with the reasons why I disagree with it on this thread already......and the effects it could have on people of faith.

And with that sentence you just lost whatever wafer of credibility was left in your argument. What sort of logic is that to justify denying me the right to equality and to have the State recognise my love for another human being in the same way that the State recognises the love between a man and a woman??...all that just to not upset some 'person of faith'??

Also, let me assure some on here that sexuality is NOT a choice. You can choose to remain in the closet but you're still gay underneath it all. A small minority of the population will always be gay. I think some people need to read the case of Zappone v Revenue Commissioners [2006] IEHC 404 (the lesbian couple that brought a case in the Irish High Court in 06 on their constitutional right to marriage- now on appeal to the Supreme Court) which explores the issues raised here and in an Irish context. In that case experts explained some of the misconceptions about homosexuality and the effect two same-sex parents have on a child's development.

There was also the more recent case in Florida where a ban on same-sex adoption was held as unconstitutional- in that case the court found there was no rational basis to NOT allow gay adoption:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/11/25/judge-in-miami-rules-florida-ban-on-gay-adoption-unconstitutional.html
Here's the text of the judgment- go to around page 48 for relevant part:
http://www.aclufl.org/pdfs/GillRedactedFinal.pdf

KnifeWRENCH

TheInquisitor wrote: »

I could say the exact same about you to be honest. We both have opinions as the extreme opposite sides of the line. Sure i can say none of your agruments make sense either but thats just pointless and petty and sure whats the point of being on boards if thats your view. (And this is response to your last question )

Except for the fact that Zillah's arguments DO make sense whereas yours.....not so much.

There are some issues where there are differences of opinion but both sides have some reasonable claim that they are right. This isn't one of them. Anyone who's denying two consenting adults the right to marriage is wrong and the arguments they put forward to try and justify their homophobia (homosexuality's not natural, children will be ruined, people of faith will be traumatised) are crap.

If ANYONE can offer me even a half decent argument as to why gay couples should not be allowed marriage, I'm all ears.

EDIT: Actually, scratch that last remark. There is no half-decent argument out there. Don't know what I was thinking!

TheInquisitor

thelordofcheese wrote: »

wow, that's twice tonight i've been stunned by peoples awful opinions.

*shakes head*

"Hetro ideal", what a pathetic imagined idea. Also, i like how your solution to single parent families isn't to find them someone else so they can live up to your 'hetro ideal' but to murder them.

It's a horrifying glimpse into your mind andrew.....

Well yes It has been heterosexual families forever, that is the norm and there is no reason that should ever change.

BlitzKrieg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS2TXsVH_98

Dennis the Stone

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

TheInquisitor

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

Except for the fact that Zillah's arguments DO make sense whereas yours.....not so much.

There are some issues where there are differences of opinion but both sides have some reasonable claim that they are right. This isn't one of them. Anyone who's denying two consenting adults the right to marriage is wrong and the arguments they put forward to try and justify their homophobia (homosexuality's not natural, children will be ruined, people of faith will be traumatised) are crap.

If ANYONE can offer me even a half decent argument as to why gay couples should not be allowed marriage, I'm all ears.

Because as far as im concerned homosexuality should never be accepted as normal. Marriage is normalising it, therefore i don't think gay people should be allowed marry.

Zillah

JimiTime wrote: »

Being black is not a behaviour. Having intercourse with someone is. I would have thought someone of your obvious learning could see a difference. Did you just ignore this for some reason, or did it not actually occur to you? Whether you're for or against, this difference is quite astoundingly obvious.

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.

Now, if you're trying to resurrect that poor beaten horse that is the non-biological argument then I'd suggest you read a science book or two.

TheInquisitor wrote: »

I could say the exact same about you to be honest. We both have opinions as the extreme opposite sides of the line. Sure i can say none of your agruments make sense either but thats just pointless and petty and sure whats the point of being on boards if thats your view. (And this is response to your last question )

Ahahaha, wow. So, in an argument, if I point out that what you are saying makes no sense, that's petty and pointless of me? Staggering. Though it does give a little insight into my ponderings about how you can hold such ridiculously irrational concepts in your head.

Daragh101

no!!!

L1011

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Because as far as im concerned homosexuality should never be accepted as normal. Marriage is normalising it, therefore i don't think gay people should be allowed marry.

You're about 16 years too late for it being legally 'normalised' here, sorry. The state disagrees with you on that one, as do the bulk of the country.

Splendour

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.


(in relation to above: As far as I can tell our incest laws only ban male/female incest as at the time they were written, all male/male sexual acts were illegal anyway - they didn't need to double legislate. It appears they may have forgotten this when decriminalising in '93. Which wouldn't surprise me in Ireland.)

Yes homosexuality was illegal just as incestious relationships are now illegal-for the time being. There are plenty of people who would've been horrified at the thought of homsexuality being legalised in Ireland, just as there are plenty of people horrified at the thought of incest being legalised.

I'm not saying gay marriage will open the door to incestious marriage. My point is why not make incest legal? A lot of people who are so quick to judge those opposed to gay marriage would be up in arms if incest was legalised. Wherin lies the difference? Where do we draw our standards from?
Ftr, I have two very dear friends who are gay so I'm by any ways or means a 'gay basher!'

TheInquisitor

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.

Now, if you're trying to resurrect that poor beaten horse that is the non-biological argument then I'd suggest you read a science book or two.



Ahahaha, wow. So, in an argument, if I point out that what you are saying makes no sense, that's petty and pointless of me? Staggering. Though it does give a little insight into my ponderings about how you can hold such ridiculously irrational concepts in your head.

What you should do is clearly state what makes no sense, not just say your arguments are "ridiculous". Then i can try to rectify any confusion

rc28

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Because as far as im concerned homosexuality should never be accepted as normal. Marriage is normalising it, therefore i don't think gay people should be allowed marry.

And if it's 'normalised' as you put it, everyone will turn gay??!! Totally ridiculous line of reasoning- you seem to think it's preferable that people who are born gay (yes, it is not a choice) should be eternally stigmatised by society. Guess what, homosexuality has always and will always exist. I hope you do not call yourself a christian.

andrew

thelordofcheese wrote: »

wow, that's twice tonight i've been stunned by peoples awful opinions.

*shakes head*

"Hetro ideal", what a pathetic imagined idea. Also, i like how your solution to single parent families isn't to find them someone else so they can live up to your 'hetro ideal' but to murder them.

It's a horrifying glimpse into your mind andrew.....

Well, my 'solution' to single parent families wasn't to murder them, my point was that there is no 'solution' to single parent families as they're a fact of life. I also think you're misconstruing my opinions on single parent families etc. I don't think that they're some terrible abomination that are some sort of social evil. I just think that a hetero family, all other things being equal, would do a better job. In short, I suppose, I think that, all other things being equal, a hetero couple is best equipped to raise a child. Why do you think that this is awful?

TheInquisitor

MYOB wrote: »

the bulk of the country.

Oh so wait , why can't you get married again then?

gcgirl

The only Threat to hetrosexual marriage is Divorce!!
If 2 people love one another and are not related they should be able to get married!!

L1011

Splendour wrote: »

Yes homosexuality was illegal just as incestious relationships are now illegal-for the time being. There are plenty of people who would've been horrified at the thought of homsexuality being legalised in Ireland, just as there are plenty of people horrified at the thought of incest being legalised.

A majority of people in Ireland voted in a president who was publicly known to be very much pro decriminalisation 3 years prior to it happening - having been the lead legal advisor for the CHLR. It happened many years after the rest of Western Europe had already done it.

Neither has a snowballs chance in hell of happening with incest.

Splendour wrote: »

Y
I'm not saying gay marriage will open the door to incestious marriage. My point is why not make incest legal?

You've been implying it. You're using it as a scare tactic even though there isn't any comparison. One is illegal, has been for centuries, will continue to be and has no backing for legalising it. The other has been legal for some time, had huge public support for its legalisation, and is staying that way.

Splendour wrote: »

Ftr, I have two very dear friends who are gay so I'm by any ways or means a 'gay basher!'

"I'm not racist, I've a black friend...". Standard, pathetic justification.

Zillah

TheInquisitor wrote: »

What you should do is clearly state what makes no sense, not just say your arguments are "ridiculous". Then i can try to rectify any confusion

Ok, let me try again:

You say gay people should not be allowed to get married because they can't have children.
But what about infertile couples? we ask, should they not be forbidden getting married too?
You say they can adopt.

Therefore, gay people should be allowed to get married and adopt children.

Do you see how "Gay people can't have children and therefore shouldn't allowed to get married" makes no sense as an argument?

sdanseo

KeyLimePie wrote: »

But surely you wouldn't go up to an orphaned child and say he can't have a home with two loving MEN cause it might adversely affect him in some way or another ?

I would instead offer him or her a home with a loving heterosexual couple who in my opinion carry less risk of ****ing the kid up completely.

TheInquisitor

rc28 wrote: »

And if it's 'normalised' as you put it, everyone will turn gay??!! Totally ridiculous line of reasoning- you seem to think it's preferable that people who are born gay (yes, it is not a choice) should be eternally stigmatised by society. Guess what, homosexuality has always and will always exist. I hope you do not call yourself a christian.

No i do not call myself a chrisitian. It will exist but not in the centre of society. Ye can stay far away in the fringes

L1011

TheInquisitor wrote: »

Oh so wait , why can't you get married again then?

Because no law has been passed to allow it yet. There's a majority in support of full marriage rights based on the last opinion poll as it happens.

None of which has any bearing on the fact that the bulk of the country do not consider homosexuality abnormal - check the ESRI sex/sexuality survey from about three years ago.