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

Do you think that gay marriage would get passed in Ireland?

Options
1…1012141516

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    Vic_Mackey wrote: »
    Seems we got Tesco Value Civil Partnership.

    Indeed. So this bill is not only pathetic in its scope, it's racist. I have two friends who had to move to the UK for the exact reason described in my earlier post. They had to leave friends and family behind and uproot everything in order to live together.

    This country is a backward closed-minded old-school Catholic disgrace when it comes to equal rights for gay people.


  • Options
    #333
    roberthagedorn
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭roberthagedorn


    No matter how we feel about same-sex marriage, the exegesis for the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis makes us uncomfortable. Why? Because the deed Adam and STEve did, according to the evidence, was sodomy--the mystery the bishop of Hippo almost solved 1600 years ago. (He thought the sin was penile/vaginal.) For more information google The First Scandal Adam and Eve. Then click, read, and click again.


  • Options
    #334
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    A lot of people seem to think that the older generation would vote against it. Im not so sure.

    From personal experience I know one Gay guy in his late 70s who is an usher in the local church goes to the pub and sits with all his pals and has a pint. I know another, probably early sixties i think who owns an ouldfellas pub and no one cares either.

    when homosexuality was legalised no one gave a crap except a few far-right catholic sorts. the civil partnership passed without even bothering to vote because theres no opposition.

    really, apart from cóir, i dont see any significant amount of people getting in the way of it


  • Options
    #335
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    I'd describe myself as a libertarian bordering on anarchism so I believe the government should have no power to say who can get married to who (within reason of course, I don't think any libertarian would advocate child marriage or incest for example). I'm so fed up of the significant minority of people in Ireland from both left and right wing backrounds attempting to shove their belifes both social and economic down everyones throats. To all those against gay marriage, if gay people want to get married in a civil ceremony how does it affect you????


  • Options
    #336
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,991 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    roberthagedorn wrote: »
    No matter how we feel about same-sex marriage, the exegesis for the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis makes us uncomfortable. Why? Because the deed Adam and STEve did, according to the evidence, was sodomy--the mystery the bishop of Hippo almost solved 1600 years ago. (He thought the sin was penile/vaginal.) For more information google The First Scandal Adam and Eve. Then click, read, and click again.

    Why should anyone care? We live in a 21st century supposedly pluralist society. Legislation shouldn't be based on fairy tales from several thousand years ago.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    HavingCrack wrote: »
    To all those against gay marriage, if gay people want to get married in a civil ceremony how does it affect you????

    So you only want people to be allowed to marry within reason... and then you go on to ask this? People's definition of within reason differs.


  • Options
    #338
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    prinz wrote: »
    So you only want people to be allowed to marry within reason... and then you go on to ask this? People's definition of within reason differs.

    He said within reason, as in, no children should be allowed marry. He said this himself, you conveniently didn't quote this part.


  • Options
    #339
    sasser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 369 ✭✭sasser


    eightyfish wrote: »
    Indeed. So this bill is not only pathetic in its scope, it's racist. I have two friends who had to move to the UK for the exact reason described in my earlier post. They had to leave friends and family behind and uproot everything in order to live together.

    This country is a backward closed-minded old-school Catholic disgrace when it comes to equal rights for gay people.

    But what's stopping them living together here, I'm confused?


  • Options
    #340
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


    prinz wrote: »
    So you only want people to be allowed to marry within reason... and then you go on to ask this? People's definition of within reason differs.

    Stop quoting me without putting the rest of what I said in, it gives a completely different slant on my post. The homosexual marriage that I would support would be between two consenting adults which is a completely different kettle of fish to child marriage or incest as I'm sure you'd agree.


  • Options
    #341
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    HavingCrack wrote: »
    Stop quoting me without putting the rest of what I said in, it gives a completely different slant on my post. The homosexual marriage that I would support would be between two consenting adults which is a completely different kettle of fish to child marriage or incest as I'm sure you'd agree.

    What about two consenting adults engaging in incest?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    prinz wrote: »
    What about two consenting adults engaging in incest?
    I think the line that you and others are taking here Prinz (i.e. if we adjust what we understand by marriage at all, where do we stop?) supposes that our current view is somehow ideal. But could others not have made the same argument when for example, some societies prohibited mixed race marriages? I.e. if we permit mixed race marriages, why not incestuous ones etc.?

    Many of those opposed to gay marriage here seem to have little difficulty with civil partnerships for gays, which I have to say I find curious. If you do not condemn gay relationships outright, then surely the onus is on you to justify why you would deny them the label “marriage”?


  • Options
    #343
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    prinz wrote: »
    What about two consenting adults engaging in incest?

    What does preventing these people from getting married achieve?

    If it's legalized tomorrow will we all start sleeping with our cousins/brothers/sisters or something?


  • Options
    #344
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    prinz wrote: »
    What about two consenting adults engaging in incest?

    Absolutely no problem unless a child is conceived in which case it is intentional risk of harm caused to a unborn child. In the case of homosexuals couples a child cannot be conceived so I fail to see why you are constantly bringing up incest.


  • Options
    #345
    Otacon
    Registered Users Posts: 6,721 ✭✭✭Otacon


    Why does incest and [not yet in this thread afaik] paedophilia always get dragged into these discussions? It always annoys me.


  • Options
    #346
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,991 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Incest is illegal in Ireland so there's no slippery slope towards sibling marriage. Reason being the high potential for creating deformed offspring so it's more than a case of one's own business. If there wasn't the risk of deformed offspring, it would probably be legal as the right for consenting adults to do as they please in the privacy of their own bedrooms is a human right regardless of whether others find it distasteful.

    As for marrying your family pets and insectoid overlords, that's covered by the United Declaration of Human Rights which dictates that both parties have to explicitly consent to marriage so that's another slippery slope ruled out.


  • Options
    #347
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Absolutely no problem unless a child is conceived in which case it is intentional risk of harm caused to a unborn child. In the case of homosexuals couples a child cannot be conceived so I fail to see why you are constantly bringing up incest.
    WTF? You find nothing wrong with incest unless someone gets pregnant?


  • Options
    #348
    I_AmThe_Walrus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 355 ✭✭I_AmThe_Walrus


    It will never be a reality until the dinosaurs in Government get their head out of their arse and catch up with the modern era - ridiculous religious values keeping us in the stone-age.


  • Options
    #349
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    lugha wrote: »
    I think the line that you and others are taking here Prinz (i.e. if we adjust what we understand by marriage at all, where do we stop?) supposes that our current view is somehow ideal.

    Not neccessarily. There is an element to that, but it's mostly about illustrating that different people have different opinions. If person A said they draw the line before homosexual couples..... berated, blah blah, why a line there there, that's arbitrary denying people rights etc.

    Person B after using these arguments against person A then restricts the same thing from two other consenting adults with another 'line' that could equally be described as arbitrary. It's basically the same argument just either side of homosexuality. Of course you won't have Person B being described as a whatever-phobe, ignorant, whatever it is.
    lugha wrote: »
    Many of those opposed to gay marriage here seem to have little difficulty with civil partnerships for gays, which I have to say I find curious. If you do not condemn gay relationships outright, then surely the onus is on you to justify why you would deny them the label “marriage”?

    I think heterosexual couplings should be promoted by the state tbh, and if two different titles are needed to differentiate then so be it.


  • Options
    #350
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    WTF? You find nothing wrong with incest unless someone gets pregnant?

    Ever fancied a cousin?


  • Options
    #351
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    Gay rights proponents shouldn't have to answer for incest and paedophilia. They're nothing to do with anything, and bringing the subjects into the discussion is a sleazy Daily Mail tactic to force the other side into unpopular company. It's a weak, dishonest argument, and I'm sick of seeing it trotted out.

    Argue against gay marriage on it's own terms, or admit once and for all that you don't even have a clue why you oppose it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    What does preventing these people from getting married achieve? If it's legalized tomorrow will we all start sleeping with our cousins/brothers/sisters or something?

    Good question. Which is why I asked the question. Who decided two consenting homosexuals getting married was 'within reason' while two consent siblings looking to get married was outside reason....
    Malty_T wrote: »
    Absolutely no problem unless a child is conceived in which case it is intentional risk of harm caused to a unborn child. In the case of homosexuals couples a child cannot be conceived so I fail to see why you are constantly bringing up incest.

    Then again, there as mentioned there are ways, surrogacy, donation etc. So you are back to arguing the basis of marriage on the grounds of potential offspring. However when someone says that homosexual marriage is a ridiculous concept because they can't have kids.... that argument is rubbished.


  • Options
    #353
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,991 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    MUSSOLINI wrote: »
    WTF? You find nothing wrong with incest unless someone gets pregnant?

    You can opine that it's wrong, but according to the European Convention on Human Rights, you wouldn't be able to do anything about it as it would be a case of privacy in one's own bedroom.
    jill_valentine wrote:
    Yes, gay rights proponents shouldn't have to answer for incest and paedophilia, and bringing the subjects into the discussion is a sleazy Daily Mail tactic. It's a weak, dishonest argument, and I'm sick of seeing it trotted out.

    Argue the thing on it's own terms, or admit you haven't a clue why you oppose it.

    Agreed, you don't hear people say "Surely if you're allowed marry a member of the opposite sex, a brother could marry his sister?".
    prinz wrote:
    Good question. Which is why I asked the question. Who decided two consenting homosexuals getting married was 'within reason' while two consent siblings looking to get married was outside reason....

    One's illegal, the other isn't.
    prinz wrote:
    Then again, there as mentioned there are ways, surrogacy, donation etc. So you are back to arguing the basis of marriage on the grounds of potential offspring. However when someone says that homosexual marriage is a ridiculous concept because they can't have kids.... that argument is rubbished.

    That is the reasoning for incest being illegal. Nothing to do with arguments for marriage.


  • Options
    #354
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    jill_valentine wrote: »
    It's a weak, dishonest argument, and I'm sick of seeing it trotted out..

    So weak that no one has yet come up with a decent argument against it? Hmm. Just to point out I haven't mentioned beasitiality/paedophilia whatsoever.


  • Options
    #355
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,991 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Why don't you defend heterosexual marriage against brother/sister incest?


  • Options
    #356
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Stark wrote: »
    One's illegal, the other isn't..

    There was a time when homosexual acts were illegal.


  • Options
    #357
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,991 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    Purely because of bigotry and the laws repealed for good reason, ie: the State having no business interfering with the private lives of consenting adults. And before you bring up another strawman, you might want to go back and read previous posts in the thread.


  • Options
    #358
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Stark wrote: »
    Purely because of bigotry and the laws repealed for good reason.

    Yet you deem it acceptable to criminalise consenting adults in an incestuous relationship? Even two males/two females?


  • Options
    #359
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    prinz wrote: »
    So weak that no one has yet come up with a decent argument against it? Hmm.

    Listen smarmy-chops, if you want to start a thread about incest, be my guest. That's not what this thread is about, however, nor has it any bearing on the gay marriage question generally. I don't think I even have an opinion about incest one way or the other, and the fact that is continuously brought into the conversation is just mean-spirited innuendo.

    Gay people should not and do not have to answer for paedophilia and incest too just to defend themselves. They shouldn't have to "defend themselves" in the first place, but here we bloody well are.


  • Options
    #360
    Wolfe Tone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,670 ✭✭✭✭Wolfe Tone


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Ever fancied a cousin?
    No, because thats just sick.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    prinz wrote: »
    Not neccessarily. There is an element to that, but it's mostly about illustrating that different people have different opinions. If person A said they draw the line before homosexual couples..... berated, blah blah, why a line there there, that's arbitrary denying people rights etc.
    I suppose you could argue that there is a fine line between enforcing the agreed norms of society (e.g. prohibiting incestuous unions) and challenging prejudices (e.g. condemning homosexual unions) but in this case, many are happy to afford full civil rights to homosexuals (hence and implicitly, putting them in the latter category) but insist that the label “marriage” be denied them. You defend this with
    prinz wrote: »
    I think heterosexual couplings should be promoted by the state tbh, and if two different titles are needed to differentiate then so be it.
    But this is not like promoting marriage or anything else. The only purpose of promoting something is to encourage people to embrace it. And presumably you do not believe that gays might give the ‘aul hetro stuff a go, if you promote it enough? It would be a akin to starting a campaign to promote women by encouraging people to be women!


Advertisement