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…1011131516

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    The incest argument is irrelevant. You are not born incestuous. It is probably a form of psychological illness. Same goes for all sorts of sexual disorders.

    The point is you are born gay. There is nothing you can do about it. A lot of gay people I know would really rather they hadn't been born that way because it makes life a lot more complicated. There are not tens of thousands of incestuous couples in Ireland in long-standing and steady relationships who are expressing their wish, en mass, to have the same rights in their relationship as everyone else does. The comparison is infantile.


  • Options
    #363
    I_AmThe_Walrus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 355 ✭✭I_AmThe_Walrus


    eightyfish wrote: »
    The incest argument is irrelevant. You are not born incestuous. It is probably a form of psychological illness. Same goes for all sorts of sexual disorders.

    The point is you are born gay. There is nothing you can do about it. A lot of gay people I know would really rather they hadn't been born that way because it makes life a lot more complicated. There are not tens of thousands of incestuous couples in Ireland in long-standing and steady relationships who are expressing their wish, en mass, to have the same rights in their relationship as everyone else does. The comparison is infantile.

    How is a person born gay? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious... (no homo)


  • Options
    #364
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    jill_valentine wrote: »
    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..

    Well as long as people draw a line about what is acceptable and what isn't and belittle those with differing opinions it very much does have a bearing.
    jill_valentine wrote: »
    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.

    Not really, it's just asking people to take a definite position, rather than musical chairs.
    jill_valentine wrote: »
    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.

    Who's asking anyone to "defend themselves" ? Perhaps the thread should have been open to pro-gay marriage only responses :rolleyes: Nobody is being asked to defend their sexuality or answer for anything else.


  • Options
    #365
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    eightyfish wrote: »
    The comparison is infantile.

    It would be if people were actually comparing the two. It is the reaction and rather arbitrary stance some people take on the two which is of much more interest.


  • Options
    #366
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: »
    How is a person born gay? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious... (no homo)

    Observable differences in the structuring of the brain.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7456588.stm

    They're gay all along, it just becomes apparent around the age of sexual maturity for the obvious reasons.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    I'm glad that prinz et al, feel that I am a second class citizen, and should be regarded as such by the republic in which we live.
    Does this extend to couples unable to have children, or is it just a gender issue?

    I find most people refer to how major religions condem homosexuality, but they also deny equality between the sexes, so that must be ok too...?


  • Options
    #368
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: »
    How is a person born gay? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious... (no homo)
    AFAIK, that question had not being comprehensively answered yet?


  • Options
    #369
    HavingCrack
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,847 ✭✭✭HavingCrack


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

    Its an interesting point that I'm still 50-50 on to be honest. If both consent to having sex or indeed getting legally married I don't see what the problem is. However it has been scientifically proven that incest seriously increases the risks of having seriously deformed children and leads to a far higher risk of health complications later in life. Its the reason the Ancient Egyptian royal family had such a low life expectancy.

    Therefore I have to agree that this is one particular area where state intervention is regretfully neccessary. Incestous marriage clearly presents too high a health risk to any possible offspring to be legally condoned in my opinion.

    I don't think you can compare the risks associated with incestous marriage as being on the same level as homosexual marriage. A vast number of studies have proven that the children of same sex couples come out no worse and in many cases better than those of a traditional nuclear family. But anyway same sex adoption is another topic away from gay marriage.


  • Options
    #370
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    I_AmThe_Walrus wrote: »
    How is a person born gay? I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just curious... (no homo)

    First ting that comes to mind is some recent research I read in New Scientist showing that homosexual brains were structured like those of the opposite sex. There's more than just that study though.

    EDIT: Just noticed now that jill posted a similar link a few posts ago.

    On top of that I think that some information can also be drawn from anecdotal evidence via conversations I've had with people over the years. Both anecdotal and scientific point decisively in the direction, in most cases, of homosexuality being a condition you are born with.

    So that answers your question. I don't think this thread is the place to get into a detailed discussion on the matter, however.


  • Options
    #371
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    lugha wrote: »
    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!

    Promoting is probably the wrong word, safeguarding it as the fundamental building block of a stable society is probably a better way to put it. Not as in ad campaigns and special offers :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    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.

    It was, look at charles haughey. He was hetrosexual coupling all over the place.

    why do you need another title? surely you can distinguish between a straight couple and a gay one


  • Options
    #373
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    efb wrote: »
    I'm glad that prinz et al, feel that I am a second class citizen...

    ..and boom there it is. Where did I say that in any way, shape or form?


  • Options
    #374
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    How does allowing gay marriage affect heterosexual marriage? What threats would there be that heterosexual marriage would need 'safeguarding' against?


  • Options
    #375
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    lugha wrote: »
    AFAIK, that question had not being comprehensively answered yet?

    As sexual orientation is determined by a combination of genetic aswell as prenatal hormonal factors in addition to brain physiology


  • Options
    #376
    lugha
    Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    prinz wrote: »
    Promoting is probably the wrong word, safeguarding it as the fundamental building block of a stable society is probably a better way to put it. Not as in ad campaigns and special offers :D
    But what does that mean in practice? I can certainly see the sense in promoting the family unit, though if you think gay parents cannot be part of the make up of such a unit, again you must provide the evidence (and I think the evidence suggests otherwise).
    But we are taking about denying the label "marriage", nothing more. Can you outline two future scenarios to me, one where gay unions can use this label and one where they can not, and explain why the second society might be better, and in what way?


  • Options
    #377
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    prinz wrote: »
    ..and boom there it is. Where did I say that in any way, shape or form?
    inally Posted by prinz:
    I think heterosexual couplings should be promoted by the state tbh, and if two different titles are needed to differentiate then so be it.
    -there, promoting one union over the other clearly indecates one as being better, the other being less preferred, second class, if you will


  • Options
    #378
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    efb wrote: »
    How does allowing gay marriage affect heterosexual marriage? What threats would there be that heterosexual marriage would need 'safeguarding' against?

    Doesn't have to be a threat to heterosexual marriage. IMO it's not in the best interest in society in general, as it is, no matter how many deny it, a stepping stone towards children and adoption.


  • Options
    #379
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    And that is a bad thing because...


  • Options
    #380
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    efb wrote: »
    inally Posted by prinz:
    I think heterosexual couplings should be promoted by the state tbh, and if two different titles are needed to differentiate then so be it.
    -there, promoting one union over the other clearly indecates one as being better, the other being less preferred, second class, if you will

    That's state relationship with an institution. Has no bearing on individuals being "second class".


  • Options
    #381
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    prinz wrote: »
    Doesn't have to be a threat to heterosexual marriage. IMO it's not in the best interest in society in general, as it is, no matter how many deny it, a stepping stone towards children and adoption.

    Prinz, I am not going to get married based on whats best in societys interest. I am going to get married because I love that person and for no other reason. I would not deny that to any other consenting adults either.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    efb wrote: »
    And that is a bad thing because...

    We have enough problems with regards Child Protection etc as it is. It would have massive implications into the future regarding next of kin, inheritance rights, the taxation system, custody battles, parental consent and on and on and on..........


  • Options
    #383
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    sensibleken wrote: »
    Prinz, I am not going to get married based on whats best in societys interest. I am going to get married because I love that person and for no other reason. I would not deny that to any other consenting adults either.

    If we all took that route there would be no society left.


  • Options
    #384
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    prinz wrote: »
    We have enough problems with regards Child Protection etc as it is. It would have massive implications into the future regarding next of kin, inheritance rights, the taxation system, custody battles, parental consent and on and on and on..........

    I heard a similar argument being touted the time of the divorce referendum...


  • Options
    #385
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    prinz wrote: »
    If we all took that route there would be no society left.

    Don't be adsurd. The only time people have gotten married for the greater good has been when monarchs used marriage to forment political alliances. we havent done that for centuries and it wasnt really an option for us poor folk anyway.

    People should marry for love. I dont see how that is a bad thing. Do you not agree?


  • Options
    #386
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    prinz wrote: »
    That's state relationship with an institution. Has no bearing on individuals being "second class".

    Could you explain this more fully, I'm nor quite getting it.


  • Options
    #387
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    sensibleken wrote: »
    Don't be adsurd. The only time people have gotten married for the greater good has been when monarchs used marriage to forment political alliances. we havent done that for centuries and it wasnt really an option for us poor folk anyway.

    People should marry for love. I dont see how that is a bad thing. Do you not agree?

    The involvement of the church and the state in marriage is a thing of the last few hundred years. For the vast majority arrangements were between individuals and didn't require 3rd party approval. It wasn't even a sacrament till the 15- or 1600's. The idea that society will collapse or that its some timeless monolith is just fiction.


  • Options
    #388
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    sensibleken wrote: »
    It was, look at charles haughey. He was hetrosexual coupling all over the place.

    Funniest post in an otherwise nauseating thread isn't much of an achievement, but I tip my hat all the same, this made me laugh like a crazy woman.


  • Options
    #389
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    prinz wrote: »
    ..and boom there it is. Where did I say that in any way, shape or form?

    Even if you haven't said it outright, it's plain to see by what you'd have implemented in practice - by insisting that the state treat one pair of consenting, committed adults better than it treats another.

    Again, why does straight marriage need to be protected and incentivised?


  • Options
    #390
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    prinz wrote: »
    it is, no matter how many deny it, a stepping stone towards children and adoption.

    As was the civil partnership bill. As was the 2000 equality legislation. As was the 1993 decriminalisation of homosexuality. It's called progress.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    prinz wrote: »
    Doesn't have to be a threat to heterosexual marriage. IMO it's not in the best interest in society in general, as it is, no matter how many deny it, a stepping stone towards children and adoption.
    You do realise gay people can already adopt?


Advertisement