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

Newsite

jill_valentine wrote: »

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

Because it's the bedrock of a functioning society.

jill_valentine

Ah here. People have been getting married and riding rings 'round them for years, or not getting married and doing exactly the same. They'll continue to do both for the forseeable future. Society tips along quite nicely without some sort of "Congratulations on acting straight" trophy.

MagicMarker

Newsite wrote: »

Because it's the bedrock of a functioning society.

So if people stopped getting married society would crumble?

I think not.

Turtwig

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.

As I've already explained on two posts on this thread. I've no problem with incest as long as the incestuous couple don't produce a child from their own genes. Surrogacy,Donation, Cloning, etc. and any other technology that comes along to bypass them sharing their own genes would be ok in my book. So, uh yeah, I have no problem with an incestuous couple raising children, as long as they're are diversifying the genes of the newborn.

sponsoredwalk

I have a friend who got ordained online and wedded himself to a bin,
ƒuck you :mad: @ the people that want him to part ways with her :mad:

Stark

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.

Gay couples have been having children for years. All the head in the sand approach does is rob those children of their rights.

sensibleken

Newsite wrote: »

Because it's the bedrock of a functioning society.

I would have thought law and order, freedom, and non-descrimination were. But hey, I guess that makes me an anarchist. now where did i put that subhumans t shirt.

Seriously, marriage isnt the bedrock of anything. couples who arent married can still raise kids and have a happy family without some priest saying they can kiss

prinz

Stark wrote: »

Gay couples have been having children for years. All the head in the sand approach does is rob those children of their rights.

...and people have been evading tax, murdering, thieving, and racially attacking people for years.

prinz

efb wrote: »

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

jill_valentine wrote: »

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.

The State already does this every day in a whole myriad of ways.

Stark

prinz wrote: »

...and people have been evading tax, murdering, thieving, and racially attacking people for years.

So having children is the same as murdering and thieving is it?

prinz

Stark wrote: »

So having children is the same as murdering and thieving is it?

Nope, but there you go. Intentionally miss the point in an attempt to appear clever.

seamus

prinz wrote: »

Nope, but there you go. Intentionally miss the point in an attempt to appear clever.

Not really prinz. You were using the point that people break the law all the time in order to show, well, something. I'm not actually sure what your point was.

Stark's point is that, like many things in Ireland, including abortion, people have been doing this for years and we are at the stage now that simply needs to be formally legalised and regulated in order to protect those involved, but instead some people try to pretend that it doesn't go on in Ireland and try to block its legalisation for nothing more than some archaic and homophobic principles.

MagicMarker

prinz wrote: »

...and people have been evading tax, murdering, thieving, and racially attacking people for years.

You're sinking pretty low here tbh.

prinz

seamus wrote: »

Not really prinz. You were using the point that people break the law all the time in order to show, well, something. I'm not actually sure what your point was.Stark's point is that, like many things in Ireland, including abortion, people have been doing this for years and we are at the stage now that simply needs to be formally legalised and regulated in order to protect those involved, but instead some people try to pretend that it doesn't go on in Ireland and try to block its legalisation for nothing more than some archaic and homophobic principles.

So you do know what the point was. Just because something is done, has been done, whatever does not mean that it needs to be legislated and regulated for.

...but again we're back to the homophobic slurs, so I'm out. Sad really.

sensibleken

prinz wrote: »

The State already does this every day in a whole myriad of ways.

I think you do the institution of marriage a diservice.

you seem to take it out of a context of love and place it in a cold pragmatic context.

As someone pointed out on the last page, the institution of marriage is not as old as you think. polygamy, aranged marriage have been part of western civilisation until fairly recently.

We've moved beyond that and now recognise that two people loving one another and wanting to marry is a good thing and the best way to deal with marriage and relationships in general. and if that changes then its better that they separate.

But all this talk of whats best for society that 1/10 of it are denied the basic human right to be treated the same as the other 9/10s. I dont understand.

When you go to ask someone to marry you what are you going to say? 'Darling I've never seen you look more acceptable. For the greater good of society, will you marry me'. best of luck

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

So you do know what the point was. Just because something is done, has been done, whatever does not mean that it needs to be legislated and regulated for.

But surely you must explain why it should not be regulated for rather than mentioning things that no one would want to be regulated for while accusing anyone who says you're comparing it to these things of intentionally missing the point? Murder is illegal because it has a victim. So why should gay adoption be illegal?

seamus

prinz wrote: »

Just because something is done, has been done, whatever does not mean that it needs to be legislated and regulated for.

Where there's a common practice which otherwise isn't doing harm, but which results in any group of individuals being left with lesser rights than everyone else, then the state must step in a legislate to restore the rights of that group onto a par with the rest of society.

...but again we're back to the homophobic slurs, so I'm out. Sad really.

Well I actually wasn't talking specifically about you. I do have difficulty though with people's opposition to it - from my point of view, there's no valid reason except for homophobia (used in the broadest sense of "People who have a problem with gays") to oppose gay marriage.

prinz

sensibleken wrote: »

I think you do the institution of marriage a diservice. you seem to take it out of a context of love and place it in a cold pragmatic context.

Not from the personal level but from the state level down it is something to be looked at in that way.

sensibleken wrote: »

When you go to ask someone to marry you what are you going to say? 'Darling I've never seen you look more acceptable. For the greater good of society, will you marry me'. best of luck

I said something like that yeah

seamus wrote: »

Well I actually wasn't talking specifically about you. I do have difficulty though with people's opposition to it - from my point of view, there's no valid reason except for homophobia (used in the broadest sense of "People who have a problem with gays") to oppose gay marriage.

No problem, and you're entitled to your opinion. It was just the latest in a sting of homophobe comments. As I said before I have no issue with gays, or gay marriage as long as any such state recognised institution is formed with parameters which restrict the automatic right to kids.

Now obviously this could happen on a private level, surrogacy, extra marital relations etc no different to heterosexual couples who have kids from different relationships etc. I just don't think the State should stand over it as an ideal, no than I think the State should heterosexual polygamous arrangements.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

No problem, and you're entitled to your opinion. It was just the latest in a sting of homophobe comments. As I said before I have no issue with gays, or gay marriage as long as any such state recognised institution is formed with parameters which restrict the automatic right to kids.

Now obviously this could happen on a private level, surrogacy, extra marital relations etc no different to heterosexual couples who have kids from different relationships etc. I just don't think the State should stand over it as an ideal, no than I think the State should heterosexual polygamous arrangements.

Are you honestly surprised that people are implying homophobia in someone who wants the state to restrict homosexuals raising children?

If I said that the state shouldn't stand over catholics raising children would you call me anti-religious?

prinz

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Are you honestly surprised that people are implying homophobia in someone who wants the state to restrict homosexuals raising children?

I also think the same should apply to polygamous arrangements. Why don't you call me a heterophobe?

MagicMarker

prinz wrote: »

Not from the personal level but from the state level down it is something to be looked at in that way.



I said something like that yeah



No problem, and you're entitled to your opinion. It was just the latest in a sting of homophobe comments. As I said before I have no issue with gays, or gay marriage as long as any such state recognised institution is formed with parameters which restrict the automatic right to kids.

Now obviously this could happen on a private level, surrogacy, extra marital relations etc no different to heterosexual couples who have kids from different relationships etc. I just don't think the State should stand over it as an ideal, no than I think the State should heterosexual polygamous arrangements.

I've already said this to you in this thread, you appear to have ignored it.

Once again, gay people can already adopt!

sensibleken

prinz wrote: »

Not from the personal level but from the state level down it is something to be looked at in that way.



I said something like that yeah



No problem, and you're entitled to your opinion. It was just the latest in a sting of homophobe comments. As I said before I have no issue with gays, or gay marriage as long as any such state recognised institution is formed with parameters which restrict the automatic right to kids.

Now obviously this could happen on a private level, surrogacy, extra marital relations etc no different to heterosexual couples who have kids from different relationships etc. I just don't think the State should stand over it as an ideal, no than I think the State should heterosexual polygamous arrangements.

I dont know why you keep comparing apples and oranges.

gay marriage to polygamy, incest, bestiality. why cant brother and sister marry, why cant a man marry a horse, why cant two squirrels marry a centra. Its nothing like one another.

If you compare like for like. Gay marriage with straight marriage then it is blatantly wrong to descriminate based on sexual orientation, in fact why is it even legal to descriminate based on that?

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

I also think the same should apply to polygamous arrangements. Why don't you call me a heterophobe?

Because being against polygamy isn't heterophobia

I edited this question in so I think you might have missed it. If I said the following:

I have no issue with christians, or christian marriage as long as any such state recognised institution is formed with parameters which restrict the automatic right to kids.

Now obviously this could happen on a private level, surrogacy, extra marital relations etc no different to non-religious couples who have kids from different relationships etc. I just don't think the State should stand over it as an ideal, no more than I think the State should heterosexual polygamous arrangements.

Would you call me an anti-religious bigot or would you think my opinion was valid, progressive, egalitarian and non-discriminatory?

prinz

MagicMarker wrote: »

I've already said this to you in this thread, you appear to have ignored it. Once again, gay people can already adopt!

IIRC gay couples cannot jointly adopt. It is possible for a single person to apply for adoption but the same-sex partner has no legal relationship to the child in that instance. Homosexual couples can foster.

Sam Vimes

prinz wrote: »

IIRC gay couples cannot jointly adopt. It is possible for a single person to apply for adoption but the same-sex partner has no legal relationship to the child in that instance. Homosexual couples can foster.

Do you not think that's a bit bonkers?

MagicMarker

prinz wrote: »

IIRC gay couples cannot jointly adopt. It is possible for a single person to apply for adoption but the same-sex partner has no legal relationship to the child in that instance. Homosexual couples can foster.

You think gay people live a life of celibacy once they've adopted?

prinz

sensibleken wrote: »

If you compare like for like. Gay marriage with straight marriage then it is blatantly wrong to descriminate based on sexual orientation, in fact why is it even legal to descriminate based on that?

Then you are into grey areas on what is discrimination. Redefine the marriage as viewed by the State to meaning two people of any gender?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Because being against polygamy isn't heterophobia

...and being ok with Civil Unions, Civil partnerships, gay marriage etc isn't homophobia. I don't care what sexual orientation the proposed parents, guardians are, I am concerned with the best interest of the child and of society as a whole.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

IIRC gay couples cannot jointly adopt. It is possible for a single person to apply for adoption but the same-sex partner has no legal relationship to the child in that instance..

The same-sex partner can simply apply to be a guardian of the child. They are in precisely the same position as an umarried father in a committed relationship with the mother of their child.

Unforunately your very basis for fighting gay marriage has been undermined by changes that have already occurred. You just dont realise that the changes have occurred, or you refuse to accept the reality.

prinz

MagicMarker wrote: »

You think gay people live a life of celibacy once they've adopted?

No, nor do I expect them too. If thats they way they want to go about things that's fine with me. It's no different to the same law which applies to heterosexual couples, an unmarried heterosexual couple may also not adopt jointly.

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

Unforunately your very basis for fighting gay marriage has been undermined by changes that have already occurred.

Not really. The fact that you claim I am "fighting gay marriage" confirms that people are paying no real attention to what I am actually saying.