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

Links234

Jakkass wrote: »

The issue doesn't surround whether or not people can or should express their love. It surrounds whether or not children should be raised in such situations. Or indeed, if the Government should attempt to ensure that in the vast majority of situations that children are raised with both a mother and a father.

Personally, I don't think that is that antiquated to expect the Government to ensure the very best for children.

I don't like the implication that children brought up by two men or two women aren't getting the very best upbringing.

rainbow kirby

I would absolutely love to see it passed, and I have no doubt it will be eventually. Preferably sooner rather than later. Civil partnership is merely a half-measure and doesn't give full recognition to LGBT couples.

Nicewanbiy

If two people love each other what's the problem.

What about your mano living in Missouri, the Zoophiliac who married a pony.

Think it was called Zoo is a 2007 BBC documentary film based on the life and death of Kenneth Pinyan or else t'was Animal passions (part of the Hidden Love series) (1999, follow-up sequel 2004, Channel 4, UK).

Do I know a lot on the subject, apparently so.

krudler

Links234 wrote: »

I don't like the implication that children brought up by two men or two women aren't getting the very best upbringing.

Me either, by that implication anyone who is raised by a gay couple, male or female will have some twisted view on the world not having a male and female figure. There are plenty of people who had the "standard" mam and dad upbringing that are completely fcuked up, its not a case of the standard family setup makes well rounded people, theres no formula for raising a kid. If someone had 2 balanced gay parents they'd be just as well raised as someone with a mother and father. Bad parenting raises bad kids not the parents sexuality.

I voted no in the poll but thats not because I dont agree with gay marriage, just that I dont think it will be passed in this country, not any time soon at least. condoms were illegal to sell in shops less than 20 years ago in this backwards little island ffs.

sponsoredwalk

Jakkass wrote: »

The issue doesn't surround whether or not people can or should express their love. It surrounds whether or not children should be raised in such situations. Or indeed, if the Government should attempt to ensure that in the vast majority of situations that children are raised with both a mother and a father.

Personally, I don't think that is that antiquated to expect the Government to ensure the very best for children.

The right of expressing your love is clearly yours, but the welfare of any children needs to be considered. If marriage is the basis for the family in the Constitution, that means we also need to consider children as well as the love expressed.

So, your argument goes deeper - you now claim that kids are deprived
when they grow up in a same sex environment. I know reason alone wont
stop you so I'll have to pull out a load of psychological studies that have
taken place over years with families of same-sex couples to show you
to be completely wrong with your insinuations. Anyone could logically come
to that realization easily but seeing as this is a shocking issue for you I'll
give you evidence you're feelings are wrong on this one.
Check the bottom of this post....

Jakkass wrote: »

I have.

LGBT couples have the right to formalise their relationships or will do within a few months.

I'm arguing based on legislation, and possible impacts. Not on the basis of anthropology.

Yes I know, & you're doing a great job ignoring the points I'm making by
staying within the narrow bounds you've allowed yourself.
Step outside them & you're argument has no merit whatsoever.

Anthropological evidence shows that there is no such thing as a single
family structure. Your argument, which you so blithely acknowledge, was
that allowing same sex marraiges, and the latest point - children growing up in these
houses, would be too radical a change in family structure. How can this be
the case when there is no such thing as a single family structure? How can
this be the case when all throughout the world there are man, MANY,
different "radical" forms the family takes on??? What you're doing is arguing
out of ignorance - there is no such thing as a cement-clad family structure
& there is no reason why it should remain as parochial as people like you
want to stagnate it into.

Wikipedia wrote:

Society’s early assumptions about the superiority of the traditional family
form have been challenged by the results of empirical research. Early in the
Twentieth Century, it was widely believed that traditional family settings
were necessary in order for children to adjust well. Since the 1970s, it has
become increasingly clear that it is family processes (such as the quality of
parenting, the psychosocial well-being of parents, the quality of and
satisfaction with relationships within the family, and the level of
co-operation and harmony between parents) that contribute to
determining children’s well-being and ‘outcomes’, rather than family
structures, per se, such as the number, gender, sexuality and
co-habitation status of parents.[24][25][26] Since the end of the 1980’s,
as a result, it has been well established that children and adolescents can
adjust just as well in nontraditional settings as in traditional settings.[25]

Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual
couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the
children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by
heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific
research literature.[27][28][24][29][25] In fact, the promotion of this
notion, and the laws and public policies that embody it, are clearly counter
to the well-being of children.[24] No research supports the widely held
conviction that the gender of parents matters for child well-being.
[30][24][25] Society is replete with role models from whom children and
adolescents can learn about socially prescribed male and female roles.[25]

Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for
children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with
heterosexual parents has been remarkably consistent in showing that
lesbian and gay parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual
parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted
as children reared by heterosexual parents,[27][9][24][31][32][33] despite
the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain
significant challenges for these families.[24] These data have
demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1
or more gay parents.[34]

The abilities of gay and lesbian persons as parents and the positive
outcomes for their children are not areas where credible scientific
researchers disagree. Statements by the leading associations of experts in
this area reflect professional consensus that children raised by lesbian or
gay parents do not differ in any important respects from those raised by
heterosexual parents. No credible empirical research suggests
otherwise.[27] If gay, lesbian, or bisexual parents were inherently less
capable than otherwise comparable heterosexual parents, their children
would evidence problems regardless of the type of sample. This pattern
clearly has not been observed. Given the consistent failures in this
research literature to disprove the null hypothesis, the burden of empirical
proof is on those who argue that the children of sexual minority parents
fare worse than the children of heterosexual parents.[35] Canadian
Psychological Association is concerned that some are mis-interpreting the
findings of psychological research to support their positions, when their
positions are more accurately based on other systems of belief or
values.[9] According to the Maine Chapter of American Academy of
Pediatrics "those who claim that children need a biologically related mother
and father to flourish are either ignorant of the scientific literature or are
misrepresenting it or both".[36] Literature indicates that parents’ financial,
psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that
children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union.[8][37][34][25]

Most of the studies appeared in rigorously peer-reviewed and highly
selective journals, whose standards represent expert consensus on
generally accepted social scientific standards for research on child and
adolescent development.

link

Not rigorous enough for you?

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/06/07/23300

How about that one? I believe the words they use are "better off" :rolleyes:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cluster=3325840023901446481&hl=en
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=s&hl=en&q=case%20study%20lesbian%20parents&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws
http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/639859.html

This is a fundamental human right - to get married & be recognised by
society. You have ignored the point I was making by telling us that
my anthropological argument doesn't matter.

I'll ask again;

You have to explain to us why all over the world the one common thread anthropologists
find is that marriage is a "publicly announced contract that makes legitimate the sexual union
of a man and a woman.", that is the finding...

Remember, I'm arguing that the law should be changed - I don't
recognise the authority of a law that segregates & excludes.

You have no credible reason to oppose the law seeing as I've given you
evidence that your worry about the family is ridiculous & that your worry
about children being deprived is not only ridiculous but ignorant of the
past, present & future.

What new reason will come from the many unterior motives I bet you're
harbouring? There are very few reasons to oppose evidence - religion is
one, and errr.... political bias - that's about it... Which one will
manifest itself? :rolleyes:

philologos

MrSir wrote: »

That's a joke right? Please,for all that is good,tell me you're joking.

Not at all. When people are being disingenuous, it's generally best to try and argue why and clear it up!

Links234 wrote:

I don't like the implication that children brought up by two men or two women aren't getting the very best upbringing.

I give no guarantee, that you will "like" my opinion. If it is more than a dislike, and if you feel I am violating the charter of AH. Click the report post button beside my avatar.

Liam Byrne

mickydoomsux wrote: »

I see no problem letting same sex couples get married and having kids.

How ?

sponsoredwalk

Jakkass wrote: »

I give no guarantee, that you will "like" my opinion. If it is more than a dislike, and if you feel I am violating the charter of AH. Click the report post button beside my avatar.

You can have your opinion, by all means, but that doesn't mean there's any
logic to it & I think most people would listen to why you believe what you
believe because if there's sound logic/reason to why you believe what you
believe then they may be fools for not believing what you believe.
In this current discussion all the evidence is against you but I believe you'll
argue that your entitled to believe in unfounded prejudice because it's
your opinion. That's fine, but the illogical opinions of the population should
not be enough of a reason to stop people indulging in their fundamental
human rights, especially when all over the world, in all different cultures,
people are indulging in these things and, what's worse, they hurt no-one!
Not even the kids as the evidence in my links above clearly shows :cool:

Annasopra

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How ?

adoption, surrogacy, fostering, guardianship, turkey basters etc

candy-gal1

mickydoomsux wrote: »

Teens and children will take the piss out of each other over anything so that's hardly a compelling argument.

I see no problem letting same sex couples get married and having kids. What business is it of mine?

It'll probably never happen in good auld cat-lick Ireland though. We're still incredibly backwards in our thinking, for the most part.

Exactly what I mean there, since kids have a difficult enough time growing up in school then why add more criticsm to that with yet another reason to get made fun of.

unknown13

Partnership's yes.

Marraige no; the whole Catholic Country nonsense will prevent marraiges from going through because a group of very religous Catholics from all over Ireland will be lobbying some TD's to death and the TD can't tell them to shut it.

sponsoredwalk

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Exactly what I mean there, since kids have a difficult enough time growing up in school then why add more criticsm to that with yet another reason to get made fun of.

Why would you let kids who should be taught by their parents not to go
picking on others stop adults from marrying? I believe that is letting them
win (even though this isn't a game, it's serious). Kids will pick on someone because
of their hair colour, their shoes etc... Well, not all kids This argument
doesn't stop kids who are themselves gay/lesbian/transgender/passionate-
about-ballet/etc... from being what tho are, in fact it leads to serious
psychological issues keeping it in in many cases!

I think this is one of those issues where a little bravery & faith in humanity
is more important than normal, soon even hateful kids will see all these
families as normal as pie & get back to picking on the red haired kid so lets
get cracking

Links234

Jakkass wrote: »

I give no guarantee, that you will "like" my opinion. If it is more than a dislike, and if you feel I am violating the charter of AH. Click the report post button beside my avatar.

wow that's defensive!

if you really want what is best for children, then you should be fully behind gay marriage and adoption, because as we all know by now research shows two gay parents are better than a single straight one.

Speaking as a child of a gay mother, I really do hope it does.

MrSir

39.39% against. That's 39.39% too much.

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

krudler

MrSir wrote: »

39.39% against. That's 39.39% too much.

I voted no, but not because im against it, its because in all likelyhood it wont get passed, poll should have more options tbh

candy-gal1

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Exactly what I mean there, since kids have a difficult enough time growing up in school then why add more criticsm to that with yet another reason to get made fun of.

:rolleyes:
I'd post a long reasoned argument, but I've done it so many times that's all I can say really

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

nommm

If there was vote I would vote yes. I don't think we can claim to live in a society where everyone is equal if everybody doesn't have equal rights. I voted no in the poll as none of our TD's have the balls to try and get something like this passed.:rolleyes:

JupiterKid

It will happen sooner or later.

The sooner the backward and thick ignorant Joe Duffy generation die off the better.

foxyboxer

foxyboxer wrote: »

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman who will start a family.

I guess any infertile men or women can expect to have their marriage cancelled?

That's just the way it is.

We know how it is. We're talking about how we would like it to be .

Up de Barrs

I voted yes, most young people in Ireland are very liberal and would vote overwhelmingly in favour. There would be a huge campaign based around facebook, youtube etc to get people who might rarely vote to get out and ensure it was passed. I think the problem wouldnt be so much getting a Yes vote but getting the politicians to give us the chance to catch up with countries like Spain and Belgium who have legislate for marriage equality (which is what it should be called rather than gay marriage).

Sulmac

unknown13 wrote: »

Partnership's yes.

Marraige no; the whole Catholic Country nonsense will prevent marraiges from going through because a group of very religous Catholics from all over Ireland will be lobbying some TD's to death and the TD can't tell them to shut it.

The same way "Catholic" Spain, Portugal, Argentina and Belgium will never have same-sex marriage?

Oh, wait.

For those interested, a series of polls have shown public support for same-sex marriage in Ireland to be around the 58-62% mark. Of course, support for it is highest among the younger age groups (including a majority of under-50s in favour of adoption) - those least likely to vote.

That said, I don't think something like this should go to a referendum - tyranny of the majority and all that. It should only go to a referendum if the Supreme Court says so.

beanyb

Sadly, I agree that it will be a long time before full marriage rights are given to the LGBT community here. Ireland is far too conservative a country generally for it to get passed. And as someone else already posted, it's not just the older generation either.

I'd love to see it brought in. Civil partnership, although it is a step in the right direction, and I do welcome its introduction, has just legislated for inequality. It categorically marks unions between same sex couples as being less than those between opposite sex couples.

I absolutely believe the argument against gay adoption that the kids could be bullied is ridiculous. The ignorance of others is no reason to block people that could be amazing parents from adopting. There is also the serious issue surrounding those couples where one partner is the biological parent, while the other has no legal rights to the child at all. This has caused many problems in cases of the death of the biological parent. Arguing that being raised by a mother and a father is best for children, doesn't help deal with the real issues that exist in situations where this is not the case. There needs to be a legal basis on which these issues can be resolved.

Mark200

MrSir wrote: »

39.39% against. That's 39.39% too much.

As said twice already, just because someone thinks it won't pass doesn't mean they are against it. I also voted that I didn't think it would pass and I'm extremely for gay marriage. I think banning gays from marrying is pure discrimination against a minority thanks to the Catholic Church that wrote our constitution.

Anyway, it doesn't matter either what polls say in this country about the percentage for or against gay marriage. If a referendum ever did take place you'd quickly find priests and religious idiots out on the street convincing people that gay marriage is wrong. But not only that, they'd concentrate on the "what next...". The debate would no longer be about gay marriage, it would be about gay adoption and things like that. Things in no way linked to the referendum, but things that they know there would be more opposition towards. You'd see signs like "A vote for gay marriage is a vote for gay adoption"*. You'd also get the inevitable comparison between gay marriage and bestiality.

Too many people would be willing vote to discriminate against a minority because of what the Church says, despite not being willing to get up on a Sunday morning to go to mass.


*I'm for gay adoption too, but my point was that those against gay marriage would try to create a link to something more objectionable.


Anyway, if I was leading the Government I'd prepare the civil partnership bill, call a referendum and say "if you don't vote for the referendum this bill will be passed anyway". It would take some of the fire out of the oppositions argument I think.

Sulmac

Mark200 wrote: »

Too many people would be willing vote to discriminate against a minority because of what the Church says, despite not being willing to get up on a Sunday morning to go to mass.

To be honest, I think the numbers who seriously listen to the Catholic church (after all it has done) are a small minority themselves.

shefra

David Norris President of Ireland.
What a refreshing change and hopefully get this motion passed

Annasopra

nommm wrote: »

If there was vote I would vote yes. I don't think we can claim to live in a society where everyone is equal if everybody doesn't have equal rights. I voted no in the poll as none of our TD's have the balls to try and get something like this passed.:rolleyes:

No - The CONSERVATIVEs in FF/FG don't want it, don't tar all our TDs as the same

Noodleworm

If marriage is only in the religious sense
then can non-religious straight couples have a civil union?

There still usually regarded as married even if its a non-church thing and they have no intention to have children.
That's not really fair... I'm all for equality here

As for kids. Well if marriage was encouraged then it would become more normal to kids. We could explain at a young age in schools that some people love people of the same gender, End of story.

right now, parents always wait till kids are older, they think its "too confusing" to explain homosexuality. In my opinion its more confusing to tell a kid only men and women can be together, Then suddenly expect them to accept same sex couples.

Mark200

Sulmac wrote: »

To be honest, I think the numbers who seriously listen to the Catholic church (after all it has done) are a small minority themselves.

Hopefully, but I think you only need to look back to the Divorce Referendum in 1995, where 49.72% of votes were against legalising divorce, to see the impact the church can have.

JupiterKid

Mark200 wrote: »

Hopefully, but I think you only need to look back to the Divorce Referendum in 1995, where 49.72% of votes were against legalising divorce, to see the impact the church can have.

True, but a lot has changed in Ireland over the past 15 years. Like the church losing pretty much every shred of credibility they once had with the populace.

MrSir

krudler wrote: »

I voted no, but not because im against it, its because in all likelyhood it wont get passed, poll should have more options tbh

Oh yeah I missunderstood what the poll actually meant so no offence intended

krudler

Itd be great if 2 consenting adults could do whatever makes them happy but in reality the small minded yet most vocal will always find something to seethe about,even though it has absolutely NO bearing or effect on their lives, other people wanting to be happy, bah!

chops1990

I personally would'nt mind gay's gettin married through civil ceremonies. It's another story if they wanna get married in a church

MagicMarker

If it has been posted already I apologise, haven't read the thread! If anyone disagrees with what this man says, you're an idiot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HpTBF6EfxY

I used to think it would pass here, now I'm not so sure.

robinph

What is the question?

Are you asking for people to guess on how a referendum would go, or for how they will vote themselves?

OptimashPrime

thats a really tough one to guess. im fully for it myself. we've got one of the youngest populations in Europe (i think) so with the proper canvasing i think it could pass

jill_valentine

JupiterKid wrote: »

It will happen sooner or later.

The sooner the backward and thick ignorant Joe Duffy generation die off the better.

I think we're on the brink of a pretty interesting thing happening in Irish politics. I mean, it seems to me like there's a bigger, clearer political and cultural gulf between two generations now than ever before. I don't think it's just an age difference thing, either, I think there's a fundamental difference in values between the two generations, and eventually those people are going to start filtering into roles where they can actually do something about it.

I think there's a real sense that we're all just waiting for The Old Guard entrenched in the political system to clear off one way or the other so we can start getting something done. I mean, I've given up on the current shower in all corners of the ring at the minute, they've made it perfectly clear that they can't be bothered trying to represent me or mine, and I think a lot of other people have too. It's not that we stopped engaging with the political machine, it just stopped engaging with us.

I think the next decade - maybe even sooner - is going to bring some big huge shifts in legislation about stuff like this. Perhaps even produce a system that actually reflects something of the reality of the people living in this country, rather than just a convenient political fantasy world.

Maybe I'm just a dreamer though.

sponsoredwalk

Jill as long as the hip-generation are willing to make companies money &
fund banks no matter what they do then anything is possible.

One could have said what you said after the 60's, then there was Margaret
Thatcher & Ronald Reagan so I don't think we should spend time waiting for
these ƒuckers to die off, fight them now with evidence & common sense!:cool:

I think facebook organizations and the like spreading the message that the
issue we're discussing goes against fundamental human rights is one way to fight it.

A nice quote always sums it up :

“Once social change begins, it cannot be reversed. You cannot uneducate
the person who has learned to read. You cannot humiliate the person who
feels pride. You cannot oppress the people who are not afraid anymore.
We have seen the future, and the future is ours.”
-Ceasar Chavez

lisaface

cooltown wrote: »

Do you think gay marriage would get passed in Ireland?
I think that many of the posters here would have no problem with it but when I think of the older generation. I sadly can say I don't think it would!

I personally would like it to happen, however, I don't think it will , at least not for another 20-30 years. I just can't see it happening, when the catholic church have a higher say than we the actual individuals of this country do.

It's pretty sad like, two people not being allowed to commit to each other because a "higher source" disapproves with it .

scientific1982

Someone close this fcukin thread. This topic has been done to ****.

Min

The government had the civil partnership bill for same sex couples and co-habiting couples because they knew gay marriage would not be passed, the result would be similar to that of California where the electorate voted against it.

I am against it, it is not discrimination, it is not progression. It is just a twisted view of marriage which had always being between a man and a woman.

It is just some people want to feel discriminated against, when marriage as I said had always being a male/female union.

All this inequality stuff is just a load of rubbish.

Cuddlytroll

I studied this stuff a bit in family law, and it's amazing the technicalities which people draw upon themselves. There are reams of cases, all tying themselves in socio-legal knots which get more and more abstract and inane as you go along, particularly with regards to things like the concept of gender. It's really amazing how much easier it would be, for everyone everywhere, if people just dropped this tiresome 'one man and one woman' crap.

MagicMarker

Min wrote: »

It is just some people want to feel discriminated against, when marriage as I said had always being a male/female union.

No shít sherlock.

Without change, there is no progression.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think most people have a problem with homosexuals being able to adopt. I did myself up until starting a thread here about it and reading the responses

I think the opposition to gay marriage would focus on gay adoption and get people to vote against it.

About 10 years after most other countries fully recognise gay marriage the Irish would prob vote yes to it. Not now though

Min

MagicMarker wrote: »

No shít sherlock.

Without change, there is no progression.

Changing to allow gay marriage is not necessarily progression.

MagicMarker

Min wrote: »

Changing to allow gay marriage is not necessarily progression.

I'm sure many people, a long time ago, thought the same about allowing black people to marry white people.

OptimashPrime

Min wrote: »

Changing to allow gay marriage is not necessarily progression.

what is it then, regression ?

brandodub

Rodrigo Full Frown wrote: »

Jesus had two dads and he turned out alright

Really really good! May I use that in my CV please?? What a giggle:D