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

sponsoredwalk

Those Darned Anthropologists wrote:

"Around the world, the structures of family norms are different. Ideas of
what constitute a family changes based on culture, mobility, wealth, and
tradition. Yet, as James Q. Wilson has stated:

In virtually every society in which historians or anthropologists have inquired, one finds people living together on the basis of kinship ties and having responsibility for raising children. The kinship ties invariably imply restrictions on who has sexual access to whom; the child-care responsibilities invariably imply both economic and non-economic obligations. And in virtually every society, the family is defined by marriage; that is, by a publicly announced contract that makes legitimate the sexual union of a man and a woman.[6]

In many cultures, the need to be self-supporting is hard to meet,
particularly where rents/property values are very high, and the foundation
of a new household can be an obstacle to nuclear family formation. In
these cases, extended family forms. People remain single and live with their
parents for a longer period of time. Generally, the trend to shift from
extended to nuclear family structures has been supported by increasing
mobility and modernization.

Some have argued that the extended family, or at least the three-
generational family including grandparents, provides a broader and deeper
foundation for raising children as well as support for the new parents. In
particular, the role of grandparents has been recognized as an important
aspect of the family dynamic. Having experienced the challenges of
creating a family themselves, they offer wisdom and encouragement to the
young parents and become a reassuring presence in the lives of their
grandchildren. Abraham Maslow described the love of grandparents as "the
purest love for the being of the other." [7] The benefits of these
intergenerational encounters are substantial for all involved."
...

"Contemporary society generally views the family as a haven from the
world, supplying absolute fulfillment, and encouraging “intimacy, love and
trust where individuals may escape the competition of dehumanizing forces
in modern society.”[8] The family is often referred to as a haven providing
love and protection from the rough and tumble industrialized world, and as
a place where warmth, tenderness and understanding can be expected
from a loving mother and protection from the world can be expected from
the father. It is important to note that the cohesiveness of the family is
contingent upon the relationship of all its members, particularly the father
and mother. They establish the bonds each member has to each other,
strengthening the nuclear family.


However, the idea of protection is declining as civil society faces less
internal conflict combined with increased civil rights and protection from
the state. To many, the ideal of personal or family fulfillment has replaced
protection as the major role of the family. The family now supplies what is
“vitally needed but missing from other social arrangements.”[8]

Social conservatives often express concern over a purported decay of the
family and see this as a sign of the crumbling of contemporary society.
They feel that the family structures of the past were superior to those
today and believe that families were more stable and happier at a time
when they did not have to contend with problems such as illegitimate
children and divorce. Others refute this theory, claiming “there is no golden
age of the family gleaming at us in the far back historical past.”[8]


The number of single parent families in society is challenging the idea of
the nuclear family. Divorce has given rise to different living arrangements
for parents and children. These post-nuclear families have been described
as “broken because the marriage bond has been broken.”[9] Single parent
families also form as a result of the death of a spouse in the family. This
changes the family dynamic, shifting responsibilities to the remaining
spouse and new obligations for the children."

Link

I'm surprised that nobody, in all those posts in which you'd made your opinion clear,
called you on such a superficial concern as a reason to tell others how to
live, to try to dictate what way people can express love for each other.
Regardless of your parochial concerns & lack of knowledge of the way
that people are different throughout the world you should not be given the
right to vote on a matter like this.

Nobody should be allowed to vote about fundamental human rights such as
expressing love for each other when, as the world clearly shows, it's a
natural way to form a family - through the legal & public method of union.

Some rights go beyond a vote.

Links234

Jakkass wrote: »

I've argued for my position quite thoroughly in the past. It mostly is based on concerns surrounding radical changes in family structure. I believe that a loving marriage with both a mother and a father is the best context for a child to be raised in. I think people would really need to sit down and think about the possible impact such decisions could have on society at large.

I think marriage equality would have huge benefits for society at large.
the way it works now, some people are getting caught in the cracks

transgender people have a particularly hard time when it comes to marriage, take a look at a recent case in Hong Kong where a transgender woman is fighting in court just to be allowed to marry. link. the opposition is taking up petty technicalities in order to stop her:

But Carss-Frisk argued that marriages and families have long been considered inseparable and that offspring are a core part of marriages.

this kind of stupid double standard would never ever be taken seriously if it were applied to a cisgendered couple who were incapable of having, or didn't want to have offspring. nobody would ever dare to say to them they can't get married because they're not having kids.

or the horrendous case of Nikki Araguz in Texas, who's husband died recently, only to have the husband's family and ex-wife drag her through the courts to stop her getting benefits as a widow because she's transgender, trying to argue that it was a 'gay' marriage. not only did she lose the man she loved, but now they want to strip her of her identity as a woman and tear down everything she had with him. just reading about it makes my heart ache.

of course neither of these cases could be considered gay marriages at all, but if we had full marriage equality, we wouldn't have cases where a grieving widow is dragged through the courts to have her marriage torn down, or someone who has to fight a legal battle just to be allowed to get married. nobody should have to go through things like that.

I would sincerely hope that we one day see marriage equality world wide.

Callan57

I'm really annoyed with this assumption here that 'older' people are by definition conservative .... some of the most liberal minded people I know are over 70 and I know of numerous arch-conservatives who are under 25.
As for gay marriage, I have no problem with it just as long as no one tries to make it compulsory ..... live & let live I say. But I can't see it happening in Ireland for a long long time as I don't think any political party would have the bottle to take it on ... and definitely not while we are all on road to ruin anyway

Truley

Links234 wrote: »

where the connection between gay marriage and abortion?

Two topics of discussion that regularly appear in AH and turn into absolutely huuge treads, inevitably ending up with two posters going around in circles for pages on end, trying to change each others mind.

candy-gal1

I dont see a reason to oppose gay marraige between two people who love each other, but I think I would draw the line at bringing a child up with two gay parents. Imho it would cause a lot of hassle and discrimination with the child and who needs more of that when your a teenager in school tbh.

sponsoredwalk

candy-gal1 wrote: »

I dont see a reason to oppose gay marraige between two people who love each other, but I think I would draw the line at bringing a child up with two gay parents. Imho it would cause a lot of hassle and discrimination with the child and who needs more of that when your a teenager in school tbh.

They seem to be doing fine in America...

spurious

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

They seem to be doing fine in America...

They do fine here too.
The sky hasn't fallen in.

Annasopra

candy-gal1 wrote: »

but I think I would draw the line at bringing a child up with two gay parents. Imho it would cause a lot of hassle and discrimination with the child and who needs more of that when your a teenager in school tbh.

on that basis we shouldn't allow red haired people or disabled people or muslims to adopt in this country because their child would be discriminated against.

Links234

there was a video someone posted here before, two lesbian women who raised two sons here in Ireland were interviewed, the sons didn't have any problems growing up, they spoke very well about their experiences in Ireland and didn't have any negative things happen to them because of it. if someone can find the link, it should really be reposted here

I think if anyone's worried about "discrimination" the children might face, you should look at your own prejudices first.

losthorizon

foxyboxer wrote: »

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

That's just the way it is. My 2c

I'm married - I have no intention of starting a family.

MrSir

I think people need to learn that even though they may be against something that doesn't mean they have the right to force their opinions onto someone else.Everyone is entitled to Civil Rights FULL STOP.

mickydoomsux

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Imho it would cause a lot of hassle and discrimination with the child and who needs more of that when your a teenager in school tbh.

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.

philologos

MrSir wrote: »

I think people need to learn that even though they may be against something that doesn't mean they have the right to force their opinions onto someone else.Everyone is entitled to Civil Rights FULL STOP.

In democratic systems such as the Irish one, if people are asked to vote on a particular issue, they certainly do have the right to cast their vote along with everyone else.

If people have real concerns about it, then they should be known.

The issue is a changing of definition. Marriage in the current legal context is defined as a union between a man and a woman. What is being suggested that one should change the definition of marriage to say the union of any two persons. "Marriage equality" as such is disingenuous. Everyone can be married, there are just limits on who people can be married to, more often than not for pragmatic reasons.

Link234 - I would be glad to give my opinion on the Hong Kong transgender issue, in another thread, more relevant to the subject.

Links234

Jakkass wrote: »

What is being suggested that one should change the definition of marriage to say the union of any two persons. "Marriage equality" as such is disingenuous.

I don't see a problem with changing the definition.

Jakkass wrote: »

Link234 - I would be glad to give my opinion on the Hong Kong transgender issue, in another thread, more relevant to the subject.

but it is relevant, it goes to show that if you're holding to such strict definitions (that don't even apply to heterosexual, cisgender couples), then people are going to be caught between the cracks. marriage equality is of great relevance to the lives of transgender people too

JacquesD'Ladd

N.O.

sponsoredwalk

Jakkass wrote: »

The issue is a changing of definition. Marriage in the current legal context is defined as a union between a man and a woman. What is being suggested that one should change the definition of marriage to say the union of any two persons. "Marriage equality" as such is disingenuous. Everyone can be married, there are just limits on who people can be married to, more often than not for pragmatic reasons.

Yes it should be changed because it is an antiquaited law that impinges on
the rights of human beings. This is not an issue of choice it's an issue of
the majority of people's bigoted views impinging on the freedom of other
people in the society. This is a more fundamental right than just a choice,
it's excluding people from expressing their love in the way most natural for
people all over the world - in the eyes of the law & the public.

I'd love to hear the pragmatic reasons behind excluding human beings from
expressing love in a natural way :rolleyes:

Remember, you have just voiced your opinion on a radical change of the
family;

Jakkass wrote: »

It mostly is based on concerns surrounding radical changes in family structure. I believe that a loving marriage with both a mother and a father is the best context for a child to be raised in.

as being a reason you'd vote against giving people their fundamental
human rights yet if you knew anything about cultures throughout the world
you'd realise there is no such thing as a single family structure. I'll refer
you to my post you haven't attempted to reply to here where you'll get a
more detailed answer to why this is the case.

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 their
finding...

Again, this is not a matter that should be up for democratic vote it's too
deeply ingrained in humanity, transcending all boundaries & cultures,
to be a matter people get to choose on. Nobody gets to tell others how
to live & it's simply a matter of bigoted history that we're trying to, and
will, overcome.

If you can't face these simple truth's then I call foul & suspect some
ulterior motives...

piby

JacquesD'Ladd wrote: »

N.O.

Nitric Oxide? I thought you might be trying to say NO but that's one word

I always think it would pass no problem but you forget about how conservative a lot of people are. There are those even who out in public would be supporters of homosexuality but in private may be quite opposed to it it and the thing is they can vote as such (in private) while still retaining that face of liberalism on the outside.

I've never understood why it's such an issue. A person should be allowed to do whatever makes them happy as long as it doesn't affect another. I've never been harmed emotionally or physically by two men having a relationship so live and let live!

Cheap Thrills!

Is marriage itself not on the way out.

Instead of encouraging it why not move twords stamping it out altogether.

It's nothing but a waste of money with a huge percentage of marriages breaking down. We'd have to fix our laws to do with children and inheritance and tax and all that but it all has to be done sooner or later anyway.

philologos

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Yes it should be changed because it is an antiquaited law that impinges on the rights of human beings. This is not an issue of choice it's an issue of the majority of people's bigoted views impinging on the freedom of other people in the society. This is a more fundamental right than just a choice, it's excluding people from expressing their love in the way most natural for
people all over the world - in the eyes of the law & the public.

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.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I'd love to hear the pragmatic reasons behind excluding human beings from
expressing love in a natural way :rolleyes:

See above.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Remember, you have just voiced your opinion on a radical change of the family;

I have.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

as being a reason you'd vote against giving people their fundamental human rights yet if you knew anything about cultures throughout the world you'd realise there is no such thing as a single family structure. I'll refer you to my post you haven't attempted to reply to here where you'll get a
more detailed answer to why this is the case.

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

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

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

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

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Again, this is not a matter that should be up for democratic vote it's too deeply ingrained in humanity, transcending all boundaries & cultures, to be a matter people get to choose on. Nobody gets to tell others how to live & it's simply a matter of bigoted history that we're trying to, and will, overcome.

Given the Supreme Court ruling in 2006 (if I remember correctly), and the Constitution, this is the way it has to be.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If you can't face these simple truth's then I call foul & suspect some ulterior motives...

I've argued clearly for my position. If you wish to claim ulterior motives, be my guest.

I'm not in this discussion to be antagonistic, or even hateful in any respect, but merely to argue my case for why marriage should be kept as it is, and why civil partnership should be explored more thoroughly in respect to LGBT couples.

MrSir

Jakkass wrote: »

In democratic systems such as the Irish one, if people are asked to vote on a particular issue, they certainly do have the right to cast their vote along with everyone else.

If people have real concerns about it, then they should be known.

The issue is a changing of definition. Marriage in the current legal context is defined as a union between a man and a woman. What is being suggested that one should change the definition of marriage to say the union of any two persons. "Marriage equality" as such is disingenuous. Everyone can be married, there are just limits on who people can be married to, more often than not for pragmatic reasons.

Link234 - I would be glad to give my opinion on the Hong Kong transgender issue, in another thread, more relevant to the subject.

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

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.