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

wonderfulname

A few points after reading this thread;

1. Civil marriage and Religious marriage are two different things, Gay marriage rights would only apply to the former, and as churches should not recognise civil marriages of any kind as they are not marriages "in the eyes of the Lord" I invite any Christian poster here to explain why they have the right to attempt to deny someone that right under the guise of belief.

2. As it has already been pointed out the kids will be fine, studies support that fact. Having gone through school "out" I know that their peers aren't as closed minded as you think and in all likelyhood wouldn't bat an eyelid at the sight of their classmate being picked up from the school gate by two (wo)men.

3. As for arguments as to why it should be allowed, how about that this is a first world republic, where all men are equal in the eyes of the law.. except gay couples and their kids of course, but why listen to me, what do I know? Maybe you should listen to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties instead, theres some interesting anecdotes in that aside from just the legal stuff for anyone who's interested.

But anyway to answer the question at hand yes I think it will be passed, and the longer we wait for a referendum the more likely it becomes that it will be passed first time around. I myself will vote yes, even if it wasn't an issue that affected me I still think that nobody should be denied what others consider for themselves to be a birth-right.

pluie

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.

Personally, I hope it doesn't pass, but more than likely it will.

There are many "straight" parents who are dreadful at raising kids to the point where the kid has run away, committed suicide, taken drugs etc. Your argument isn't valid because so far most of the "impacts on society" occur due to a straight upbringing.

Min

MagicMarker wrote: »

One word.

Equality.

Look it up.

It will be equal when they can sue nature for discriminating against them when it comes to having children that biologically belongs to both.
Nature must be so closed minded to have stopped this.
Where is the equality?

Min

pluie wrote: »

There are many "straight" parents who are dreadful at raising kids to the point where the kid has run away, committed suicide, taken drugs etc. Your argument isn't valid because so far most of the "impacts on society" occur due to a straight upbringing.

Sounds like a bad upbringing in some run down estate in Dublin or Limerick....

pluie

Min wrote: »

It will be equal when they can sue nature for discriminating against them when it comes to having children that biologically belongs to both.
Nature must be so closed minded to have stopped this.
Where is the equality?

No offense, but you've missed the point so much that you may as well not have posted. Gay people aren't demanding biological equality. They want legal equality, the equality they are entitled to as citizens of this state.

Min wrote: »

Sounds like a bad upbringing in some run down estate in Dublin or Limerick....

Your point? It's a bad upbringing anywhere. The whole thing about gay couples not being capable of raising a child properly is flawed when you see the suicide rates and drug rates in the country. Being straight doesn't automatically make you a good parent...

Min

pluie wrote: »

No offense, but you've missed the point so much that you may as well not have posted. Gay people aren't demanding biological equality. They want legal equality, the equality they are entitled to as citizens of this state.



Your point? It's a bad upbringing anywhere. The whole thing about gay couples not being capable of raising a child properly is flawed when you see the suicide rates and drug rates in the country. Being straight doesn't automatically make you a good parent...

So they want a pretend equality because nature doesn't allow for full 'equality'. The pretend equality has to be known as gay marriage because the use of the word marriage gives them a feeling of equality...

I bet you have no stats for your argument, Jakkass talked about bringing up children in a loving marriage, you twisted it to talk about broken homes as if somehow gay couples are immune to producing a broken home and all children being brought up by gay couples would be in happy homes, you can't say that as you have nothing to back it up.

I think it is best having parents of both sexes for a better balance, like left and right, north and south, yes and no, black and white. The argument may be that it makes no difference to the child, but it is a better balance.

jill_valentine

a) There are stats for our argument and they've been posted over and over again, in this thread and all the others.

b) You aren't making enough sense to argue with otherwise.

wonderfulname

Min wrote: »

So they want a pretend equality because nature doesn't allow for full 'equality'. The pretend equality has to be known as gay marriage because the use of the word marriage gives them a feeling of equality...

if your going to argue it helps to listen to the other side and not make it up as you go along, i left you a link detailing why gay marriage is necessary, read it, otherwise your just not worth discussing this with because at this stage your just completely oblivious to how weak your argument sounds.

Min wrote: »

black and white

What about grey? Because in most situations most people are just that, different shades of grey.

Links234

Min wrote: »

So they want a pretend equality because nature doesn't allow for full 'equality'.

so your argument is that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, because they can't biologically produce a child that is of both parentage?

apply that standard to heteronormative couples, that those who are unable to have children should not get married, should not have the same legal rights and standing as couples who are able to have children. it's a stupid double standard, and you are just hiding your homophobia and bigotry behind a straw man argument about 'biological equality'.

sensibleken

Of course they should,

when it was legalised in 92 no one gave a sh1t
when civil partnership passed no one gave a sh1t.

i dont think irish people ever gave a crap about peoples orientation. I was talkin to a 78 year old man who drinks in my local, works at an usher in the local church and he's out. no one cares and all of his peers are certainly of the older generation.

what they need to do is take down that civil partnership bill! theres some dodgy stuff in there. replace it with full marriage with no difference to hetro sexual couples

Sam Vimes

Min wrote: »

It will be equal when they can sue nature for discriminating against them when it comes to having children that biologically belongs to both.
Nature must be so closed minded to have stopped this.
Where is the equality?

Min wrote: »

So they want a pretend equality because nature doesn't allow for full 'equality'. The pretend equality has to be known as gay marriage because the use of the word marriage gives them a feeling of equality...

I assume that whenever you or any of your loved ones get sick you don't go to a hospital because that's what nature has decided for you? And that any birth defects should go uncorrected of course. Nature knows best after all right?

wonderfulname

sensibleken wrote: »

i dont think irish people ever gave a crap

To be honest in the vast majority of cases i think your right. "To each their own" features quite highly in your standard Irishman's moral code, unfortunately that mindset isn't conducive to progression, its quite passive. Most of these people probably wouldn't vote, just as they haven't given support to protests or marches.

A big issue with Irish people is the people who say no mean no, whereas the vast majority of people just say "grand" and do nothing about it. As a result we have a Government without a majority rule, a Constitution that can no longer be deemed either by or for the people, a seanad that does nothing productive outside their own homes and a president that has nothing in her past term bar turn up late for matches.

Forgive me if I feel it would be, at the very least, a tight race.

wonderfulname

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And that any birth defects should go uncorrected of course. Nature knows best after all right?

"Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. ... Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries." Lev.21:17-23

Yes Sam, people with birth defects are as bad as gays.

coffee_cake

wonderfulname wrote: »

"Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. ... Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries." Lev.21:17-23

Yes Sam, people with birth defects are as bad as gays.

I like the one "don't let your hair become messy or the lord will be angry and you will die".
I think it was messy hair and torn clothes

philologos

wonderfulname wrote: »

1. Civil marriage and Religious marriage are two different things, Gay marriage rights would only apply to the former, and as churches should not recognise civil marriages of any kind as they are not marriages "in the eyes of the Lord" I invite any Christian poster here to explain why they have the right to attempt to deny someone that right under the guise of belief.

Agreed, civil marriage, and a marriage in a church, or any other religious locations have different meanings attached. Even on a legal level however, it is still between a man and a woman at present.

wonderfulname wrote: »

2. As it has already been pointed out the kids will be fine, studies support that fact. Having gone through school "out" I know that their peers aren't as closed minded as you think and in all likelyhood wouldn't bat an eyelid at the sight of their classmate being picked up from the school gate by two (wo)men.

There are also numerous studies showing the clear benefit of having both a mother and a father as key female and male role models in child development.

wonderfulname wrote: »

3. As for arguments as to why it should be allowed, how about that this is a first world republic, where all men are equal in the eyes of the law.. except gay couples and their kids of course, but why listen to me, what do I know? Maybe you should listen to the Irish Council for Civil Liberties instead, theres some interesting anecdotes in that aside from just the legal stuff for anyone who's interested.

Equality is a flawed argument in this respect. The argument isn't about equal marriage, it's about what marriage is. Is marriage a union between a man and a woman, or is marriage just a union between two people irrespective of gender?

If it is the former, then people do already have the equal right to be married. If it is the latter, then people don't have the equal right to be married.

I can't see how the definition is the latter at present in an Irish legal context.

wonderfulname wrote: »

But anyway to answer the question at hand yes I think it will be passed, and the longer we wait for a referendum the more likely it becomes that it will be passed first time around. I myself will vote yes, even if it wasn't an issue that affected me I still think that nobody should be denied what others consider for themselves to be a birth-right.

I think it will be passed too.

MagicMarker

Jakkass wrote: »

There are also numerous studies showing the clear benefit of having both a mother and a father as key female and male role models in child development.

So you're against single parents also?

philologos

MagicMarker wrote: »

So you're against single parents also?

I think a child is best raised with a mother and a father, and I think where it is possible to ensure that a child is raised with a mother and a father such measures should be taken.

In the case of where it involves biological parents, it's impossible to do this, other than to encourage them to 1) reform the relationship, or 2) seek another relationship that would provide the child such a structure and of course give them continued happiness.

In the case of regulating sperm donation and adoption it is possible.

pluie

Min wrote: »

So they want a pretend equality because nature doesn't allow for full 'equality'. The pretend equality has to be known as gay marriage because the use of the word marriage gives them a feeling of equality...

I bet you have no stats for your argument, Jakkass talked about bringing up children in a loving marriage, you twisted it to talk about broken homes as if somehow gay couples are immune to producing a broken home and all children being brought up by gay couples would be in happy homes, you can't say that as you have nothing to back it up.

I think it is best having parents of both sexes for a better balance, like left and right, north and south, yes and no, black and white. The argument may be that it makes no difference to the child, but it is a better balance.

Firstly, what about straight people who can't reproduce? They shouldn't have rights because they can't biologically have children?

Secondly, you can bet all you like. This thread is full of posts with "stats" - please feel free to read them. Kids brought up by gay parents are no different to those who are brought up by straight parents.

Thirdly, I didn't "twist" anything, I was emphasizing the point that straight parents aren't god and that all of the "impacts on society" which Jakkass claims that gay parents will create are there already. Of course there will be gay couples who aren't good at bringing up kids, I never said that they were perfect. My point is you can't deny somebody such rights based on the stuff that MIGHT happen even though it's already happening.

Fourthly, you talk about balance. What about single parents? There's no "balance" there at all.

philologos

pluie wrote: »

Firstly, what about straight people who can't reproduce? They shouldn't have rights because they can't biologically have children?

Yes, but the Constitution says that marriage is the basis of the family. As such when the subject of marriage comes up, family rights are intrinsically linked. Whether or not one doesn't have a family is irrelevant. Marriage gives numerous family rights as well as mere formation rights. If it didn't it would be just a word, and there would be no real difference between it and a civil partnership.

Adoption, amongst other means are possible for couples who cannot reproduce.

pluie wrote: »

Thirdly, I didn't "twist" anything, I was emphasizing the point that straight parents aren't god and that all of the "impacts on society" which Jakkass claims that gay parents will create are there already. Of course there will be gay couples who aren't good at bringing up kids, I never said that they were perfect. My point is you can't deny somebody such rights based on the stuff that MIGHT happen even though it's already happening.

Point being quite clearly. Your rights are yours, quite clearly as long as they don't involve the rights of other people. Marriage rights quite clearly involve the rights of children as well, and as such it needs to be given more thorough consideration than other rights.

pluie wrote: »

Fourthly, you talk about balance. What about single parents? There's no "balance" there at all.

Single parented homes aren't as good for children as homes with both a mother and a father. There are also studies done on this.

Min

jill_valentine wrote: »

a) There are stats for our argument and they've been posted over and over again, in this thread and all the others.

b) You aren't making enough sense to argue with otherwise.

a) ok where are they, I just see opinion being given as fact.

b) Reading this thread there isn't much sense in gay marriage.

wonderfulname wrote: »

if your going to argue it helps to listen to the other side and not make it up as you go along, i left you a link detailing why gay marriage is necessary, read it, otherwise your just not worth discussing this with because at this stage your just completely oblivious to how weak your argument sounds.


What about grey? Because in most situations most people are just that, different shades of grey.

I opened the link to the Irish council for civil liberties and saw nothing there. Aren't they always crying foul of something anyway, just trying to justify their existence.

Grey is made up of black and white, people are different shades of grey, produced in the womb by the combination of male and female. We are all grey, we all have a mother and a father as it is as nature intended, otherwise same sex couples would produce their own children.
Homosexuality is allowed in nature but it puts it's own restrictions on it. It is not discriminating for us to put limits on who marriage applies to.

Links234 wrote: »

so your argument is that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, because they can't biologically produce a child that is of both parentage?

apply that standard to heteronormative couples, that those who are unable to have children should not get married, should not have the same legal rights and standing as couples who are able to have children. it's a stupid double standard, and you are just hiding your homophobia and bigotry behind a straw man argument about 'biological equality'.

That is one argument, it also doesn't offer a balance if they adopt.
As I said before, having opposites it what brings balance.

It is a poor argument for you if you have to resort to schoolyard name calling. It shows you have a weak argument, it is like believing every heterosexual person is in favour of marriage, the fact is they are not. If you had a homosexual person not in favour of gay marriage would that make them a homophobe and a bigot?

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I assume that whenever you or any of your loved ones get sick you don't go to a hospital because that's what nature has decided for you? And that any birth defects should go uncorrected of course. Nature knows best after all right?

You can fix fixable birth defects, you can't fix the problem that no matter how much sex two fertile couples of the same sex have, it will never produce a child.
It is not a birth defect unless one sees homosexuality as being a birth defect, I don't, do you?

wonderfulname wrote: »

"Whosoever ... hath any blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God. For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous, Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded, Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken; No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. ... Only he shall not go in unto the vail, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries." Lev.21:17-23

Yes Sam, people with birth defects are as bad as gays.

Oh dear, do you even understand Leviticus?

Stark

Oh look, the Christians are here. You'd think we lived in a theocracy where their opinion should actually matter.

Sam Vimes

Min wrote: »

You can fix fixable birth defects, you can't fix the problem that no matter how much sex two fertile couples of the same sex have, it will never produce a child.
It is not a birth defect unless one sees homosexuality as being a birth defect, I don't, do you?

I don't see it as a defect no. I was making the point that just because nature makes something a certain way doesn't mean that we should bow to its authority as if it knows best. We can fix the problem of birth defects with surgery and we can fix the problem of gay people not being able to have children by allowing them to adopt. Two things that we're able to do because we've evolved to the stage where we don't have to accept whatever nature has given us

philologos

Stark wrote: »

Oh look, the Christians are here. You'd think we lived in a theocracy where their opinion should actually matter.

Funnily enough, I haven't made one argument from any faith based position so far!

I'm quite happy to argue this from an entirely "secular" perspective.

prinz

Stark wrote: »

Oh look, the Christians are here. You'd think we lived in a theocracy where their opinion should actually matter.

LoL. First laugh of the day, cheers.

pluie

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but the Constitution says that marriage is the basis of the family. As such when the subject of marriage comes up, family rights are intrinsically linked. Whether or not one doesn't have a family is irrelevant. Marriage gives numerous family rights as well as mere formation rights. If it didn't it would be just a word, and there would be no real difference between it and a civil partnership.

But a family can be founded with gay marriage through adoption. "Family" doesn't have to be a biological term, it can be a marital term.

Jakkass wrote: »

Adoption, amongst other means are possible for couples who cannot reproduce.

Exactly my point. Allow gay couples to adopt.

Jakkass wrote: »

Point being quite clearly. Your rights are yours, quite clearly as long as they don't involve the rights of other people. Marriage rights quite clearly involve the rights of children as well, and as such it needs to be given more thorough consideration than other rights.

Civil marriage for gay couples will grant same marriage rights that same-sex couples already enjoy. Gay people are no less capable of raising children. There are children in state care that want to be in a family, and they wouldn't care if they had two dads or two mums or one dad or one mum. I believe, without sounding corny, that love is love, regardless if it's by a same-sex couple or not.

Jakkass wrote: »

Single parented homes aren't as good for children as homes with both a mother and a father. There are also studies done on this.

Of course there are cases where this is true, but many single-parented homes are just as good as "traditional" family homes. Studies support this too.

philologos

pluie wrote: »

But a family can be founded with gay marriage through adoption. "Family" doesn't have to be a biological term, it can be a marital term.

You're missing the point. An argument against not permitting marriage to anyone and everyone is that heterosexual marriages provide children with a family with both a mother and a father. I.E - They have strong male and female rolemodels for the purposes of child development.

pluie wrote: »

Exactly my point. Allow gay couples to adopt.

See above, you're missing the point.

pluie wrote: »

Civil marriage for gay couples will grant same marriage rights that same-sex couples already enjoy. Gay people are no less capable of raising children. There are children in state care that want to be in a family, and they wouldn't care if they had two dads or two mums or one dad or one mum. I believe, without sounding corny, that love is love, regardless if it's by a same-sex couple or not.

Of course there are cases where this is true, but many single-parented homes are just as good as "traditional" family homes. Studies support this too.

More often than not it is better for a child to be raised with both a mother and a father. This is the reason why the State should favour this family structure (marriage) above all others.

It is better for a child, to have strong male and female rolemodels (mother and father) while growing up, than not to have both.

It's not just "cases". It's that it is better on average, for this to be the case. Of course there are some worse, but more often than not (majority of cases) a marriage (mother & father) will provide the best for a child.

Min

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I don't see it as a defect no. I was making the point that just because nature makes something a certain way doesn't mean that we should bow to its authority as if it knows best. We can fix the problem of birth defects with surgery and we can fix the problem of gay people not being able to have children by allowing them to adopt. Two things that we're able to do because we've evolved to the stage where we don't have to accept whatever nature has given us

I think nature knows best, otherwise it wouldn't allow us to be here.

Isn't is nature that allows evolution but you argue we should dismiss what nature tells us?

coffee_cake

Min wrote: »

I think nature knows best, otherwise it wouldn't allow us to be here.

You mean like tb smallpox and a range of diseases we've now cured/immunised?

I'm always boggling at people arguing about nature when our entire existence is nearly unnatural.

Min

Stark wrote: »

Oh look, the Christians are here. You'd think we lived in a theocracy where their opinion should actually matter.

From what I see, it is people on the pro-gay marriage side that need religion to make out it is discrimination.

We have seen the church being blamed and the bible quotes - all on the pro gay marriage side.

Is it because their argument doesn't have legs to stand on?

Min

bluewolf wrote: »

You mean like tb smallpox and a range of diseases we've now cured/immunised?

I'm always boggling at people arguing about nature when our entire existence is nearly unnatural.

Nature allows us to be here despite the diseases, it doesn't allow TB, or other diseases to wipe us all out.
It does tell us what combination it sees as being best for unions and offspring, but humans know best it seems, we should go against the natural order of things.

Can someone write a letter to the Farmer's Journal and tell them same sex adoption is natural and how they had two bulls rearing a baby calf and how natural it all was, or two rams rearing a baby lamb, or two boars rearing baby piglets.
I think one would find in nature that kind of adoption too is unnatural, just like two of the same sex having a biological child is...

So in effect there is no discrimination against homosexuals, it all just perceived discrimination because heterosexual couples have something it must mean homosexual couples should be similar, when in fact nature rules against that.