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

lugha

Min wrote: »

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

It is not about sense, it is about equality. I personally believe that you could give gays all and every rights and entitlements that matter without calling formal unions between them marriage. But by denying them that label you are enabling the prejudice to persist that their union is a lesser one even though I see no benefit to society in the insistence that that distinction be made.

If I may to turn the tables on your assertion about sense: can you tell me the sense in denying gay marriage? Surely the onus is on you to justify why rights should be denied to people and not on those who feel they should get them by default to provide supporting arguments?

Sam Vimes

Plebs wrote: »

You don't know what I believe in. You're trying to stereotype me so you can regurgitate your stock thoughts. Please don't stereotype me or try to tell me what I do or don't believe in.

If you're not a christian then just say so. If you are a christian then you should believe that each of the things that I listed happened. If you call yourself a Christian but don't believe that any of those things happened then I'm not quite sure what your definition of a christian is

eightyfish

Plebs wrote: »

You don't know what I believe in.

I know this wasn't addressed at me, but you said this:

Plebs wrote: »

Opinions that you find "disgusting" are nothing compared to the physical act of sodomy: an affliction that is rampant across the western world. Women as well as men.

I've never met one person who refers to gay sex as "an affliction" who wasn't religious. It's a stereotype because it's true.

Sam Vimes

eightyfish wrote: »

I know this wasn't addressed at me, but you said this:

I've never met one person who refers to gay sex as "an affliction" who wasn't religious. It's a stereotype because it's true.

He also said this:

Plebs wrote: »

While that little side-show transfixes those unlucky enough to have been sucked in, the rest of us occupy the real world and go about our lives in a meaningful, moral and Godly fashion.

He clearly believes in a god but it doesn't appear to be the christian one because he keeps telling me I'm trying to stereotype him by listing some of the more appalling and outlandish beliefs from christianity

ninebeanrows

You guys are wishful thinkers.

A Gay marriage bill put to a referendum would get slammed 70-30 against.

eightyfish

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He clearly believes in a god but it doesn't appear to be the christian one because he keeps telling me I'm trying to stereotype him by listing some of the more appalling and outlandish beliefs from christianity

I wasn't following the thread from the beginning, cheers.

Why is is that every time someone has a problem with gay marriage they are always religious? Then they claim that their opinion is based only on concern for child welfare and absolutely nothing to do with their holy book which says homosexuality is an abomination?

Weathercheck wrote: »

A Gay marriage bill put to a referendum would get slammed 70-30 against.

In Dublin I think it'd pass by 70%, but beyond the pale (and I know this is stereotyping) you might be right.

Plebs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

If you're not a christian then just say so. If you are a christian then you should believe that each of the things that I listed happened. If you call yourself a Christian but don't believe that any of those things happened then I'm not quite sure what your definition of a christian is

If you can't debate an issue without resorting to your smug tactics of poking fun at religious people (quite a serious hobby of yours by all accounts), that's a problem you're just going to have to deal with. Just don't expect anybody to want to engage with you when you show no respect or courtesy. Maybe you'd feel better discussing your anti-religious views amongst the group-think on the atheist forum?

bronte

eightyfish wrote: »

I wasn't following the thread from the beginning, cheers.

Why is is that every time someone has a problem with gay marriage they are always religious? Then they claim that their opinion is based only on concern for child welfare and absolutely nothing to do with their holy book which says homosexuality is an abomination?

It's really tiresome.

Plebs

eightyfish wrote: »

Then they claim that their opinion is based only on concern for child welfare and absolutely nothing to do with their holy book which says homosexuality is an abomination?

It was Sam Vimes who brought the bible into the discussion. My religious convictions are of no business to him or to you. But if getting distracted from the kernel of the debate is a tactic you feel necessary to play, maybe we're all just wasting our time here.

Plebs

eightyfish wrote: »

but beyond the pale (and I know this is stereotyping) you might be right.

Ah yes, a liberal breaking their own rules.

eightyfish

Plebs wrote: »

It was Sam Vimes who brought the bible into the discussion. My religious convictions are of no business to him or to you. But if getting distracted from the kernel of the debate is a tactic you feel necessary to play, maybe we're all just wasting our time here.

My point still stands.

Sam Vimes

Plebs wrote: »

If you can't debate an issue without resorting to your smug tactics of poking fun at religious people (quite a serious hobby of yours by all accounts), that's a problem you're just going to have to deal with. Just don't expect anybody to want to engage with you when you show no respect or courtesy. Maybe you'd feel better discussing your anti-religious views amongst the group-think on the atheist forum?

As eightyfish says, whenever someone has a problem with gay marriage they always seem to be religious. I'm sure there are exceptions but they make up the bulk of the objectors. And when someone's opinion on an issue is based on the commands of a supernatural being, the other somewhat appalling acts of this being as well as its existence is quite relevant to the discussion. Also, you were the one who brought up living in a "godly fashion", not me, and my goal was to show you that the views you were describing as "off in Never land" are no more outlandish than your own. It appears I failed.

And finally, I love when religious people dismiss atheists as groupthinkers. Firstly, it's not true in the slightest and secondly it wouldn't actually mean they were wrong in what they were saying even if it was true. Maybe you should pop over to the mathematics forum and post a thread saying 1+1=3 and when everyone responds saying "no 1+1=2" you can call them all groupthinkers regurgitating stock thoughts. Because it couldn't possibly be that religious people often make very similar points that are wrong for specific reasons and everyone they're talking to has spotted the flaws and explained them

MagicMarker

Plebs wrote: »

It was Sam Vimes who brought the bible into the discussion. My religious convictions are of no business to him or to you. But if getting distracted from the kernel of the debate is a tactic you feel necessary to play, maybe we're all just wasting our time here.

You're the one who brought your religion into it when you mention gays should live Godly lives. Don't throw your toys out of the pram when someone highlights the absurdities and utter stupidity of what you believe.

eightyfish

Plebs wrote: »

Ah yes, a liberal breaking their own rules.

A liberal? Don't give out about people generalising and stereotyping you and then start throwing labels around yourself.

Plebs

Sam Vimes wrote: »

He clearly believes in a god but it doesn't appear to be the christian one because he keeps telling me I'm trying to stereotype him by listing some of the more appalling and outlandish beliefs from christianity

Most of the world believes in a Higher Being. Belief in God is not uncommon - surprise, surprise. (although maybe if you spend just a little too much time in the company of virtual atheists, I can see how you'd think otherwise...) You can't stereotype the whole world now can you?

I'm quite prepared to declare my religion if it's of interest to people. (I don't hide my religion from public view). But the way this discussion is going and the disrespectful tone, it's of no relevance. Thankfully the real decision-making goes on far from this website and by educated people who work in environments where the kind of stuff that Sam Vimes comes out with would be a sackable offence. I certainly wouldn't like to have to drink my 11's and listen to this kind of ignorant stereotyping, smugness and hate.

Sam Vimes

Plebs wrote: »

Most of the world believes in a Higher Being. Belief in God is not uncommon - surprise, surprise. (although maybe if you spend just a little too much time in the company of virtual atheists, I can see how you'd think otherwise...) You can't stereotype the whole world now can you?

I'm quite prepared to declare my religion if it's of interest to people. (I don't hide it). But the way this discussion is going and the disrespectful tone, it's of no relevance. Thankfully the real decision-making goes on far from this website and by educated people who work in environments where the kind of stuff that Sam Vimes comes out with would be a sackable offence.

LOL, listing things from the bible is a sackable offence?

Priests better watch out so

Plebs wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't like to have to drink my 11's and listen to this kind of ignorant stereotyping, smugness and hate.

Indeed, such as this:

Plebs wrote: »

Oh look, another dishonest homosexual rights activist.

Plebs wrote: »

Using innocent children as pawns in a war against the State over equality is below the belt. Two men prancing around with their buggy in a public demonstration of "how far we've come as a society" is very sad. Not just for the parents, but for the child and the community who are left to accommodate these people as best they can. People who are on a mission to re-engineer society against the grain, by force if necessary, will be opposed at every stage.

Plebs wrote: »

Gosh! Dictionaries aligning homosexual behaviours alongside sexual acts with animals. Whatever next. If anybody of mildly conservative opinion were to utter such a thing in the presence of a homosexual, "homophobe" shrills would be bandied about like there's no tomorrow.

Plebs wrote: »

Opinions that you find "disgusting" are nothing compared to the physical act of sodomy: an affliction that is rampant across the western world. Women as well as men.

Plebs wrote: »

If we're going to allow homosexual persons to "marry" under the banner of "equality", then it's hypocritical not to allow first cousins or sisters/brothers/mothers/fathers the right to marry.

Plebs wrote: »

If a fully grown man can marry his best friend, I don't see why a 30 year-old man can't marry his 28 year-old sister.

Plebs wrote: »

Surely they can facilitate the sexual gratification of each other by utilising modern technology? As a liberal, you wouldn't deny them that right? Sure if they did get pregnant, they could always go get an abortion.

philologos

eightyfish wrote: »

Why is is that every time someone has a problem with gay marriage they are always religious? Then they claim that their opinion is based only on concern for child welfare and absolutely nothing to do with their holy book which says homosexuality is an abomination?

This argument can be argued without any reference to it, and indeed is best argued when people are bound to disagree with you from the get-go otherwise. There is no point starting off an argument from a point that people are bound to disagree with. Indeed, legislation ought to be based on something that people from differing groups in larger society can refer to.

bodice ripper

Plebs wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't like to have to drink my 11's and listen to this kind of ignorant stereotyping, smugness and hate.

you don't do a lot of talking at 11's, no?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

This argument can be argued without any reference to it, and indeed is best argued. There is no point starting off an argument from a point that people are bound to disagree with. Indeed, legislation ought to be based on something that people from differing groups in larger society can refer to.

When arguing for something I prefer to give the actual reason why I have that opinion rather than trying to keep my actual reasons out of the discussion because I know people won't accept them and instead making side points that aren't actually what I base my opinion on

Turtwig

Malty_T wrote: »

Jakkass wrote: »

Malty_T wrote: »

Jakkass wrote:

There is good reason to suggest that children raised with both a mother and a father are better off than children that are raised in alternative family structures. I could cite study after study, but I doubt it would change your mind.

Go on then but before you start, please make sure the study is relevant to the discussion at hand. Ensure it is comparing the performances of straight parents to gay ones. Please DO NOT include studies that merely outline what benefit having both a mother and fatherly role has on the upbringing of a child. Also any studies which investigate if these roles can filled by other people e.g Aunt, Uncle, Person of supposedly wrong sex etc. would be nice.

Also, may I ask, if we can demonstrate the case to you that the person who fills the mother or father roles is immaterial would you change your mind?

Malty T - Such studies are also highly relevant when we are talking about family structures that exclude either male or female rolemodels.

What? I'm afraid to say I don't follow. Can you elaborate a bit more on what point you are trying to make.:o

Apologies if you replied to this already, but I really didn't understand what you were saying.

eightyfish

Plebs wrote: »

But the way this discussion is going and the disrespectful tone, it's of no relevance.

Are you serious? You're the one who described gay sex as an affliction, and compared homosexuality to incest, etc. I think the disrespectful tone was already set. And on top of that people born a certain way deserve to be respected because they had no choice in the matter. Religious beliefs deserve no such respect.

Any key?

Jaysus its all God god god in here.


On a serious note one of my mates is gay he married (up north) earlier this year their the happiest couple I know. I hope it gets passed.....although all the well dressed, attractive men will be married to each other

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Apologies if you replied to this already, but I really didn't understand what you were saying.

I meant that studies about parental roles are crucially important when discussing this subject. So asking one not to cite them isn't a reasonable request.

Any key? - Same-sex marriage isn't legal in the UK either. What you are discussing is a Civil Partnership, which has been passed in the Republic, and has been in the UK since 2004.

dr.bollocko

Plebs banned for trolling / insulting other posters. Please report any posts which you find offensive. Anything I've missed please drop me a PM.

As an aside, I would hope that we are forward thinking enough to allow gay marriage in this country however I am unsure if this would be the majority view.

Any key?

Jakkass wrote: »

I meant that studies about parental roles are crucially important when discussing this subject. So asking one not to cite them isn't a reasonable request.

Any key? - Same-sex marriage isn't legal in the UK either. What you are discussing is a Civil Partnership, which has been passed in the Republic, and has been in the UK since 2004.

Ah I see thank you Jakkass for enlightening me Either way I think gay marraige in Ireland should be legal. Its a disgrace in this day and age that people are being oppressed for the comfort of a few closed minded people. Live and let live, and the world would be a happier ploace.

OptimashPrime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

LOL, listing things from the bible is a sackable offence?

Priests better watch out so


Indeed, such as this:

when you put them all together like this it makes for some awful reading, and i can only hope i never have to sit next to a Pleb like character at a dinner. he/she has said everything bar burn "the gays" at the stake

Vic_Mackey

Jakkass wrote: »

Any key? - Same-sex marriage isn't legal in the UK either. What you are discussing is a Civil Partnership, which has been passed in the Republic, and has been in the UK since 2004.

While "Civil Partnership" has been passed here in Ireland, it's worth noting that that UK version goes further with regard to Children. In a UK Civil Partnership, both parties assume the role of parents. As I understand with the Irish CP Bill this isn't the case.

I think gay marriage will be passed in Ireland, one day. While I support it, I don't think I'm in the majority.

wonderfulname

Plebs wrote: »

Particularly since the 1960s. Homosexual acts between humans certainly did not evolve to the extent that we have today. It is a cultural phenomenon.

I think you have to consider that when people are going to be imprisoned, beaten, killed or even just disowned or rejected from their society the likelihood of them actually practising or protesting their feelings decreases substantially..

Note to self: in future read all new posts before replying..

eightyfish

Vic_Mackey wrote: »

While "Civil Partnership" has been passed here in Ireland, it's worth noting that that UK version goes further with regard to Children. In a UK Civil Partnership, both parties assume the role of parents. As I understand with the Irish CP Bill this isn't the case.

There's other differences as well. AFAIK the partnership can only be registered between two EU citizens with visa rights. In other words, if a couple want to be registered and one of them does not have an EU passport - the civil partnership will not allow the non-Irish partner a visa to stay in the country. If you're talking about an Irish and Brazilian person for example - if it was a straight couple they could marry and live in Ireland. If it was a gay couple they would have to move to the less backward UK in order to live.

If this is not the case I'd love to know.

Vic_Mackey

Eigthtyfish, you're correct! I wasn't aware of that until I looked it up just there. From what I could see of the UK act, it awarded more or less all the rights of full marriage, just under a different name. Seems we got Tesco Value Civil Partnership.

eightyfish

Vic_Mackey wrote: »

Seems we got Tesco Value Civil Partnership.

Indeed. So this bill is not only pathetic in its scope, it's racist. I have two friends who had to move to the UK for the exact reason described in my earlier post. They had to leave friends and family behind and uproot everything in order to live together.

This country is a backward closed-minded old-school Catholic disgrace when it comes to equal rights for gay people.

roberthagedorn

No matter how we feel about same-sex marriage, the exegesis for the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis makes us uncomfortable. Why? Because the deed Adam and STEve did, according to the evidence, was sodomy--the mystery the bishop of Hippo almost solved 1600 years ago. (He thought the sin was penile/vaginal.) For more information google The First Scandal Adam and Eve. Then click, read, and click again.

sensibleken

A lot of people seem to think that the older generation would vote against it. Im not so sure.

From personal experience I know one Gay guy in his late 70s who is an usher in the local church goes to the pub and sits with all his pals and has a pint. I know another, probably early sixties i think who owns an ouldfellas pub and no one cares either.

when homosexuality was legalised no one gave a crap except a few far-right catholic sorts. the civil partnership passed without even bothering to vote because theres no opposition.

really, apart from cóir, i dont see any significant amount of people getting in the way of it

HavingCrack

I'd describe myself as a libertarian bordering on anarchism so I believe the government should have no power to say who can get married to who (within reason of course, I don't think any libertarian would advocate child marriage or incest for example). I'm so fed up of the significant minority of people in Ireland from both left and right wing backrounds attempting to shove their belifes both social and economic down everyones throats. To all those against gay marriage, if gay people want to get married in a civil ceremony how does it affect you????

Stark

roberthagedorn wrote: »

No matter how we feel about same-sex marriage, the exegesis for the 2nd and 3rd chapters of Genesis makes us uncomfortable. Why? Because the deed Adam and STEve did, according to the evidence, was sodomy--the mystery the bishop of Hippo almost solved 1600 years ago. (He thought the sin was penile/vaginal.) For more information google The First Scandal Adam and Eve. Then click, read, and click again.

Why should anyone care? We live in a 21st century supposedly pluralist society. Legislation shouldn't be based on fairy tales from several thousand years ago.

prinz

HavingCrack wrote: »

To all those against gay marriage, if gay people want to get married in a civil ceremony how does it affect you????

So you only want people to be allowed to marry within reason... and then you go on to ask this? People's definition of within reason differs.

MagicMarker

prinz wrote: »

So you only want people to be allowed to marry within reason... and then you go on to ask this? People's definition of within reason differs.

He said within reason, as in, no children should be allowed marry. He said this himself, you conveniently didn't quote this part.

sasser

eightyfish wrote: »

Indeed. So this bill is not only pathetic in its scope, it's racist. I have two friends who had to move to the UK for the exact reason described in my earlier post. They had to leave friends and family behind and uproot everything in order to live together.

This country is a backward closed-minded old-school Catholic disgrace when it comes to equal rights for gay people.

But what's stopping them living together here, I'm confused?

HavingCrack

prinz wrote: »

So you only want people to be allowed to marry within reason... and then you go on to ask this? People's definition of within reason differs.

Stop quoting me without putting the rest of what I said in, it gives a completely different slant on my post. The homosexual marriage that I would support would be between two consenting adults which is a completely different kettle of fish to child marriage or incest as I'm sure you'd agree.

prinz

HavingCrack wrote: »

Stop quoting me without putting the rest of what I said in, it gives a completely different slant on my post. The homosexual marriage that I would support would be between two consenting adults which is a completely different kettle of fish to child marriage or incest as I'm sure you'd agree.

What about two consenting adults engaging in incest?

lugha

prinz wrote: »

What about two consenting adults engaging in incest?

I think the line that you and others are taking here Prinz (i.e. if we adjust what we understand by marriage at all, where do we stop?) supposes that our current view is somehow ideal. But could others not have made the same argument when for example, some societies prohibited mixed race marriages? I.e. if we permit mixed race marriages, why not incestuous ones etc.?

Many of those opposed to gay marriage here seem to have little difficulty with civil partnerships for gays, which I have to say I find curious. If you do not condemn gay relationships outright, then surely the onus is on you to justify why you would deny them the label “marriage”?

MagicMarker

prinz wrote: »

What about two consenting adults engaging in incest?

What does preventing these people from getting married achieve?

If it's legalized tomorrow will we all start sleeping with our cousins/brothers/sisters or something?

Turtwig

prinz wrote: »

What about two consenting adults engaging in incest?

Absolutely no problem unless a child is conceived in which case it is intentional risk of harm caused to a unborn child. In the case of homosexuals couples a child cannot be conceived so I fail to see why you are constantly bringing up incest.

Otacon

Why does incest and [not yet in this thread afaik] paedophilia always get dragged into these discussions? It always annoys me.

Stark

Incest is illegal in Ireland so there's no slippery slope towards sibling marriage. Reason being the high potential for creating deformed offspring so it's more than a case of one's own business. If there wasn't the risk of deformed offspring, it would probably be legal as the right for consenting adults to do as they please in the privacy of their own bedrooms is a human right regardless of whether others find it distasteful.

As for marrying your family pets and insectoid overlords, that's covered by the United Declaration of Human Rights which dictates that both parties have to explicitly consent to marriage so that's another slippery slope ruled out.

Wolfe Tone

Malty_T wrote: »

Absolutely no problem unless a child is conceived in which case it is intentional risk of harm caused to a unborn child. In the case of homosexuals couples a child cannot be conceived so I fail to see why you are constantly bringing up incest.

WTF? You find nothing wrong with incest unless someone gets pregnant?

I_AmThe_Walrus

It will never be a reality until the dinosaurs in Government get their head out of their arse and catch up with the modern era - ridiculous religious values keeping us in the stone-age.

prinz

lugha wrote: »

I think the line that you and others are taking here Prinz (i.e. if we adjust what we understand by marriage at all, where do we stop?) supposes that our current view is somehow ideal.

Not neccessarily. There is an element to that, but it's mostly about illustrating that different people have different opinions. If person A said they draw the line before homosexual couples..... berated, blah blah, why a line there there, that's arbitrary denying people rights etc.

Person B after using these arguments against person A then restricts the same thing from two other consenting adults with another 'line' that could equally be described as arbitrary. It's basically the same argument just either side of homosexuality. Of course you won't have Person B being described as a whatever-phobe, ignorant, whatever it is.

lugha wrote: »

Many of those opposed to gay marriage here seem to have little difficulty with civil partnerships for gays, which I have to say I find curious. If you do not condemn gay relationships outright, then surely the onus is on you to justify why you would deny them the label “marriage”?

I think heterosexual couplings should be promoted by the state tbh, and if two different titles are needed to differentiate then so be it.

MagicMarker

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

WTF? You find nothing wrong with incest unless someone gets pregnant?

Ever fancied a cousin?

jill_valentine

Gay rights proponents shouldn't have to answer for incest and paedophilia. They're nothing to do with anything, and bringing the subjects into the discussion is a sleazy Daily Mail tactic to force the other side into unpopular company. It's a weak, dishonest argument, and I'm sick of seeing it trotted out.

Argue against gay marriage on it's own terms, or admit once and for all that you don't even have a clue why you oppose it.