67% of Irish support Gay Marriage, 46% support Gay Adoption.

Wolfe Tone · 15-09-2010 3:01pm

crayolastereo wrote: »

See the problem with this survey that I see is that it shows up Irish 'acceptance' of gay people up to be very superficial. If 67% of people agree with marriage but only 46% agree with adoption, then 21% of the former pro-marriage (read PC) group think we are not good enough to raise kids.

Again, if 91% would not think less of someone if they found out they were gay, then why again is there 46% who would say that gay people shouldn't adopt? If you think the same of someone you should still think they are good enough to raise kids. The maths doesn't work. This survey needs Venn diagrams and you see the massive hypocrisy.

The problem with this survey and every other one is that they mean fcuk all and are never accurate.

Donnaghm · 15-09-2010 3:10pm

nordisk celt83 wrote: »

Why do think him and the wife never spoke and never had sex??? Major closet-case!!!

Hmmmm, come to think of it Bull and Bird got on remarkably well together.

onlyrocknroll · 15-09-2010 3:10pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Then what do you say the to someone who says "the majority should not be held hostage by a minority who wish to change a long standing institution(marriage) to suit their own views and definitions?"

Just to say that I am not making that argument, just curious.

Western liberal democracies are based on the idea that individual rights are used to act as checks and balances against the (potential) tyranny of democracy.

Otherwise 51% of the population could simply vote to discriminate against the other 49%.

That's why the Constitution protects individual rights, say for instance freedom of speech. If the democratically elected government wished to deny freedom of speech to, say Travelers, they would be in breach of the Constitution.

I, and I would imagine most of the regular posters on this forum are arguing that gay marraige and adoption rights should be included in the list of legal rights in the Constitution, and thus 'enshrined'.

Donnaghm · 15-09-2010 3:13pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

The problem with this survey and every other one is that they mean fcuk all and are never accurate.

The political ones tend to be impeccably accurate for predicting elections and no one openly admits to supporting FF. Yet the polls say they are 25% of the population. And I think people would be more embarassed to say they support FF than they're against gay marriage from my experience.

Wolfe Tone · 15-09-2010 3:15pm

onlyrocknroll wrote: »

Western liberal democracies are based on the idea that individual rights are used to act as checks and balances against the (potential) tyranny of democracy.

Otherwise 51% of the population could simply vote to discriminate against the other 49%.

That's why the Constitution protects individual rights, say for instance freedom of speech. If the democratically elected government wished to deny freedom of speech to, say Travelers, they would be in breach of the Constitution.

I, and I would imagine most of the regular posters on this forum are arguing that gay marraige and adoption rights should be included in the list of legal rights in the Constitution, and thus 'enshrined'.

But there has to be a referendum for that.

Goodshape · 15-09-2010 3:21pm

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Whats your point? Do you think that everyone should have an equal say in governing via referendum?

Hmmm. Politics is a bit lost on me, I'm afraid.

I was responding to MUSSOLINI:

Im all for equal rights etc, but if the people say no, they say no.

...which suggested people could democratically vote away the rights of others? But without equal rights, surely there's no basis for democracy... bit of a catch22.

justsomebloke · 15-09-2010 3:35pm

Ok this maybe slightly off topic and slightly ignorant but after hearing about the poll it got me wondering

Due to being straight I don't come up against the obsticles put in the way of the community here so I was wondering what are the reasons being given to the community here as to why they shouldn't be allowed adopt. truthfully I'm just a bit baffled as to why some people wouldn't want kids growing up in a loving environment irrespective of the sex of the parents and just want to know the reasons you may have been given

Goodshape · 15-09-2010 3:42pm

Joe the Santa wrote: »

Ok this maybe slightly off topic and slightly ignorant but after hearing about the poll it got me wondering

Due to being straight I don't come up against the obsticles put in the way of the community here so I was wondering what are the reasons being given to the community here as to why they shouldn't be allowed adopt. truthfully I'm just a bit baffled as to why some people wouldn't want kids growing up in a loving environment irrespective of the sex of the parents and just want to know the reasons you may have been given

Actually, that's probably the most on topic this thread has been in ages

People seem to be worried that a 'deviant' gay 'lifestyle' would not be a suitable environment to raise children. Or that children have a 'right' to both a mother and a father, despite the existence of healthy and happy single parent families and the possibility for a single person to adopt.

I honestly don't know any good reasons but I might be a bit biased :P

Donnaghm · 15-09-2010 3:44pm

Joe the Santa wrote: »

Ok this maybe slightly off topic and slightly ignorant but after hearing about the poll it got me wondering

Due to being straight I don't come up against the obsticles put in the way of the community here so I was wondering what are the reasons being given to the community here as to why they shouldn't be allowed adopt. truthfully I'm just a bit baffled as to why some people wouldn't want kids growing up in a loving environment irrespective of the sex of the parents and just want to know the reasons you may have been given

Religious belief & a macho culture that fears anything out of the ordinary. That's my opinion anyway.

Aard · 15-09-2010 5:08pm

Obviously, the children will be infected with gayness. It's contagious, y'know.

dochara · 15-09-2010 9:18pm

Adoptee: Daddy, may I please go to the disco on Friday night?

Daddy: Hmmm, you'd better ask your father.

All totally natural of course.

(. . . . and before ye get ye're manly knickers in a twist, it's a J-O-K-E).

Annasopra · 15-09-2010 10:12pm

dochara wrote: »

Adoptee: Daddy, may I please go to the disco on Friday night?

Daddy: Hmmm, you'd better ask your father.

All totally natural of course.

(. . . . and before ye get ye're manly knickers in a twist, it's a J-O-K-E).

where was the joke

MagicMarker · 16-09-2010 1:02pm

dochara wrote: »

Adoptee: Daddy, may I please go to the disco on Friday night?

Daddy: Hmmm, you'd better ask your father.

All totally natural of course.

(. . . . and before ye get ye're manly knickers in a twist, it's a J-O-K-E).

*slow clap*

Annasopra · 16-09-2010 1:07pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

*slow clap*

No clap

Herbal Deity · 16-09-2010 1:08pm

Coeurdepirate · 17-09-2010 5:38pm

tcd wrote: »

Em, yes. Completely unnatural. Can you imagine the embarrassment of a child being adopted into a family like that? The bullying in school?
.

No parents/abusive parents or gay parents... Hmmm, so hard to choose :rolleyes:

Completely unnatural.

how god made you,

Contradiction much? :rolleyes:

you's can't have a child naturally

Oops, for a moment there I was under the illusion that infertile people and the menopause exist. How idiotic of me :rolleyes:
And the thought of having sex for any reason other than reproduction is nothing short of insanity! :rolleyes:

Pink Adoptions · 18-09-2010 12:29am

Actually i have to apologize on one point: I misread one of your post...

When you posted: "Anyway, I don't particularly care if gay people can marry. I suppose these days I would consider myself quite liberal with everything except abortion."

I read: "Anyway, I don't particularly care if gay people can marry. I suppose these days I would consider myself quite liberal with everything except adoption."

I am happy to withdraw the affirmation that you are against adoption by same-gender couples... as well as the pervert priest analogy.

Wolfe Tone · 18-09-2010 12:33am

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

Actually i have to apologize on one point: I misread one of your post...

When you posted: "Anyway, I don't particularly care if gay people can marry. I suppose these days I would consider myself quite liberal with everything except abortion."

I read: "Anyway, I don't particularly care if gay people can marry. I suppose these days I would consider myself quite liberal with everything except adoption."

I am happy to withdraw the affirmation that you are against adoption by same-gender couples.

How abut the other bullsh!t you spewed out in your judgmental, insulting doozie of a post?

I have had a lot of sh!t said to me on this site, that I am a terrorist ets etc, but yours ranks up there with the best of them.

I hate kids? WTF?

Pink Adoptions · 18-09-2010 12:50am

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

How abut the other bullsh!t you spewed out in your judgmental, insulting doozie of a post?

I have had a lot of sh!t said to me on this site, that I am a terrorist ets etc, but yours ranks up there with the best of them.

I hate kids? WTF?

People who want to keep denying children their constitutional rights to have a married family or to be adopted do in fact act as if they hated kids.

I misread your post as saying you were anti-adoption, and i sincerely apologize for the confused rant that followed.
That was directed at the people who baselessly argue against same-gender marriage or adoption in same-gender households.

It is not more than clear to me that nothing in your posts puts you in this category, apart from my mi-reading of one post. For which I am totally at fault.

Wolfe Tone · 18-09-2010 12:54am

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

People who want to keep denying children their constitutional rights to have a married family or to be adopted do in fact act as if they hated kids.

I misread your post as saying you were anti-adoption, and i sincerely apologize for the confused rant that followed.
That was directed at the people who baselessly argue against same-gender marriage or adoption in same-gender households.

It is not more than clear to me that nothing in your posts puts you in this category, apart from my mi-reading of one post. For which I am totally at fault.

Ah ok then.

My main issue is that I read time and time again about how people are being denied freedoms.... by referendums. That s direct democracy. That is the freest form of expression we have. And if the people say no, they say no.
It is also enshrined in the constitution that we have a right to rule ourselves.

Pink Adoptions · 18-09-2010 1:11am

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Ah ok then.

My main issue is that I read time and time again about how people are being denied freedoms.... by referendums. That s direct democracy. That is the freest form of expression we have. And if the people say no, they say no.
It is also enshrined in the constitution that we have a right to rule ourselves.

But at the same time, we have a Dáil to vote Laws.
I really think that the referendum route needs not being taken before a law has been ruled unconstitutional, unless an objective change in the constitution is needed.

A modern reading of the constitution should allow a simple law to be passed clarifying the fact that marriage cannot be denied on the basis of gender.
Then if there is a legal challenge of sort, we can think about a referendum.

The Dáil is the normal way for people to rule themselves.
Dev' was probably not thinking about a weekly referendum on the size of bolts. The ruling ourselves referred to the right to not be ruled by a foreign parliament.

The rules about the referendum are clear.
It does not seem that same-gender marriage needs one, unless proven otherwise by a decision of the Supreme Court.

Ideal situation:
- New gvt, new President
- gvt puts in place universal marriage by Law, guided by polls in favor
- President is aware of popular doubts, and refers the Law to the Supreme Court to immunize it against future challenges.

If it is OK, we are good to go. Done. Next item on the agenda.
If the SP says it is repugnant to the constitution. then we need a referendum, because the written will of the People as enshrined in the Constitution is at odds with the live voice of the Poeple in the Dáil and in the Seanad and the polls.
The people need to decide.

The advantage is that people will have spend months debating it before it comes to a referendum and we will have a good idea if it is worth the time and money and effort, or if the people are just clearly in agreement with the SP.

A referendum is not a denial of justice or democracy, but abusing the procedure for no good reason is. When the referendum becomes a plebiscite... democracy is in peril.

Wolfe Tone · 18-09-2010 1:20am

In my mind it is 100% clear what the constitution means and refers to.

It refers to the traditional family. To interpret it any other way is simply wrong, the author did not mean for it to mean that, and the voters did not mean for it to mean that.

Do I think the constitution is correct? No, I have many issues with the constitution. We need a new one. You cant just make up meanings for words.
Think of it this way, if the word "gay" was used in it what would it mean? It would mean happy right? We cannot apply modern meanings to it. It was not written to mean what you are claiming it means.

I disagree with the constitution on this point but it would be grossly unfair and undemocratic to interpret this in any other way than it was intended. The people MUST vote on it. AND they have every right, and freedom, to say no. Do I think they should say no? No I do not.

dochara · 18-09-2010 12:17pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

What? Im not LGBT. I thought this forum was for civil discussion of LGBT issues by everyone?

Hear, hear! One doesn't have to be a horse to express an opinion on horse-racing!

Wouldn't it be just lovely and cosy if only homosexuals and deviants expressed their biased opinions on what they get up to in bed? You're the very ones who claim that all citizens should be treated equally - so practice what you preach and listen to ALL views, not just your own.

Heaven help any poor child who calls for Mummy some night and sees two half-naked men coming in to "comfort" him/her.

Links234 · 18-09-2010 12:23pm

dochara wrote: »

Hear, hear! One doesn't have to be a horse to express an opinion on horse-racing!

Wouldn't it be just lovely and cosy if only homosexuals and deviants expressed their biased opinions on what they get up to in bed? You're the very ones who claim that all citizens should be treated equally - so practice what you preach and listen to ALL views, not just your own.

Heaven help any poor child who calls for Mummy some night and sees two half-naked men coming in to "comfort" him/her.

this is a very sensitive forum and often gets threads from people struggling to come out, and are distraught or maybe in a fragile place, people looking for help. it wouldn't do anyone any good is some lunatic was allowed to tell a person they're an abomination and will die young and suffer for an eternity in the fires of hell. should someone like that be free to air their "views" here? absolutely not.

baby and crumble · 18-09-2010 12:31pm

dochara wrote:

Wouldn't it be just lovely and cosy if only homosexuals and deviants expressed their biased opinions on what they get up to in bed? You're the very ones who claim that all citizens should be treated equally - so practice what you preach and listen to ALL views, not just your own.

Heaven help any poor child who calls for Mummy some night and sees two half-naked men coming in to "comfort" him/her.

Well then, why don't he have a discussion about your sex life? Like blow jobs? Anal? Ever dress up? What about watching porn? Ever use sex toys? Lube? No, no no, of course not, because YOU'RE not a deviant. Lie back and think of England, dear...

What a load of rubbish.

Oh, and get a grip, a kid who doesn't associate her parents with "Mummy' isn't going to ever call out for one you moron. Just like if your mam was a lone parent you weren't going to call out for your Dad. I also assume your Dad was never the one coming in in his PJ's to help you when you were sick as a kid. Lucky for me, mine did.

And your use of the quotation marks around the word comfort are incredibly pompous and passive aggressive.

Wolfe Tone · 18-09-2010 12:37pm

Links234 wrote: »

this is a very sensitive forum and often gets threads from people struggling to come out, and are distraught or maybe in a fragile place, people looking for help. it wouldn't do anyone any good is some lunatic was allowed to tell a person they're an abomination and will die young and suffer for an eternity in the fires of hell. should someone like that be free to air their "views" here? absolutely not.

Hence the "civil" bit!

Links234 · 18-09-2010 12:38pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Hence the "civil" bit!

I don't think the views dochara has just aired are "civil"

dochara · 18-09-2010 12:40pm

Only two on duty watching forums today? Ah well, it is Saturday after all. Send a few texts - make a few phone-calls and the gay-opinion-police will soon descend on me.

Whew! Better start running . . . . ! :eek:

Wolfe Tone · 18-09-2010 12:40pm

Links234 wrote: »

I don't think the views dochara has just aired are "civil"

Yeah I agree.

Links234 · 18-09-2010 12:47pm

dochara wrote: »

Only two on duty watching forums today? Ah well, it is Saturday after all. Send a few texts - make a few phone-calls and the gay-opinion-police will soon descend on me.

Whew! Better start running . . . . ! :eek:

don't worry, I've got a direct line to the gay opinion police, they'll be around to your place with the pink fuzzy handcuffs in no time.

rainbow kirby · 18-09-2010 11:52pm

Links234 wrote: »

I've got a direct line to the gay opinion police, they'll be around to your place with the pink fuzzy handcuffs in no time.

We're fabulous. Dochara infracted.

dochara · 19-09-2010 9:08am

Damn! Those GPs woke me at 4.00 a.m. and my grand-aunt didn't even have time to dress.

The shame of it! Ooooooooh!

Annasopra · 19-09-2010 10:36am

dochara wrote: »

Damn! Those GPs woke me at 4.00 a.m. and my grand-aunt didn't even have time to dress.

The shame of it! Ooooooooh!

Keep taking the medication

Bottle_of_Smoke · 19-09-2010 10:38am

I think these statistics show Ireland is somewhat progressing.

I mean the figure that 91% would not think less of someone for being gay is complete bollocks. However, the fact that those people are too embarrassed to admit they're homophobic is at least a partial recognition that they realise their position is wrong.

Aard · 19-09-2010 11:12am

And as well as that, 4% were confident enough to say that they were not straight. The actual number is undoubtedly higher.

Also, 67% in favour of same-sex marriage is comparable with countries like Sweden, Denmark, Spain, and Belgium. It's encouraging.

iguana · 19-09-2010 6:09pm

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

I feel direct democracy is the best way. Why should everyone not have an equal say in the changing of a law?

To quote Winston Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Democracy is a deeply flawed way to run society because it allows for tyranny of majority. Just because it's better and fairer than monarchism or fascism doesn't mean that we shouldn't be constantly striving for something better.

It isn't right that a majority can impose their views. I'd be fairly confident that the vast majority of people in the country think it's pretty stupid to spend hours every week on an internet forum having random discussions. That doesn't give them the moral right to outlaw it however because it has no impact on their lives. The same is true for homosexual marriages or civil partnerships that convey equal rights as heterosexual marriages. They have no impact on me or my marriage, therefore whether they are allowed or not really has nothing to do with me and however I feel about them has no bearing on whether or not they should be legalised.

Coeurdepirate · 19-09-2010 7:56pm

I'm sorry for asking such an idiotic question, but if 67% agree with it, then why isn't it legal?

rainbow kirby · 19-09-2010 8:23pm

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

I'm sorry for asking such an idiotic question, but if 67% agree with it, then why isn't it legal?

Because FF is scared of incurring the Wrath Of Oul'Wan that will happen if they hold a referendum on it.

Wolfe Tone · 19-09-2010 8:33pm

iguana wrote: »

To quote Winston Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." Democracy is a deeply flawed way to run society because it allows for tyranny of majority. Just because it's better and fairer than monarchism or fascism doesn't mean that we shouldn't be constantly striving for something better.

It isn't right that a majority can impose their views. I'd be fairly confident that the vast majority of people in the country think it's pretty stupid to spend hours every week on an internet forum having random discussions. That doesn't give them the moral right to outlaw it however because it has no impact on their lives. The same is true for homosexual marriages or civil partnerships that convey equal rights as heterosexual marriages. They have no impact on me or my marriage, therefore whether they are allowed or not really has nothing to do with me and however I feel about them has no bearing on whether or not they should be legalised.

Well as a strong conservative that would be one of the few things you may agree on!

However, the constitution will require a change yes?(unless you try and twist it to mean something it doesn't and was never meant to. And a change to the constitution requires a referendum yes? And the people are free to vote no, yes?

Coeurdepirate · 19-09-2010 8:33pm

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Because FF is scared of incurring the Wrath Of Oul'Wan that will happen if they hold a referendum on it.

How come one of the other political parties can't hold a referendum?

rainbow kirby · 19-09-2010 8:39pm

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

How come one of the other political parties can't hold a referendum?

Because they're either in opposition or completely spineless (ie. the Greens).

Coeurdepirate · 19-09-2010 8:44pm

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Because they're either in opposition or completely spineless (ie. the Greens).

Labour and Sinn Fein are definitely for it, afaik.

Aard · 19-09-2010 8:52pm

According to the group MarriagEquality, their lawyers say that a referendum isn't necessary. Tbh though, the only place that it will be decided for definite is the Supreme Court. Afaik the KAL case will be heard there before long.

Coeurdepirate · 19-09-2010 9:16pm

Aard wrote: »

According to the group MarriagEquality, their lawyers say that a referendum isn't necessary. Tbh though, the only place that it will be decided for definite is the Supreme Court. Afaik the KAL case will be heard there before long.

What's the KAL case?

rainbow kirby · 19-09-2010 9:19pm

http://www.kalcase.org/

Annasopra · 19-09-2010 9:20pm

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

I'm sorry for asking such an idiotic question, but if 67% agree with it, then why isn't it legal?

because the TDs and membership in Fianna Fail and Fine Gael are predominantly socially conservative and they wouldn't support it. Some within FG/FF would but most would not.

LizT · 19-09-2010 9:26pm

tcd wrote: »

Heterosexual marriages have been established for centuries, to void it would be ridiculous. However, homosexual marriage is a relatively new idea and for now the majority isn't comfortable in legalizing it.

You post this in a thread that quotes a survey showing that over two thiids of Irish people support gay marriage?

dochara · 20-09-2010 6:29pm

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

How come one of the other political parties can't hold a referendum?

Because they're not in government of course. That's what opposition parties do - expel lots of hot air telling us what they would do if they were in power and then . . . . .

An opinion poll is not a referendum and the Supreme Court cannot change the constitution - they can only uphold or deny a challenge to the current constitution.

Yawns · 20-09-2010 6:35pm

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

I'm sorry for asking such an idiotic question, but if 67% agree with it, then why isn't it legal?

Ok wandered in from main page so here goes.

67% of how many people agree? They certainly took no poll on my area. I live in a small rural place so I would have been asked and since it's a lot of old folks they would prob frown upon it. So 67% of of what? 100 people?

I don't care either way, it doesn't affect me, have gay marriages etc if u want. I just hate these stupid polls and then people actually believe the whole country must have been asked.

I could go ask 100 KKK members if they want to outlaw the blacks from Ireland, should it be made so?

Aard · 20-09-2010 6:49pm

It was an Irish Times poll. They usually use reputable companies; I doubt they'd print something from such a small sampling as you're suggesting.

EDIT: Here's the details for how the poll was conducted: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0915/1224278898183.html

67% of Irish support Gay Marriage, 46% support Gay Adoption.

Comments