Same Sex Marraige.....

Bottle_of_Smoke

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I can appreciate this. The question is when "getting around barriers" becomes interfering TOO MUCH with the natural order, which is why I said that "fixing" an existing problem is perfectly acceptable, whereas applying other "advances" - of even the same advances to other scenarios - are questionable.

Cloning, creating babies in a lab, etc, would all come under that. When is it "fixing" and when is it "questionable".

I don't have the answers, I know that. Not least when "nature" allows unwanted kids to be created by drunken trysts....if "nature" actually had it right, conception would only be possible if there were a mental switch to say "we want and will commit to bringing up a child".

But when something feels like it's a step too far, it needs debate, and not one that's masked behind "rights", or accusations of homophobia, because it's not comparing like with like.

The reality is cloning or in-vitro fertilisation isn't required - just a sperm donor. Lesbians can still have sex with men.

So by denying marriage rights to the mother and her lesbian partner the end result is the child they bring up doesn't have the same rights and security a child deserves.

Even if I was staunchly against gay marriage I'd still legalise it for that reason alone.

28064212

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I can appreciate this. The question is when "getting around barriers" becomes interfering TOO MUCH with the natural order, which is why I said that "fixing" an existing problem is perfectly acceptable, whereas applying other "advances" - of even the same advances to other scenarios - are questionable.

Marriage is not part of the natural order, it's a social construct.

Can I get an answer on this (I'm just trying to understand where you're coming from): I'm not asking about "most people", or the "existing law", I'm asking about your opinion. Your belief is that couples (of any form) who don't intend to have children should not be allowed to get married, correct?

Zubeneschamali

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But when something feels like it's a step too far, it needs debate

A debate implies some sort of rational argumant. All you've presented is a bunch of "It's icky and unnatural" bigotry, like the opposition to mixed-race marriage of bygone days.

Flying Ryanair is icky and unnatural, but that isn't a reason to make it illegal.

Kurley

To those who asked me questions following my post: I'm not often online so please don't think I'm ignoring you. I'll try to explain my reasoning here.

I don't see this issue as one of equality. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Therefore two men (or two women) cannot be married to each other as that would be outside the definition. For a similar reason Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot become U.S. President. He does not meet the definition as he was not born there - that's not decried as a form of xenophobia.

Some posters have asked me and others if my opinion on this is driven by a form of phobia or religious belief: they are not. Again, this is not about equal rights for gay people. Gay people have the right to get married: a gay man may marry a gay woman for instance. They just may not marry a person of the same sex as this would not be marriage. Also, I stated in my earlier post, some recognition should be given to two people who make a commitment to one another, who share there lives and property, etc. to protect one when the other dies or is ill. I think civil partnerships are the way forward in that regard and marriage should not be part of the debate.

I do not understand why a couple who have no intention of having children would marry. They still may marry as having the state interfere by asking about their intentions would be wrong. A religious organisation may do this but the state must not. So the simplest way to define marriage is the best, it is between a man and a woman. As for an infertile couple marrying, nothing stops them from adopting children except perhaps where the woman is post menopausal. However, the couple may already have children so should be allowed to marry – as they are. The state stepping in here to determine the couples intentions would be wrong.

I hope I've explained myself clearly.

Buceph

Kurley wrote: »

To those who asked me questions following my post: I'm not often online so please don't think I'm ignoring you. I'll try to explain my reasoning here.

I don't see this issue as one of equality. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Therefore two men (or two women) cannot be married to each other as that would be outside the definition. For a similar reason Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot become U.S. President. He does not meet the definition as he was not born there - that's not decried as a form of xenophobia.

Some posters have asked me and others if my opinion on this is driven by a form of phobia or religious belief: they are not. Again, this is not about equal rights for gay people. Gay people have the right to get married: a gay man may marry a gay woman for instance. They just may not marry a person of the same sex as this would not be marriage. Also, I stated in my earlier post, some recognition should be given to two people who make a commitment to one another, who share there lives and property, etc. to protect one when the other dies or is ill. I think civil partnerships are the way forward in that regard and marriage should not be part of the debate.

I do not understand why a couple who have no intention of having children would marry. They still may marry as having the state interfere by asking about their intentions would be wrong. A religious organisation may do this but the state must not. So the simplest way to define marriage is the best, it is between a man and a woman. As for an infertile couple marrying, nothing stops them from adopting children except perhaps where the woman is post menopausal. However, the couple may already have children so should be allowed to marry – as they are. The state stepping in here to determine the couples intentions would be wrong.

I hope I've explained myself clearly.

You have.

The law says marriage is between a man and women, so they gays can't do it.

We change the law to say gays can marry, and there's no issue. We've changed the law, so they're allowed, problem solved.

Then they get all the bonuses to adopting children. So it gets even better.


See how everyone wins if we change the law. For the better. Like happens virtually every day (the Dail sits.*)

*Kind of.

Dr. Baltar

Kurley wrote: »

To those who asked me questions following my post: I'm not often online so please don't think I'm ignoring you. I'll try to explain my reasoning here.

I don't see this issue as one of equality. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Therefore two men (or two women) cannot be married to each other as that would be outside the definition. For a similar reason Arnold Schwarzenegger cannot become U.S. President. He does not meet the definition as he was not born there - that's not decried as a form of xenophobia.

Some posters have asked me and others if my opinion on this is driven by a form of phobia or religious belief: they are not. Again, this is not about equal rights for gay people. Gay people have the right to get married: a gay man may marry a gay woman for instance. They just may not marry a person of the same sex as this would not be marriage. Also, I stated in my earlier post, some recognition should be given to two people who make a commitment to one another, who share there lives and property, etc. to protect one when the other dies or is ill. I think civil partnerships are the way forward in that regard and marriage should not be part of the debate.

I do not understand why a couple who have no intention of having children would marry. They still may marry as having the state interfere by asking about their intentions would be wrong. A religious organisation may do this but the state must not. So the simplest way to define marriage is the best, it is between a man and a woman. As for an infertile couple marrying, nothing stops them from adopting children except perhaps where the woman is post menopausal. However, the couple may already have children so should be allowed to marry – as they are. The state stepping in here to determine the couples intentions would be wrong.

I hope I've explained myself clearly.

Wow! What a hypocritical thing to say. In one post you state it is none of the state's business who you marry and at the same time say that the state should extend that marriage to all denominations except same sex couples.

The religious nutters in this thread need to get this one fact buried into their mind before they even begin to debate this: We are not attempting to change the definition of marriage within your religion.

That is to say, if you are for example a Roman Catholic, within that church we would not be seen to have been married (As a muslim is not seen to have been married) but the state should accept it.

Why? Well for the hundreds of kids already in LGBT families in this country who have no right to inheritance.

Who are you to dictate who can marry and who cannot? It doesn't affect you and it's certainly none of your Spaghettiflyingforsaken business.

28064212

Kurley wrote: »

I don't see this issue as one of equality. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman. Therefore two men (or two women) cannot be married to each other as that would be outside the definition.

Why? Marriage is a union between two people who love each other and wish to make a commitment to each other. That is the only defining feature of marriage. You can have marriages without kids, you can have kids without marriages.

Kurley wrote: »

Also, I stated in my earlier post, some recognition should be given to two people who make a commitment to one another, who share there lives and property, etc. to protect one when the other dies or is ill. I think civil partnerships are the way forward in that regard and marriage should not be part of the debate.

Why differentiate between the two?

Kurley wrote: »

I do not understand why a couple who have no intention of having children would marry.

That's bizarre, you just outlined a long list of benefits to marriage. Marriage is a committment between two people to love each other. Even if there were no tangible benefits to it, marriage would still exist

Kurley wrote: »

So the simplest way to define marriage is the best, it is between a man and a woman.

Simpler way: between two people who want to commit to each other

Kurley wrote: »

As for an infertile couple marrying, nothing stops them from adopting children

Replace infertile with gay. What's the difference?

seamus

Kurley wrote: »

I do not understand why a couple who have no intention of having children would marry.

Because legally, as well as socially, marriage creates a family unit out of the persons involved. I'm not going to get into the "public declaration of love" stuff.

Marriage confers not only legal rights (such as medical or post-mortem rights for the surviving partner) but also confers a social status on the individuals where extended family, friends and organisation recognise that the two individuals are bonded as closely as can be and should be treated as the family unit which they are.

Civil partnership doesn't confer these things. It gives rights sure, but especially in social setting, where no marriage exists each person's family (i.e. parents and siblings) are seen as being their actual family, distinct from their partner. The partner is a "partner" or boyfriend/girlfriend, but not their "family". Marriage causes a psychological shift, both for those involved and for those around them, where parents and siblings now become extended family, and the partner becomes actual family, afforded the same level of respect and rights that any member of family is afforded.

This shift is impossible to enshrine in law and civil partnerships will never be given the same recognistion socially as marriage will. Society will still say that your family is the one you are born into, until you get married.

Regardless of the dictionary definition of family which includes children, very few people would consider a married man & women without children to not be a family unit.

Beruthiel

Kurley wrote: »

I don't see this issue as one of equality.

And yet, it is.

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.

Marriage was defined, by humans, to be between a man and a woman. We can redefine it at any point in time if we chose to.

Therefore two men (or two women) cannot be married to each other as that would be outside the definition.

Outside an outdated definition.

Gay people have the right to get married: a gay man may marry a gay woman for instance.

Yes. Because that'll work just great for all concerned....

They just may not marry a person of the same sex as this would not be marriage.

In your opinion.

I do not understand why a couple who have no intention of having children would marry.

Nobody asked you to understand. Certainly, when I got married I didn't take anyones opinion on board or expected any sort of understanding. Frankly, it's nobody elses business.
Two people, who love each other, who want to spend their lives together, should have the right to marry without having to ask anyone's permission.

CDfm

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I can appreciate this. The question is when "getting around barriers" becomes interfering TOO MUCH with the natural order, which is why I said that "fixing" an existing problem is perfectly acceptable, whereas applying other "advances" - of even the same advances to other scenarios - are questionable.

Cloning, creating babies in a lab, etc, would all come under that. When is it "fixing" and when is it "questionable".

I don't have the answers, I know that. Not least when "nature" allows unwanted kids to be created by drunken trysts....if "nature" actually had it right, conception would only be possible if there were a mental switch to say "we want and will commit to bringing up a child".

But when something feels like it's a step too far, it needs debate, and not one that's masked behind "rights", or accusations of homophobia, because it's not comparing like with like.

This is my take on it.

We should have same sex civil marriage.

I have a very close friend who is a lesbian mother and she is a good and kind woman.

Anyway, marriage is marriage for tax reasons and affects stuff like pensions mortgage applications etc. unemployment benefit . Lots of practical stuff. Its origans is with property law & that is its legal basis.

LGBT - can be just as conservative as the rest of us. In fact, they are almost invisable. Just as loyal to their partners and my friend has been with her partner for 20 years.

When I see the argument about marriage is for children - it amuses me. This is why.

A lesbian who wants a child can have one and will be a "lone parent" legally and for social welfare purposes- if she does not work and my friend always has.

So lesbian mothers have already had it cracked. They are around so it has already happened.

The issue when it happens then is the partners right to co-parent for emergencies. Hospital, dental & school -legally.

So really -when it comes to this issue I feel it is more a guy issue. If a gay male couple want a baby biologically it is more difficult. Social stereotyping too.

Lets face it - social workers cannot get their heads around heterosexual biological fathers co-parenting so when it comes to this.

They will allow kids to start life off in jail -no problem. Do drunken parents loose their kids. No. Drug addicts. They can justify that.

As a divorced guy I feel for lesbian & gay parents too.

Not putting in a legislative framework and legailising it is not helping children.

We also dont class domestic violence in a lesbian relationship as worthy of support.

I never thought I would be the sort of guy to post this or care about it -but I do. It wasnt because of my friend either as her kids are reared.

The reason we have governments is to deal with difficult issues -otherwise we would have opinion polls.

Reilly616

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'll admit that I don't quite understand "being gay", and I don't understand why nature puts a parental longing into someone who absolutely cannot have a child themselves under natural conditions, but the above is the core issue.

Just as I am against plastic surgery except in scenarios where it fixes a natural or imposed flaw (birth defect, results of an accident, etc), I am against artificial means of conception unless they, too, are to fix a "natural flaw", which is not the case with being gay, because it's not a flaw.

I appreciate your considered and reasoned response, however I don't think it stands up to scrutiny. You are essentially arguing that we should only implement advancements if they are to correct a flaw or defect in us. If that were to be our mantra, then there would be no aeroplanes, since it isn't natural for people to fly!

On a related not, since you mentioned it, surely you would not deny Irish citizens their right to bodily integrity! Yet this is exactly what you are arguing against when you oppose the freedom to enter into elective surgery.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

This is strawmanning, because 99.9% of the time a gay person will not be the child's "biological parent".

That simply isn't true. Most gay couples prefer to have one of them as the biological parent of their child.

Reilly616

Kurley wrote: »

Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.

Marriage used to be defined in this country (and many other common law jurisdictions) as "the union of a man and a woman, voluntarily entered into for life, to the exclusion of all others". Do you think that divorce should not have been legalised?

In Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Neatherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden marriage is not defined as between a man and a woman.

Your argument is ill-founded considering the fact that law changes and is not the same worldwide.

the "marriage is defined as..." bit always cracks me up.
Yes it is defined that way, that's why we're having this debate. Thanks for stating the obvious. :pac:

PS it's us that defined it, so it's us that can change it!
And we really should.

gcgirl

And here's me thinking a marriage was between 2 people who loved one another and wanted to spend the rest of their lives together :-/

Lux23

You see same sex marriage is a small issue, I cant understand why the government cant let adults marry who they want and get on with the real problems in the country. Also it seems FG seem to think equality means different things for different people so I won't be voting for them now.

gcgirl

gcgirl wrote: »

And here's me thinking a marriage was between 2 people who loved one another and wanted to spend the rest of their lives together :-/

That's what the new definition should be

This whole "think of the children" thing gets to me too.
People who are alcoholics or drug addicts or anything at all can have children and nobody gives a damn as long as they are straight. I dont see people campaigning that any of those couples shouldn't marry, and why would they?
But suddenly when a loving couple who aren't straight want to marry, we have a problem, and only then does concern for the hypothetical kids start.

rumour

gcgirl wrote: »

And here's me thinking a marriage was between 2 people who loved one another and wanted to spend the rest of their lives together :-/

See thats where you are wrong:rolleyes:. Marriage is defined these days by the divorce courts. Thats where your the contract is determined.

Gay couples in my mind haven't really thought this one through, your relationship will be defined as something completely different to the statement above if you end up in the divorce courts.

If you had any sense you would stay well clear of the traditional marriage. I may be a contrarian why do gay couples want this???

On a pragmatic level it serves no purpose, emotionally it has benefits but the states law don't legislate for emotions....or is that the intention??

rumour

bluewolf wrote: »

That's what the new definition should be

This whole "think of the children" thing gets to me too.
People who are alcoholics or drug addicts or anything at all can have children and nobody gives a damn as long as they are straight. I dont see people campaigning that any of those couples shouldn't marry, and why would they?
But suddenly when a loving couple who aren't straight want to marry, we have a problem, and only then does concern for the hypothetical kids start.

Utter tosh....there are whole government departments devoted to this.

Answer me this. If the state gives equal parenting rights to gay couples as hetrosexual couples how should it define the rights of the biological parents?

Zubeneschamali

rumour wrote: »

If the state gives equal parenting rights to gay couples as hetrosexual couples how should it define the rights of the biological parents?

The same way it does for children adopted by heterosexual couples now.

rumour

rumour wrote: »

Utter tosh....there are whole government departments devoted to this.

to what?

Answer me this. If the state gives equal parenting rights to gay couples as hetrosexual couples how should it define the rights of the biological parents?

Zubeneschamali wrote:

The same way it does for children adopted by heterosexual couples now.

^^^^

On a pragmatic level it serves no purpose

There are many benefits such as legal rights visitation rights next of kin blah blah blah. The list goes on.
If you dont want to get married then dont but wisecracks about "who'd want to anyway" doesnt change that there are a lot of people in ireland not getting equal rights

I thought I'd throw in my views here concerning the infertile couples argument. Hetrosexual couples of which at least one is infertile still have the, ahem, bits and pieces to procreate. On the other hand, even if both individuals are fertile, same-sex couples cannot naturally procreate because they are...well...of the same sex, and a child is naturally produced through heterosexual intercourse.
Now, if a cure for infertility were to be found, then the heterosexual couple would be able to go ahead and have children by themselves. Same-sex couples still could not do that. If they want a child/children, a third-party has to be brought in. That's just how humans are created: a sperm cell from the man fertilises a female ovum from the woman.
In short, infertile heterosexual couples are not disallowed to marry, because they still have the potential to procreate, being man and woman.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I thought I'd throw in my views here concerning the infertile couples argument. Hetrosexual couples of which at least one is infertile still have the, ahem, bits and pieces to procreate. On the other hand, even if both individuals are fertile, same-sex couples cannot naturally procreate because they are...well...of the same sex, and a child is naturally produced through heterosexual intercourse.
Now, if a cure for infertility were to be found, then the heterosexual couple would be able to go ahead and have children by themselves. Same-sex couples still could not do that. If they want a child/children, a third-party has to be brought in. That's just how humans are created: a sperm cell from the man fertilises a female ovum from the woman.
In short, infertile heterosexual couples are not disallowed to marry, because they still have the potential to procreate, being man and woman.

If a straight couple cant have kids then they still could if they found an external workaround, and if a gay couple cant have kids then they still could if they found an external workaround. But it's still "different" That appears to sum up your post.

What about if a woman has a hysterectomy, are the lawyers going to call around and say her marriage is invalid now because there isn't a cure?

"can" does not mean "should" and "can not" does not mean "should not".

It's a ridiculous pretext to try and deny someone a marriage

jackal

An argument against gay marriage I have heard before and seen here is the notion that it would dilute/lessen the institution of marriage.

I have tried to figure out what this means, but just cant. It just seems like a catch-all kind of last resort of an argument. Anyone want to enlighten me?

28064212

rumour wrote: »

Gay couples in my mind haven't really thought this one through, your relationship will be defined as something completely different to the statement above if you end up in the divorce courts.

No it won't. Marriage is a commitment between two people. Divorce allows that commitment to be ended. Nothing about either of those things are relevant to orientation

rumour wrote: »

If you had any sense you would stay well clear of the traditional marriage. I may be a contrarian why do gay couples want this???

On a pragmatic level it serves no purpose, emotionally it has benefits but the states law don't legislate for emotions....or is that the intention??

Why do straight people want it? There are lots of practical benefits to marriage

jackal

jackal wrote: »

An argument against gay marriage I have heard before and seen here is the notion that it would dilute/lessen the institution of marriage.

I have tried to figure out what this means, but just cant. It just seems like a catch-all kind of last resort of an argument. Anyone want to enlighten me?

rumour

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The same way it does for children adopted by heterosexual couples now.

Thats not very well thought through.

28064212

rumour wrote: »

Thats not very well thought through.

How are the rights of biological parents of adopted children affected in any way by the orientation of the adopting couple?

rumour

28064212 wrote: »

No it won't. Marriage is a commitment between two people. Divorce allows that commitment to be ended. Nothing about either of those things are relevant to orientation

Sorry I'm right here the courts define marriage by deciding what it was when you want to end it. Then you learn the consequences of what you walked into.

28064212 wrote: »

do straight people want it? There are lots of practical benefits to marriage

I ask myself the same question. There is a distinction however between a marriage which is a commitment between two people and a marriage where lawyers and the state determine what your relationship was.

Practical benefits to marriage...what practical legal benefit is there.

Seriously just because everyone is at it doesn't necessarily make it good. Seems to me the gay community have a very unique opportunity to define their relationships free from the shackles of history and have them legally recognized. What do they choose to do....adopt a model that is breaking at the seams in the western world. Fine... but do you get where I'm coming from?

28064212

rumour wrote: »

I ask myself the same question. There is a distinction however between a marriage which is a commitment between two people and a marriage where lawyers and the state determine what your relationship was.

Practical benefits to marriage...what practical legal benefit is there.

Seriously just because everyone is at it doesn't necessarily make it good. Seems to me the gay community have a very unique opportunity to define their relationships free from the shackles of history and have them legally recognized. What do they choose to do....adopt a model that is breaking at the seams in the western world. Fine... but do you get where I'm coming from?

You seem to be against marriage as a whole, which is fine, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

• Say nobody should be able get married = no problem
• Say everybody should be able to get married = no problem
• Say that only straight people should be allowed to get married = problem

And practical benefits of marriage? Inheritance, next-of-kin rights (e.g. hospital emergencies), parenting rights, tax benefits...

gcgirl

Not every marriage ends in divorce, I do believe that some people(women in general) enjoy the fairy tale wedding and have a snow white/cinderella obsession and are not really suitable for one another then you actually have people that really do love another and last the pace.
I know a woman who married her partner because she wanted to share her sons surname.