Gay Marriage

ardmacha

It's one of the annoying things about the likes of Iona - they insist that they are not campaigning based just on their religious beliefs (even though they obviously are), but are concerned about children's welfare or societies institutions or family farms or whatever it is this time.

One of notable things about this debate is that children's welfare can be tritely dismissed in this way and that people are happy to use children as pawns in social experiments designed to validate adult's sex lives.

oscarBravo

ardmacha wrote: »

One of notable things about this debate is that children's welfare can be tritely dismissed in this way and that people are happy to use children as pawns in social experiments designed to validate adult's sex lives.

That's not a notable thing about this debate, because it's nothing whatsoever to do with this debate.

Same-sex couple adoption is going to happen, and it doesn't require marriage equality to make it so. This isn't a discussion about adoption; it's about marriage.

ardmacha

Same-sex couple adoption is going to happen, and it doesn't require marriage equality to make it so. This isn't a discussion about adoption; it's about marriage.

The relation arises as those who misuse terms like "equality" in this debate will also seek to argue that all types of marriages should then be treated "equally". The elevated status of marriage in society largely arises from societies wishing to support family formation.

Zubeneschamali

ardmacha wrote: »

The elevated status of marriage in society largely arises from societies wishing to support family formation.

Yes, that's why couples who can't produce a child within 10 years of marriage automatically get an annulment.

oscarBravo

ardmacha wrote: »

The relation arises as those who misuse terms like "equality" in this debate will also seek to argue that all types of marriages should then be treated "equally".

Yes. That's what equality means. You'll have to explain how it's being misused.

The elevated status of marriage in society largely arises from societies wishing to support family formation.

And yet, society doesn't discriminate against heterosexual couples who don't intend to (or can't) have children. If you feel that homosexual couples who don't intend to have children should be discriminated against, please explain why.

Scofflaw

Rather a lot on Twitter about it at the moment - Paul Murphy 'outing homophobes' under parliamentary privilege in the European Parliament as part of the discussions on the Lunacek Report ("roadmap on homophobia").

This is a comment on, RTE's €85k settlement with John Waters and others including the head of the Iona Institute for allowing them to be called homophobic on air. Murphy describes it as "an attack by the conservative right-wing forces in Ireland, acceded to by RTE, designed to censor debate in advance of a likely referendum on marriage equality".

I can't help but wonder - Irish libel law specifically excludes as libel any reporting of Oireachtas proceedings:

A fair, accurate and contemporaneous media report of Oireachtas or court proceedings is also absolutely privileged, even if the reporter is motivated by malice. Clearly this exception is aimed at allowing free speech for members of the judicial and legislative arms of government, and for accurate reports of their views. - See more at: http://www.lawyer.ie/defamation#sthash.V32mWOsQ.dpuf

For those who might wish to report on Murphy's words in the EP, is there a similar protection extended to a "fair, accurate and contemporaneous media report" of EP proceedings? I'm not aware of one, although the parallel is more than obvious.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Nodin

Does anyone know what the suss is with the Panti fella? Is he going to have to go to court?

Zubeneschamali

Scofflaw wrote: »

Rather a lot on Twitter about it at the moment - Paul Murphy 'outing homophobes' under parliamentary privilege in the European Parliament as part of the discussions on the Lunacek Report ("roadmap on homophobia").

Actually, I believe he waived privilege, and is double-dog daring them to sue him. On twitter right now:

Long but good day. Expecting a mean solicitors' letter in morning perhaps.

and:

Share where you can and let's see if Iona still wants to threaten ppl!

ardmacha

oscarBravo wrote: »

And yet, society doesn't discriminate against heterosexual couples who don't intend to (or can't) have children. If you feel that homosexual couples who don't intend to have children should be discriminated against, please explain why.

All marriage supports the concept of marriage and so family formation and there is no useful public policy reason for the government to micromanage it. All of these comments about people with no children illustrate better than anything else the poverty of the debate.

Zubeneschamali

ardmacha wrote: »

All marriage supports the concept of marriage and so family formation and there is no useful public policy reason for the government to micromanage it.

We agree. Same sex marriage supports family formation, and there is no public policy reason to deny legal recongition to such families.

ardmacha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We agree. Same sex marriage supports family formation, and there is no public policy reason to deny legal recongition to such families.

We don't agree, where children live with people in same sex relationships (which are not marriage of course) the child is necessarily not living with both its parents, so this is more an example of family breakup than family formation. Now, of course, families break up, but you wouldn't create institutions to promote this.

oscarBravo

ardmacha wrote: »

All marriage supports the concept of marriage and so family formation and there is no useful public policy reason for the government to micromanage it. All of these comments about people with no children illustrate better than anything else the poverty of the debate.

That's not a response to the question I asked you, and you still haven't explained how the word "equality" is being misused.

Zubeneschamali

ardmacha wrote: »

We don't agree, where children live with people in same sex relationships (which are not marriage of course) the child is necessarily not living with both its parents, so this is more an example of family breakup than family formation.

Let us know when you start the campaign to ban remarriage, where children are living with people who are not both their biological parents. Also you'll want to ban single parents marrying people who are not the other parent of their children. Better ban divorce, too. And adoption.

Because your rules on marriage and children can't possibly be invented just to discriminate against gay people, it's all about the children, right?

ardmacha

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Let us know when you start the campaign to ban remarriage, where children are living with people who are not both their biological parents. Also you'll want to ban single parents marrying people who are not the other parent of their children. Better ban divorce, too. And adoption.

None of these attempted diversions has anything to do with the issue.

Because your rules on marriage and children can't possibly be invented just to discriminate against gay people, it's all about the children, right?

So we do agree that it is about children.
The concept of marriage was not introduced to "discriminate" against gay people, the concept evolved in societies all over the world to support family formation. A variety of people don't buy into marriage for a variety of reasons and that's up to themselves.

K-9

ardmacha wrote: »

We don't agree, where children live with people in same sex relationships (which are not marriage of course) the child is necessarily not living with both its parents, so this is more an example of family breakup than family formation. Now, of course, families break up, but you wouldn't create institutions to promote this.

Well the many single parent families with little involvement from one parent would be the obvious exception there. Then you have adoption and surrogacy.

Zubeneschamali

ardmacha wrote: »

None of these attempted diversions has anything to do with the issue.

They are all examples of marriage where children do not live with both their biological parents. According to you, this is what should prevent legal recognition of same sex marriages.

So why should it not disqualify divorce and remarriage? Remarriage after widowhood? Adoption of biologically unrelated children? Single parents marrying people other than their children's other parent?

ardmacha

So why should it not disqualify divorce and remarriage? Remarriage after widowhood? Adoption of biologically unrelated children? Single parents marrying people other than their children's other parent?

As i said above government should not micromanage marriage in the way you suggest. Marriage generally benefits family formation and particular instances do not invalidate this general point.

A same sex relationship is never about both parents of a child, it is a different thing than marriage.

Zubeneschamali

A same sex relationship is never about both parents of a child, it is a different thing than marriage.

Adoption of unrelated children is never about both parents of a child.

Remarriage after divorce or bereavement is never about both parents of a child.

A single mother marrying her new boyfriend for love after the dad has scarpered is never about both parents of a child.

If the state should not "micromanage" these cases, it should not "micromanage" same sex unions, either.

Nodin

ardmacha wrote: »

As i said above government should not micromanage marriage in the way you suggest. Marriage generally benefits family formation and particular instances do not invalidate this general point.

A same sex relationship is never about both parents of a child, it is a different thing than marriage.

....as civil partners will be able to adopt, marriage is hardly being extended to the gay community for that reason.

Your regard for childless heterosexual married couples is noted.

ardmacha

If the state should not "micromanage" these cases, it should not "micromanage" same sex unions, either.

No micromanagement needed, in fact no great change in marriage is needed at all.

Nodin

ardmacha wrote: »

No micromanagement needed, in fact no great change in marriage is needed at all.

No change in marriage is mooted. Its being extended to cover same sex couples.

For Reals

We need to take the religion out of marriage and relate it as a definition for legal coupled partnership.

Zubeneschamali

For Reals wrote: »

We need to take the religion out of marriage and relate it as a definition for legal coupled partnership.

We already have that: civil marriage at the Registry Office.

Except for gays, of course.

duckman!!

For Reals wrote: »

We need to take the religion out of marriage

exactly, I don't know 1 person who's against gay marriage that isnt religious. some seem to think that if gay marriage is made legal,
that gay people will be getting married in there church (I overheard many people saying this)
Then there's the others that keep repeating ''think of the children''..........even though anyone can adopt children as it stands now, so there point is invalid.
and last but not least ''gay marriage will ruin traditional marriage''............so all the divorce, separation and cheating is ok,
but 2 people who love each other and want 2 spend the rest of there lives together BUT are the same sex is wrong??????

Silentcorner

duckman!! wrote: »

exactly, I don't know 1 person who's against gay marriage that isnt religious. some seem to think that if gay marriage is made legal,
that gay people will be getting married in there church (I overheard many people saying this)
Then there's the others that keep repeating ''think of the children''..........even though anyone can adopt children as it stands now, so there point is invalid.
and last but not least ''gay marriage will ruin traditional marriage''............so all the divorce, separation and cheating is ok,
but 2 people who love each other and want 2 spend the rest of there lives together BUT are the same sex is wrong??????

Let's not kid ourselves, gay people are just as prone to all the above as heterosexual people...it diminishes the argument to suggest otherwise.

There is no logical opposition to SSM, but religion and logic are like oil and water, by the way I don't wish to seem like someone who doesn't see the importance of religion, I am socially conservative after all.

For me Divorce destroyed the institute of marriage, it can only help the institution to promote it across a broader spectrum. It is morally unjust to allow heterosexual people marry multiple times whilst simultaneously denying the same right to homosexual people.

spank_inferno

Silentcorner wrote: »

It is morally unjust to allow heterosexual people marry multiple times whilst simultaneously denying the same right to homosexual people.

Most of us would agree.

Though Ardmhaca will tie himself in knots trying to show you how you are wrong!

For Reals

As I see it, to negate the rights of someone based on differences just because you don't like them or you believe your God doesn't like them is simply bigotry.
I would love an apology from every religious authority figure I ever had the misfortune to deal with and the Catholic Church be banned for the harm they did/do, but hey, I'm an accepting chap and feel those people have a right to believe what they believe, except, as with anything, if it causes harm to others or tries to take away or block the rights of others.
I mean God, we're all made in his image and have free will, thanks to himself, so he must be a little, y'know, queer

duckman!!

For Reals wrote: »

he must be a little, y'know, queer

Brilliant!!!!

K-9

Silentcorner wrote: »

Let's not kid ourselves, gay people are just as prone to all the above as heterosexual people...it diminishes the argument to suggest otherwise.

Indeed, no different to other couples in that respect.

For me Divorce destroyed the institute of marriage

I don't think so though I see the logic, divorce was just a remedy for natural failings of marriage, spousal abuse, cheating, stuff like that. I think how the state deals with divorce needs modernising, the law was drafted with a different mind set and lags behind the societal changes in the intervening 18 years.

Family law needs a serious rethink, and I'd have preferred if that was dealt with before marriage was extended, but that isn't going to happen. Ideally I'd also like to see the state make family mediation compulsory with proof of attending such, before anybody goes to the courts.

But I wont be voting based on my ideals!

BlutendeRabe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Actually, I believe he waived privilege, and is double-dog daring them to sue him. On twitter right now:

Long but good day. Expecting a mean solicitors' letter in morning perhaps.

and:

Share where you can and let's see if Iona still wants to threaten ppl!

He's grandstanding. Parliamentary proceedings are exempt automatically. He could only be sued if he made the comments outside parliament.

Not a fan of him tbh.

Silentcorner

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, no different to other couples in that respect.



I don't think so though I see the logic, divorce was just a remedy for natural failings of marriage, spousal abuse, cheating, stuff like that. I think how the state deals with divorce needs modernising, the law was drafted with a different mind set and lags behind the societal changes in the intervening 18 years.

Family law needs a serious rethink, and I'd have preferred if that was dealt with before marriage was extended, but that isn't going to happen. Ideally I'd also like to see the state make family mediation compulsory with proof of attending such, before anybody goes to the courts.

But I wont be voting based on my ideals!

Destroyed was too strong a word, watered down would have been a more accurate description, the social conservative in me still hasn't let go of the bitterness of that defeat I'm afraid.

Spot on about family law.

shleedance

Allowing homosexuals to marry will not affect "normal" marriage. It won't change anything - just extend the rights to others who also want to get married.

Also, I really don't get the marriage = family idea. I wouldn't mind getting married, but I do not plan to have kids.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Know I'm going against the grain here but I'm still not convinced allowing full adoption rights to gay couples is as ideal as allowing a heterosexual couple adopt.

All things being equal I think a child is better suited having 1 mother and 1 father.

I know there are terrible parents who are straight.
I know that there are gay parents who are great.

It irritates me that non biological parents that want to adopt is a 'hotter' topic than giving unmarried and married biological fathers more rights over their own children. I know this is a separate issue and hope it's not clouding my judgement of this.

I see no logical reason not to extend the same marriage rights straight people now have to gay people.

It's just in a straight black and white situation, where you have a straight couple and a gay couple looking to adopt, and income and everything is equally comparable, I just think a childs needs are better provided for by a 1 mother/1father home vrs. a 2 father or 2 mother home. That's just my view and I haven't been swayed otherwise yet. I almost feel like I should apologise for my view of this.

jill_valentine

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Know I'm going against the grain here but I'm still not convinced allowing full adoption rights to gay couples is as ideal as allowing a heterosexual couple adopt.

All things being equal I think a child is better suited having 1 mother and 1 father.

You don't really "think" it though. You "feel" it. It's not a rational idea, it's not borne out by research or results or the consensus of experience from the children of gay couples.

So you don't think it. It's not something you've come to by looking at the evidence and thinking it through to a logical conclusion. You just kinda... feel like it.

Nodin

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Know I'm going against the grain here but I'm still not convinced allowing full adoption rights to gay couples is as ideal as allowing a heterosexual couple adopt.

All things being equal I think a child is better suited having 1 mother and 1 father.

I know there are terrible parents who are straight.
I know that there are gay parents who are great.

It irritates me that non biological parents that want to adopt is a 'hotter' topic than giving unmarried and married biological fathers more rights over their own children. I know this is a separate issue and hope it's not clouding my judgement of this.

I see no logical reason not to extend the same marriage rights straight people now have to gay people.

It's just in a straight black and white situation, where you have a straight couple and a gay couple looking to adopt, and income and everything is equally comparable, I just think a childs needs are better provided for by a 1 mother/1father home vrs. a 2 father or 2 mother home. That's just my view and I haven't been swayed otherwise yet. I almost feel like I should apologise for my view of this.

....but, as adoption by same sex couples is coming in either way the referendum goes, its rather a different issue, tbh.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

jill_valentine wrote: »

You don't really "think" it though. You "feel" it. It's not a rational idea, it's not borne out by research or results or the consensus of experience from the children of gay couples.

So you don't think it. It's not something you've come to by looking at the evidence and thinking it through to a logical conclusion. You just kinda... feel like it.

What evidence do you have that same sex couples make better parents than heterosexual couples? Is it something you think or feel or is it backed up by research and studies.

I'm sure children raised in same sex families have great stories about how great a time they had, just like you'll get children from heterosexual families saying the same great things.

I just think all things being equal a child is better suited to having 1 female parent and 1 male parent. This isn't exactly crazily strange abstract thinking on my behalf in fairness, the majority of children have been raised by heterosexual families for thousands of years, now that doesn't mean that things can't change, and they do, but changing things unnecessarily is unwise to me.

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Nodin wrote: »

....but, as adoption by same sex couples is coming in either way the referendum goes, its rather a different issue, tbh.

I just think all things being equal a child is better suited to having 1 female parent and 1 male parent.

12gauge dave

I originally fealt some what threatened or unsure maybe about the idea of gay marriage I was worried it would take away from the meaning of marriage that I have if that make sense? After alot of thought over last few months I have decided that gay marriage isnt going tp bring any hurt pain or misery to anyone in any shape or form but it will bring joy and happiness and a feeling of hope and fulfilment to the lives of so many same sex couples.
Aswell as that ive came to the conclusion that us straight people or whatever we are called now have no right to stop anyone from getting married when we have made such a balls of marriage ourselves with such high divorce rates and jokes of marriages. So I say if its love its love no matter what shape or form.

The idea of gay couples raising children I have not fully thought through or read up on yet so I wont comment on that quite yet.

Zubeneschamali

BlutendeRabe wrote: »

He's grandstanding. Parliamentary proceedings are exempt automatically. He could only be sued if he made the comments outside parliament.

You mean like on Twitter? Like he did?

SeanW

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I just think all things being equal a child is better suited to having 1 female parent and 1 male parent.

Perhaps, but what about when the choice is between adoption by a homosexual couple or State care?

Annasopra

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I just think all things being equal a child is better suited to having 1 female parent and 1 male parent.

It's not relevant to the debate because the government are legislating regardless of the referendum

shleedance

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

I just think all things being equal a child is better suited to having 1 female parent and 1 male parent.

I've met a few people who's parents are same sex couples. I assure you they are completely fine. I don't see why it would cause any issues really.

I think some people believe same sex parents don't work because of fears that the child might also turn out to be homosexual. That makes no sense since you can't choose to be homosexual, or be influenced to be homosexual.

For me, I have a gay uncle whom I consider to be a father figure (since my own father was completely useless). I was also predominately reared by my mother. Yet, despite my "exposure", I am still straight. If anything, it just made me more tolerant.

Godge

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

Know I'm going against the grain here but I'm still not convinced allowing full adoption rights to gay couples is as ideal as allowing a heterosexual couple adopt.

All things being equal I think a child is better suited having 1 mother and 1 father.

I know there are terrible parents who are straight.
I know that there are gay parents who are great.

It irritates me that non biological parents that want to adopt is a 'hotter' topic than giving unmarried and married biological fathers more rights over their own children. I know this is a separate issue and hope it's not clouding my judgement of this.

I see no logical reason not to extend the same marriage rights straight people now have to gay people.

It's just in a straight black and white situation, where you have a straight couple and a gay couple looking to adopt, and income and everything is equally comparable, I just think a childs needs are better provided for by a 1 mother/1father home vrs. a 2 father or 2 mother home. That's just my view and I haven't been swayed otherwise yet. I almost feel like I should apologise for my view of this.

No need to apologise. There is nothing wrong with holding a view that a child is better brought up in a happy and supportive maternal and paternal situation. However, I would put the emphasis on happy and supportive.

Would you agree that a child is better brought up by a happy and supportive gay couple than an unhappy and unsupportive maternal and paternal situation? You see it is not a straight black and white situation.

You may well be right that the best place for a child is with his biological mother and father so long as they are in a happy and supportive relationship. However, there are so many cases out there ranging from death of a spouse, to second marraiges, to single parenting to abadonment by one parent or another, to divorce, to separation, to abusive mothers and fathers. These arrangements which are not optimal are supported and approved by the state. Yet most (if not all) of them are worse scenarios for bringing up a child than a happy and supportive gay couple. Instead of a single mother struggling financially and psychologically bringing up a child you could have two mothers in a good relationship bringing up a child.

There is no argument based on the needs of the child against gay adoption once we permit single parenthood of any type.

If you were really interested in the needs of the child, you would require parents to be licensed to bring up children which is never going to happen.

pl4ichjgy17zwd

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »

What evidence do you have that same sex couples make better parents than heterosexual couples? Is it something you think or feel or is it backed up by research and studies.

I don't think anyone said that? They said they fair equally. And there's lots of studies about it.

Post 1 Post 2

(been dropping these posts into a few discussions, but they're really well put together and say it much better than I ever could)

Also, as has been said often, equal parenting rights are happening regardless.

hedgehog2

This is not going to happen anytime soon so why all the fuss over the gay marriage debate.
It wont be forced on the people even a referendum will not pass it as older voters or outside the pale are very against it.

BlutendeRabe

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

You mean like on Twitter? Like he did?

If he was directly quoting from a parliamentary debate then he would be exempt which is what he probably did anyway.

Nodin

hedgehog2 wrote: »

This is not going to happen anytime soon so why all the fuss over the gay marriage debate.
It wont be forced on the people even a referendum will not pass it as older voters or outside the pale are very against it.

It's happening next year. Don't know what "forced on the people" has to do with anything. In addition all polls indicate that it will pass.

hedgehog2

Nodin wrote: »

It's happening next year. Don't know what "forced on the people" has to do with anything. In addition all polls indicate that it will pass.

Did not know that,at least it can put the issue to bed then.
I really dont see it passing but those polls are always right will have to wait and see.
Bigger issues need to be tackled here 1st like the constant suffering and abuse of animals in Ireland,pity the govt could'nt be forced into tackling this issue but its wishful thinking.
We waste so much money in Ireland on stupid rights groups that solve nothing but feather thrir own nest.

Corkfeen

hedgehog2 wrote: »

Did not know that,at least it can put the issue to bed then.
I really dont see it passing but those polls are always right will have to wait and see.
Bigger issues need to be tackled here 1st like the constant suffering and abuse of animals in Ireland,pity the govt could'nt be forced into tackling this issue but its wishful thinking.
We waste so much money in Ireland on stupid rights groups that solve nothing but feather thrir own nest.

Do you really think treating gay people equally is the work of stupid rights groups? You really hold human rights issues in such low regard?

returnNull

hedgehog2 wrote: »

Bigger issues need to be tackled here 1st like the constant suffering and abuse of animals in Ireland

Lol :rolleyes:

civil rights before animal rights will always be the path taken.