Same Sex Marriage (Poll on The Journal)

AnonoBoy

RobertKK wrote: »

Civil mariage is a state's benefit package and it should be abolished for a register of partnerships where they can get the same beenefits whether hetero or homo.
Marriage should be offered by religious and non religious organisations, not the state.

Ah ok - I get what you're saying now.

But in reality would the register of partnerships not be the same in that people would still celebrate - the same legal requirements would have to be met etc.

And the religious organisations would offer their version of the same thing.

No problem with that but in reality it's just two different versions of marriage. One religious, one not.

I'm on board with it - I just don't have an aversion to the word marriage being used in a non-religious context.

RobertKK

Lyaiera wrote: »

"By the power invested in me by a lack of sleep and coffee, I now pronounce you married."

Well it would be out of love and not for the state's benefit package.

No one should need the state to recognise a marriage as they shouldn't be in that business.

Annasopra

RobertKK wrote: »

But there was not same sex marriage before in this country. We don't have to change for the sake of change.

In that case we should still ban divorce, condoms, gay male sex and allow 12 year old girls to marry

Suggesting that something should always be what it always is/was and it shouldnt change because it is what it is or was is frankly absurd

Annasopra

RobertKK wrote: »

I thought a union was not marriage...

We're talking about pre modern Europe here

Lawrence1895

Yellow121 wrote: »

Am, the people in the book were called Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

Which book? Fergie's autobiography?

Never mind, everyone should have the right to be happy, regardless sexual orientations and preferences.

old hippy

Lars1916 wrote: »

Which book? Fergie's autobiography?

Never mind, everyone should have the right to be happy, regardless sexual orientations and preferences.

Sadly, it seems some people are only happy when others have to suffer or are denied human rights.

RobertKK

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Ah ok - I get what you're saying now.

But in reality would the register of partnerships not be the same in that people would still celebrate - the same legal requirements would have to be met etc.

And the religious organisations would offer their version of the same thing.

No problem with that but in reality it's just two different versions of marriage. One religious, one not.

I'm on board with it - I just don't have an aversion to the word marriage being used in a non-religious context.

I think the law could be freed up to allow one put in a legal document who their next of kin is, who they want want to inherit their stuff, who they want to look after the children if any and so on and you just go to your solicitor and have it drawn up and witnessed by someone.
Could be called something like the partnership benefit package.

Then go to your church, synagogue, temple, humanist society or whatever group that is not the state but sanctioned by the state to offer marriage, allow these kind of groups to offer marriage to whoever they want to offer marriage to - just with the normal age restrictions.
So within that you would have same sex marriage and no one could complain what an independent group offers.

I rerally think the state's benefit package should not be a part of marriage. Marriage should only be about love.

K-9

golfball37 wrote: »

I will certainly be voting no in this referrendum and i'm not the slightest bit homophobic. Marriage between same sex couples is just unnatural in my book and has nothing to do with religion. Do you want your children growing up beside the gay couple next door who are married and how long then before your children and future children think this set up is normal?

They would be living next door to the gay couple who aren't married atm. I don't see why the married part makes any difference. It's either ok to live next door to a gay couple or it isn't, whether they are married, or not seems irrelevant.

old hippy

K-9 wrote: »

They would be living next door to the gay couple who aren't married atm. I don't see why the married part makes any difference. It's either ok to live next door to a gay couple or it isn't, whether they are married, or not seems irrelevant.

But it's just so un-natural, what they get up to next door! The things I hear when I've got the glass up to the wall, the things I see with my binoculars. Awful!

RobertKK

mango salsa wrote: »

In that case we should still ban divorce, condoms, gay male sex and allow 12 year old girls to marry

Suggesting that something should always be what it always is/was and it shouldnt change because it is what it is or was is frankly absurd

You need the state to condition your brain?

The only thing the state could stop or allow in that was divorce and marriage, my point exactly.
People could go north and get condoms and the state was not the NSA...

seenitall

K-9 wrote: »

They would be living next door to the gay couple who aren't married atm. I don't see why the married part makes any difference. It's either ok to live next door to a gay couple or it isn't, whether they are married, or not seems irrelevant.

To some people, this is personal. Not irrelevant at all. It is a matter of personal morality. They can no more imagine condoning the same sex marriage than they can imagine condoning murder, theft or adultery.

Corkfeen

golfball37 wrote: »

I see marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman. the spirit of the nuptial being the implied, but not legally binding, responsibility of raising a family and making that family unit a contributing good on society.

I've no problem with G&L couples entering civil partnerships but being born gay and having marriage precluded from you is just a bad break G&L couples should live with I'm afraid. Its not a violation of human rights as some are suggesting. In fact hyperbolic statements do the advocates of this no good whatsoever.

It's purpose was dowries and creating allegiances with families at one point, marriage's meaning has constantly changed. If it's for a stable home for children, don't the children who are currently raised by gay couples deserve the exact same legal stability?

old hippy

seenitall wrote: »

To some people, this is personal. Not irrelevant at all. It is a matter of personal morality. They can no more imagine condoning the same sex marriage than they can imagine condoning murder, theft or adultery.

Which is ironic, I guess. Where's the morality in denying people's happiness?

AnonoBoy

RobertKK wrote: »

I think the law could be freed up to allow one put in a legal document who their next of kin is, who they want want to inherit their stuff, who they want to look after the children if any and so on and you just go to your solicitor and have it drawn up and witnessed by someone.
Could be called something like the partnership benefit package.

Is that not just called a will?

seenitall

old hippy wrote: »

Which is ironic, I guess. Where's the morality in denying people's happiness?

Sorry, sinners aren't supposed to be happy.

Annasopra

RobertKK wrote: »

You need the state to condition your brain?

The only thing the state could stop or allow in that was divorce and marriage, my point exactly.
People could go north and get condoms and the state was not the NSA...

Its nothing about the state conditioning my brain at all.

Your argument was;

Marriage was and is between a man and a woman therefore marriage should always be between a man and a woman. I am pointing out the absurdity of that position.

Annasopra

seenitall wrote: »

Sorry, sinners aren't supposed to be happy.

I dunno about that. I know plenty of deliriously happy so called "sinners"

Lyaiera

seenitall wrote: »

Sorry, sinners aren't supposed to be happy.

But that's wrong as well. Sinners aren't supposed to be happy in the afterlife. So let God worry about that. In fact in most religions it says sinners will probably be happier in their living life (if that's not too much of an oxymoron for you.)

AnonoBoy

seenitall wrote: »

Sorry, sinners aren't supposed to be happy.

Is that why priests are always so miserable?


:pac::pac::pac::pac:

seenitall

mango salsa wrote: »

I dunno about that. I know plenty of deliriously happy so called "sinners"

Yea, the first step to happiness is not to consider yourself a sinner for being who you are and loving who you love, as long as you're not hurting anyone.

Or so I hear.

Annasopra

seenitall wrote: »

To some people, this is personal. Not irrelevant at all. It is a matter of personal morality. They can no more imagine condoning the same sex marriage than they can imagine condoning murder, theft or adultery.

I'm sure the vast vast majority of compassionate Christians wouldn't equate marriage with murder.

seenitall

mango salsa wrote: »

I'm sure the vast vast majority of compassionate Christians wouldn't equate marriage with murder.

I didn't say "equate".

But the CC has a very specific view on anything same sex related, just as it does on (for example) murder. So I think they are comparable in this instance.

That's what you are up against. Compassionate doesn't enter into it. Compassion in their view is giving time and effort to a gay person in order to help them "change" to the godly state of mind, i.e. marriage minded heterosexuality.

Czarcasm

Grayson wrote: »

No you don't. The definition of a right is something that people have. It doesn't matter if the govenment recognises or or not. hell, even you're refering to it as a right.

The definition of a right is something that is bestowed upon a person by virtue of their circumstances. Of course it's going to matter if the government recognises it, because right now they don't, and that's the whole reason why people are campaigning for the government to recognise that marriage equality rights be extended to LGBT couples, because by virtue of their circumstances, they are entitled to those same rights as heterosexual couples. There's actually no need even to have a referendum on the issue.

And you're saying someone has to argue why the government should stop persecuting people and denying them freedoms that everyone has, but not say that the people who are in favor of denying rights and persecuting people are in favor or why they think it's right? That's really messed up.

I don't make the laws Grayson. If I want circumstances to change, I have to justify why I want those circumstances changed, and if my reasons are good enough and I can make a coherent argument, then I stand a better chance of changing things than "I'm entitled to my rights, give me my rights!". I think lots of things that don't suit me are messed up, and so I work to change them. The inference of that last remark goes well beyond the scope of this thread.

As long as we follow your tactic then we are the people who are trying to defend our position. We shouldn't need to or have to. It's a human right, that's all there is to it. If you want to select a group of people and deny them that right you'd better be prepared to justify your position and have a better reason that "That's the way it is"

Clearly that's not all there is to it, as your opinion takes no account of people's attitudes, and if you're unwilling to engage with people and stick to the "It's my right!" argument, you'll eventually get your rights written into Irish legislation, but you'll continue to foster hatred and intolerance in society towards LGBT people because of the way people will feel they were rail-roaded and "politically correct driven special treatment" has been made "again" for LGBT people.

If the above sentence surprises you, then it's probably best stick to the default "religion and conservative old farts" explanation to reason with yourself why people are opposed to LGBT marriage equality. If you think I'm talking through my arse, then you haven't talked to enough people offline who are opposed to marriage equality yet.

Czarcasm

old hippy wrote: »

The above makes no sense, whatsoever. Now you want me not to use facts, you want me to talk to them on their level, instead?

Yes, if you're as intelligent as you think you are, and they're as ignorant as you think they are, it should be easy for you.

Get into their minds, is it? I'm sorry but never on a first date. I wouldn't respect myself in the morning.

Facetiousness will get you everywhere, seems to work for Russell Brand, right?

Annasopra

seenitall wrote: »

I didn't say "equate".

But the CC has a very specific view on anything same sex related, just as it does on (for example) murder. So I think they are comparable in this instance.

That's what you are up against. Compassionate doesn't enter into it. Compassion in their view is giving time and effort to a gay person in order to help them "change" to the godly state of mind, i.e. marriage minded heterosexuality.

You didnt have to say equate. It was implicit.

rubadub

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

The only alternative would be to scrap all rights, tax and inheritance breaks for every married couple to make it even.

That's what I think should happen, and that's only reason I would be against it at the moment, I would also vote against heterosexual marriage being allowed if it was on the same referendum! simply because of the tax situation.

I have seen the current situation quite rightly described as a "singles tax" -since instead of giving benefits they could just as easily have separate tax on single people -exact same thing, only there would be uproar.

One of the reason there are benefits for married couples is this traditional expectation for them to have kids. If you want to give benefits for kids then fine, do so, when they have kids or adopt kids, same sex marriage or not.

seenitall

mango salsa wrote: »

You didnt have to say equate. It was implicit.

Oh really? And consequently nothing I say to explain my post better, can dispel your conviction I implied 'equate'?

Ok so.

Pherekydes

seenitall wrote: »

...in order to help them "change" to the godly state of mind, i.e. marriage minded heterosexuality.

Would that mean that priestly celibacy would be ungodly?

seenitall

Pherekydes wrote: »

Would that mean that priestly celibacy would be ungodly?

Priests follow a different set of rules, as you well know, you lil sinning rascal, you. Their fiancee is the Holy Catholic Church.

RobertKK

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Is that not just called a will?

Well, if you were ill in hospital and they say who is the next of kin, you would have a legal document to say you were for example, some of it is akin to a will alright. I listened to debates and it seems these type of things were the issues.

mango salsa wrote: »

Its nothing about the state conditioning my brain at all.

Your argument was;

Marriage was and is between a man and a woman therefore marriage should always be between a man and a woman. I am pointing out the absurdity of that position.

The absurd thing is the state's role in marriage.

Just because the state is offering marriage, it doesn't mean it should be offering marriage to anyone.
It only offers marriage for the state benefits package and the absurd thing is some think the state's version of marriage is about love, it isn't, it is called marriage when it is just registering for a benefits package.

mfceiling

All in favour.

Gay people should have the right to marry.

Why can't a gay man get married and be as miserable as his straight counterpart?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

rubadub wrote: »

That's what I think should happen, and that's only reason I would be against it at the moment, I would also vote against heterosexual marriage being allowed if it was on the same referendum! simply because of the tax situation.

I have seen the current situation quite rightly described as a "singles tax" -since instead of giving benefits they could just as easily have separate tax on single people -exact same thing, only there would be uproar.

One of the reason there are benefits for married couples is this traditional expectation for them to have kids. If you want to give benefits for kids then fine, do so, when they have kids or adopt kids, same sex marriage or not.

Kind of agree with you, but I think inhiertance breaks should be maintained.

seenitall

I don't think I've heard or read one rational reason against same sex marriage.

Irrational reasons, though, need to be acknowledged as they are reality for a lot of people. Voters.

Where to go from there, I don't know.

wexie

koth wrote: »

Because there are a lot of legal protections/entitlements that are not afforded to same-sex couples in a civil partnership.

So if civil partnership afforded the same protections / entitlements as marriage, would that be the end of the argument then?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

wexie wrote: »

So if civil partnership afforded the same protections / entitlements as marriage, would that be the end of the argument then?

You'd have to ask the "no" camp that.

seenitall

wexie wrote: »

So if civil partnership afforded the same protections / entitlements as marriage, would that be the end of the argument then?

I would think not, why should it? To appease the religious? They didn't invent the institution of marriage, why should they be allowed to own it?

State marriage for all.

(I really don't care for marriage btw, but I do for equality.)

realgolfgeek

seenitall wrote: »

I don't think I've heard or read one rational reason against same sex marriage.

Irrational reasons, though, need to be acknowledged as they are reality for a lot of people. Voters.

.

How about the reason, I simply don't like it ?

hoodwinked

realgolfgeek wrote: »

How about the reason, I simply don't like it ?

i don't like many things other people do, doesn't mean i have the right to stop them

Absoluvely

realgolfgeek wrote: »

seenitall wrote: »

I don't think I've heard or read one rational reason against same sex marriage.

Irrational reasons, though, need to be acknowledged as they are reality for a lot of people. Voters.

Where to go from there, I don't know.

How about the reason, I simply don't like it ?

seenitall wrote: »

I don't think I've heard or read one rational reason against same sex marriage.

.

realgolfgeek

hoodwinked wrote: »

i don't like many things other people do, doesn't mean i have the right to stop them

I can't argue with that.
I'm just glad there is a vote.

seenitall

realgolfgeek wrote: »

How about the reason, I simply don't like it ?

How about it what?

Turtwig

wexie wrote: »

So if civil partnership afforded the same protections / entitlements as marriage, would that be the end of the argument then?

Only if married couples today were relabelled as civil partnerships. Otherwise, why should one group have authority what marriage is and who its exclusive to?

realgolfgeek

seenitall wrote: »

How about it what?

that's my reason for being against it, I simply don't like it.
That for me, is as good a reason as any.

e_e

realgolfgeek wrote: »

that's my reason for being against it, I simply don't like it.
That for me, is as good a reason as any.

I don't like mash potatoes, therefore I shouldn't let anyone else enjoy them?

realgolfgeek

e_e wrote: »

I don't like mash potatoes, therefore I shouldn't let anyone else enjoy them?

that's entirely up to you.

It's my vote, and I'm entitled to vote, and to vote NO.

seenitall

realgolfgeek wrote: »

that's my reason for being against it, I simply don't like it.
That for me, is as good a reason as any.

OK.

Since that is the whole of your argument against the same sex marriage, I don't think I have a corresponding counter-argument.

You have me stumped. Enjoy.

Turtwig

realgolfgeek wrote: »

that's my reason for being against it, I simply don't like it.
That for me, is as good a reason as any.

Suppose, I don't like the idea of a black person getting married to a white person. Does that mean though that they should be denied equality in that regard?

Your reason is pathetic.
You're denying people access to something that many consider a fundamental right. You need to justify that denial with something beyond the lines of it making you feel icky.

hoodwinked

realgolfgeek wrote: »

that's my reason for being against it, I simply don't like it.
That for me, is as good a reason as any.

and thats fine you don't like it, but remember this,

you won't have to participate in a same sex marriage if you choose not to, that will never change,



but what you are doing by voting against gay marriage is telling two people who love one another they cannot get married, which lets face it, if i said to you, "you cannot get married at all, ever" and thats what you wanted, would you be happy with that? or if i said you were not allowed a vote? simply because i don't want you to would you accept that?

e_e

realgolfgeek wrote: »

that's entirely up to you.

It's my vote, and I'm entitled to vote, and to vote NO.

You're a true egalitarian. :pac:

rubadub

wexie wrote: »

So if civil partnership afforded the same protections / entitlements as marriage, would that be the end of the argument then?

I would say no, 2 wrongs do not make a right. Get rid of the entitlements altogether, which are in effect a tax on single/unmarried people.