Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Gay Marriage

Options
1356789

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    No, I most certainly did not. Either you don't believe that gay people should have the right to marry each other, or you've very carelessly managed to create that impression while refusing to actually engage in the discussion. If you believe that gay people shouldn't be denied the right to marry the people they love, maybe you should actually make that clear instead of getting all huffy and indignant at the very idea that you have any problem with gay marriage.

    Words in my mouth, abuse, noise, ranting?

    Take it somewhere else. Ignore list.


  • Options
    #63
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    Why are you being so childish?

    It's the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting.


    Oh right yeah, I'm on your ignore list. Nevermind.


  • Options
    #64
    ShaShaBear
    Registered Users Posts: 5,528 ✭✭✭ShaShaBear


    If nothing else, the introduction of equal married rights might bring a boost to the economy. Think of all the gay couples, perhaps together for years upon years, that will be delighted they can finally become married partners.

    I'd be more than happy to vote yes, it would be nice to see my partner's cousin finally able to marry his partner of 15 years.

    I know a girl who said "yes" this New Year's Eve because, if she changed her mind after marriage, she could just leave him for someone else and file for divorce.
    People's perceptions of the importance of marriage have drastically changed. Nowadays it's the new "going steady". Too easy to walk away from for either party. I know a few "married" people in relationships with new partners who didn't even bother with legal separation!


  • Options
    #65
    Links234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,944 ✭✭✭✭Links234


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Should? Would? Where is the are and is in this statement?

    I pointed out that you're asking some people to make a choice. You've asked of them two things. Civil rights and the right to marry.

    You have linked those two issues to each other. Not me. You.

    I can't see why you would do that. They're two seperate issues. If both horses don't win that race you walk home with nothing. It makes no sense.

    Traditional marriage is held in high regard. Thats the "is" statement. What "should" be is another matter.

    You're making some very obtuse arguments here, and I'm not even sure what you're getting at, however the point you seem to be making that civil rights and marriage rights are somehow mutually exclusive. That's a bafflingly wrong claim to make, and we can see this because one of the biggest landmarks of the American civil rights movement was Loving vs Virginia. Denying people marriage rights is a civil issue.

    "Traditional" marriage is nothing but a loaded buzzword by people who have no logical argument trying to make their opposition to same sex marriage rights sound more palatable, and reframe the discussion to make it seem like their marriage rights are somehow impinged. But we all know that's not the case and nothing is taken away from them at all.

    Here's some food for thought on this point. Lets say you give a child an apple and he's happy and he likes his apple. His younger brother doesn't have one, so you go to give the brother an apple and he starts kicking and screaming that you're stealing his apple! You explain that you're not stealing his apple, you're giving his brother another one, but he starts getting even more upset. He says that if his brother has an apple his one will be worthless and will taste bad and horrible and you'll have ruined it on him. Will anything have changed about his apple if you give one to his brother? Is it going to suddenly turn from a tasty juicy apple to a rotten disgusting one?


  • Options
    #66
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Words(................)list.

    Are you going to answer my question?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    When has history done this?
    Marriage rates are on the decline at a time when rates of co-habitation and the numbers of children being born outside of marriage are on the increase.
    How does allowing couples to marry,who are ready and willing to make a life long commitment , weaken marriage?:confused:

    Still waiting on an answer


  • Options
    #68
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Mango, nobody is backing up their statements. Thats a theme of these threads. General noise making, misdirection. Anything to avoid talking about the stuff in my opening statement.

    I'd be glad to talk to you. I appreciate how important this is to you. When you're surrounded by the usual shower yapping at me I find that its difficult to filter out the noise.

    You did introduce polygamy to the discussion so that's actually closer to derailing or misdirection than anything that has been said by anyone else has said. There's a referendum for ssm occuring, nothing else. You view it on its own rather than muddying the waters with polygamy which clearly would be viewed on its own.


  • Options
    #69
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Links234 wrote: »
    You're making some very obtuse arguments here, and I'm not even sure what you're getting at, however the point you seem to be making that civil rights and marriage rights are somehow mutually exclusive. That's a bafflingly wrong claim to make, and we can see this because one of the biggest landmarks of the American civil rights movement was Loving vs Virginia. Denying people marriage rights is a civil issue.

    "Traditional" marriage is nothing but a loaded buzzword by people who have no logical argument trying to make their opposition to same sex marriage rights sound more palatable, and reframe the discussion to make it seem like their marriage rights are somehow impinged. But we all know that's not the case and nothing is taken away from them at all.
    Here's some food for thought on this point. Lets say you give a child an apple and he's happy and he likes his apple. His younger brother doesn't have one, so you go to give the brother an apple and he starts kicking and screaming that you're stealing his apple! You explain that you're not stealing his apple, you're giving his brother another one, but he starts getting even more upset. He says that if his brother has an apple his one will be worthless and will taste bad and horrible and you'll have ruined it on him. Will anything have changed about his apple if you give one to his brother? Is it going to suddenly turn from a tasty juicy apple to a rotten disgusting one?


    Now again your making big jumps. This time to conclusions.

    All I've ever said was equal doesn't mean the same as. Thats a truth. Without putting words in my mouth or jumping down my throat can you please re read what I said?


  • Options
    #70
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Now again your making big jumps. This time to conclusions.

    All I've ever said was equal doesn't mean the same as. Thats a truth. Without putting words in my mouth or jumping down my throat can you please re read what I said?

    Can you answer the question I asked?


  • Options
    #71
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    Nodin wrote: »
    Can you answer the question I asked?

    Could he answer the question I asked twice?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Its been a stable arrangement for many hundreds of years. Before that it was a very unstable arrangement. Now you want the return of instabilty? What purpose would that serve?
    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    How is it unstable to let two people of the same sex marry?

    You're going to have to explain
    Nodin wrote: »
    I've heard many arguments against gay marriage, but this would appear to be a new one. Please explain your argument, if you'd be as good.

    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I answered a post. Care to explain how the introduction of marriage equality will strengthen marriage? History has shown this not to be the case.
    What does that mean?
    [citation needed.]
    Mango, nobody is backing up their statements. Thats a theme of these threads. General noise making, misdirection. Anything to avoid talking about the stuff in my opening statement.

    I'd be glad to talk to you. I appreciate how important this is to you. When you're surrounded by the usual shower yapping at me I find that its difficult to filter out the noise.
    Words in my mouth, abuse, noise, ranting?

    Take it somewhere else. Ignore list. [

    Mod:

    At this rate there'll be nobody left on the thread who isn't on your ignore list, and you'll be talking to yourself, soap boxing away.

    From the charter:
    Thread derailing will be treated particularly harshly.

    You've been asked several times to back up a statement, you seem unwilling and/or unable to do that.
    This forum is for discussion and debate, we will not tolerate soapboxing. If you are here to "shout everyone down" with your opinions, we will see you as a negative contributor to the forum and will take appropriate action
    .

    Either answer the question repeatedly asked of you, or don't bother posting in this thread again as you already said you wouldn't.

    Everybody else, a reminder to post civilly and respectfully, if you cannot do that cards and/or bans will be handed out from now on.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #73
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    K-9 wrote: »
    Mod:

    At this rate there'll be nobody left on the thread who isn't on your ignore list, and you'll be talking to yourself, soap boxing away.

    From the charter:



    You've been asked several times to back up a statement, you seem unwilling and/or unable to do that.

    .

    Either answer the question repeatedly asked of you, or don't bother posting in this thread again as you already said you wouldn't.

    Everybody else, a reminder to post civilly and respectfully, if you cannot do that cards and/or bans will be handed out from now on.


    How dare you! I can and will put abusive timewasters on ignore. I'm fully entitled to do so.

    Show me where on yhis thread other posters have backed up their statements. Even one and I will extend the same courtesy.

    K9 if you have problem with what I have posted so far thats not my fault. Its yours.

    As I said before I'm perfectly happy to keep this ball rolling, but without the noise and abuse shown by posters on here. If you can't control them, they're going on ignore.


  • Options
    #74
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    How dare you! I can and will put abusive timewasters on ignore. I'm fully entitled to do so.
    Show me where on yhis thread other posters have backed up their statements. Even one and I will extend the same courtesy.

    K9 if you have problem with what I have posted so far thats not my fault. Its yours.

    As I said before I'm perfectly happy to keep this ball rolling, but without the noise and abuse shown by posters on here. If you can't control them, they're going on ignore.

    Enough, you've shown no interest in answering questions asked of statements you've made in this thread. We still have no link to some sort of basis for the history of marriage.

    Poster banned, seeing as you can't seem to enforce your own self exile.

    PS. this is not proof of some anti church liberal boards bias, it's common manners and respect to answer a question asked of you. Once or twice I could forgive and give a pass on.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #75
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Whats dying?

    Marriage is alive and well. Book yourself a hotel in June and see how you get on. No need for your superpowers there.

    This is a complicated argument and with many different views. For me, it is all about the children. As with the last divorce debate, the discussions about gay marriage
    forget about the effect on children.

    For a minute or two, let us leave gay couples out of this. Without them, the accepted view of how best to bring up children is as follows in order of preference:

    (1) A happily married man and woman
    (2) A separated/divorced man and woman who can manage their separated/divorced relationship in a way that has no detrimental effect on their kids
    (3) A single stable male/female parent whether divorced/separated/widowed
    (4) An unhappily married man and woman in a constant feud that is affecting the children.

    Now we need to consider where a gay couple would fit in this. Firstly, remember, that in the case of (3), the state is providing financial support, and is therefore supportive. So explain to me, how can two men (or two women) happily working in partnership not be better than (3). There is no objective reason to suggest otherwise. Yes, it is possible to argue from a biological point of view that parents of two sexes, happily working together (1) or (2) could be better, but if the state, as it does supports (3) and society accepts (3) which it does, what is the problem with two of (3) i.e. two men or two women happily working together. In fact, requiring them to commit formally so as to raise children is in the children's better long-term interest.

    What I am saying is that it is not necessary to demonstrate that two happily married gay parents are better or equal at bringing up children than two happily married male and female, all I am saying is that in order to support gay marriage, it is necessary to demonstrate that two parents are better than one. When you reduce the discussion to that level, it is clear that there can be no argument against gay marriage.

    You can still argue that it is not as optimal as a man and a woman bringing up children together in a happy relationship but come one, how often does that happen? For those who are uncomfortable with gay marriage, I would ask them therefore to think which is better for the child, two parents in love with each other, or one unhappy struggling parent, or worse still, two parents in a vicious circle of hate. You don't have to be happy or delighted with gay marriage to realise it is better than many other things that are happening out there.


  • Options
    #76
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    I might add that adoption for gay couples will be brought in before and separately to gay marriage (according to Gilmore).


  • Options
    #77
    gandalf
    Registered Users Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    I really hope what manifested itself as "discussion" earlier in this thread happens during the actual campaign for the referendum from the No side because it will help the positive passing of the amendment no end.

    I have a number of relatives who are religiously right wing (Opus Dei right wing!) and they and their peers are already itching to get stuck in. I see it in their posts on Facebook and from talking directly to them. When this campaign starts to gain momentum next year I feel it will be a very very emotive and illogical from their side. This is what we (as in the supporters of equality) want them to do.

    I'm married and I think that others should be allowed the ability to commit to their partner like I did no matter their preference. I certainly don't feel that equality will weaken marriage, if anything I think it will strengthen it.

    I always feel that those who profess to be the most Christian are actually the ones who act the least Christian like.


  • Options
    #78
    Colm R
    Registered Users Posts: 997 ✭✭✭Colm R


    gandalf wrote: »
    I really hope what manifested itself as "discussion" earlier in this thread happens during the actual campaign for the referendum from the No side because it will help the positive passing of the amendment no end.

    I have a number of relatives who are religiously right wing (Opus Dei right wing!) and they and their peers are already itching to get stuck in. I see it in their posts on Facebook and from talking directly to them. When this campaign starts to gain momentum next year I feel it will be a very very emotive and illogical from their side. This is what we (as in the supporters of equality) want them to do.

    I'm married and I think that others should be allowed the ability to commit to their partner like I did no matter their preference. I certainly don't feel that equality will weaken marriage, if anything I think it will strengthen it.

    I always feel that those who profess to be the most Christian are actually the ones who act the least Christian like.

    To be frank, I'm not looking forward to it as much as you are.

    Any constructive opposition to this referendum will be drowned out by, what I think will be complete and often dangerous hatred. For a mature, happy homosexual person, they will most likely take this on the chin.

    But every gay person at some point in their lives needs to come to the conclusion that they are gay, and unfortunately for many, that can be dark and lonely time in their lives. And at the time of the referendum campaign, many will be going through that time.

    I would hope that the referendum is short. I hope arguments for and against are lawful (inciting hatred is illegal as far as I am aware). I hope the referendum passes. And if it does pass, I hope it helps gay people, particularly young gay people, that for a referendum to pass, a majority of straight people will have voted for it.


  • Options
    #79
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,934 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Quick question. The only group I've seen coming out against ssm in the media so far are people associated with the iona institute.

    What other groups do people think will join the anti ssm side?

    Church probably but don't see them getting too vocal about it do they have the stomach for a scrap?


  • Options
    #80
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    20Cent wrote: »
    What other groups do people think will join the anti ssm side?

    The morons


  • Options
    #81
    Moe Gilmore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11 ✭Moe Gilmore


    20Cent wrote: »
    Quick question. The only group I've seen coming out against ssm in the media so far are people associated with the iona institute.

    What other groups do people think will join the anti ssm side?

    Church probably but don't see them getting too vocal about it do they have the stomach for a scrap?

    American broadcaster Butch Paugh is coming to Ireland to campaign against ssm.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    20Cent wrote: »
    Quick question. The only group I've seen coming out against ssm in the media so far are people associated with the iona institute.

    What other groups do people think will join the anti ssm side?

    Church probably but don't see them getting too vocal about it do they have the stomach for a scrap?

    There is no logical secular argument against SSM. Any that might be put up such as best for the children, social anarchy, inheritance tax, etc. can be easily demolished or are capable of being sorted through simple legislation.

    However, in the same way that a Muslim might campaign for compulsory wearing of the hijab or for women to be banned from driving, Catholics (and other religions) might argue that it is against their religion so they will vote against it. In this case you have competing rights. You have the right of Catholics to believe and practice and promulgate their religion and you have the rights of homosexual couples. Fringe Catholic groups will make this argument but they might get support from Muslims and other religions.


  • Options
    #83
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Moe Gilmore wrote: »
    American broadcaster Butch Paugh is coming to Ireland to campaign against ssm.

    I'd assume that's for publicity back home in redneckland rather than because he imagines anyone here cares what an American protestant preacher has to say.


  • Options
    #84
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Godge wrote: »
    Fringe Catholic groups will make this argument

    The big question is whether mainstream Catholic Church leaders will make it.


  • Options
    #85
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    20Cent wrote: »
    Quick question. The only group I've seen coming out against ssm in the media so far are people associated with the iona institute.

    What other groups do people think will join the anti ssm side?

    Church probably but don't see them getting too vocal about it do they have the stomach for a scrap?

    The Church, few Journos, Iona and associates, social conservatives.....


  • Options
    #86
    alexanderomahon
    Registered Users Posts: 601 ✭✭✭alexanderomahon


    Perhaps the term marriage needs to be redefined to accommodate people. If you accept marriage as economic and legal union between two individuals then that is marriage. If any group wishes to define it due to gender/religion etc then they can call it something else. E.g Married Muslim, married Roman Catholic, married Mormon etc.


  • Options
    #87
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    jill_valentine wrote: »
    Why?

    The low turnout votes we've had recently were all about muddly questions that nobody really cared about because they didn't really look like they'd have any tangible effect on their day to day lives.

    Same sex marriage is the first one in ages people actually do really feel very strongly about, referendum or no, and it could make a big difference to a lot of people.

    I'd bet on it having the best turnout for a long, long time, tbh.

    Rather arrogant statement to make. What makes you think many people will care about gay marriage? Alas, that clown Gilmore came out with such nonsense about gay marriage being the most important human rights issue for the 21st Century. Laughable, thousands of other pressing issues

    The abortion issue was pretty big deal

    "Alot" of people?


  • Options
    #88
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    walrusgumble wrote: »
    The abortion issue was pretty big deal

    The abortion issue was a big nothingburger for this government. We already have the regime that the public wants: abortion on demand in England.

    Name one human rights issue here in Ireland which affects more than the (let's say) 2% of the population who are gay and denied equality before the law.


  • Options
    #89
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,980 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    20Cent wrote: »
    Quick question. The only group I've seen coming out against ssm in the media so far are people associated with the iona institute.

    What other groups do people think will join the anti ssm side?

    Church probably but don't see them getting too vocal about it do they have the stomach for a scrap?
    That group of 3 gay people campaigning against it will also be given more prominence. One of them Paddy Manning was on primetime a month or so ago.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #90
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 40,980 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    The abortion issue was a big nothingburger for this government. We already have the regime that the public wants: abortion on demand in England.

    Name one human rights issue here in Ireland which affects more than the (let's say) 2% of the population who are gay and denied equality before the law.
    Actually I do agree with those who challenge Giilmore on that. I have to agree strongly with Fiona de Londras on that.


    www.humanrights.ie/constitution-of-ireland/marriage-equality-and-the-weight-to-be-borne-by-the-constitutional-convention/#more-15993
    It is impossible to avoid observing that is something of a leap to describe marriage equality as “the civil rights issue of this generation” at a time when asylum seekers are forced to ‘live’ in direct provision centres where their personal safety is endangered and personal dignity undermined, women are trafficked into sexual slavery and bondage across the country, children are dying in state care, the Irish government is complicit in torture, and poverty is a growing and endemic problem.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    walrusgumble
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,062 ✭✭✭walrusgumble


    20Cent wrote: »
    Quick question. The only group I've seen coming out against ssm in the media so far are people associated with the iona institute.

    What other groups do people think will join the anti ssm side?

    Church probably but don't see them getting too vocal about it do they have the stomach for a scrap?

    If they were smart, they would keep it to themselves, and allow the gay marriage proponents to continue to get up the noses of Middle Ireland.

    Considering gay people have destroyed the Church, I'd imagine the Church will do it's party piece on move on. People are well aware of their stance.


Advertisement