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

Do you want to marry?

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    "Civil union" is a vague term that doesn't really mean anything in Ireland. If you're talking about Civil Partnership, then there's a lot of differences (things like tax, social welfare, healthcare, inheritance... not to mention the whole kids issue). Or maybe you're talking about Civil Marriage, which currently is available only to a man and woman -- this is pretty much your average wedding, except that it takes place in a registery office (or maybe a hotel or something).

    I don't think any/many gay people are pushing for churches to be forced to perform same-sex ceremonies.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 919 ✭✭✭Pedant


    unreggd wrote: »
    I think 'gay marriage' is bad phrasing. It implies that it would still be a different/specialised type of marriage. Marriage should be a human right, not means tested

    I think Marriage Equality is a better term to use.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 83 ✭✭ShanePouch


    Goodshape wrote: »
    They are separate. The church will give you a ceremony and blessing if you choose that - and suit their requirements - but it's the civil marriage document that makes the difference under law. There's no requirement to go through any church to obtain that.

    Unfortunately it is, according to the apparently accepted interpretation, in our constitution that marriage, however obtained, be between a man and a women. If it were just the churches rules that mattered there wouldn't be much of an issue at all.

    We all know the churches and state are separate. What I was advocating was to separate the two marriage ceremonies, the church one and the state one. Currently the state on is available in all churches, as well as the church one.

    Incidentally, it is not "the church" but "the churches" which may or may not decide to bless divorced people who have remarried, marry divorced people who may want to remarry, bless civil partnerships or even have services to bless ones pets. That is a s true for jewish churches, as it is for muslim or christian ones, and not just for "the church".

    My argument is that the state should have no interest in whatever arrangements you, or I , wish to have with our particular church, and should only be concerned in state matters. For far too long we have seen the effects of what a group of sex obsessed hysterical virgins has had on Irish society, and it's high time the Irish State rid itself of their meddlesome and troublesome intefering, and left the various churches to talk to their congregations without any connections of help from the Irish State.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,293 ✭✭✭1ZRed


    Yeah maybe/probably someday but I'm a long long way off the idea of marriage yet.
    Tbh, I don't really see it in my future but it could change. I still have a long way to go to even be comfortable with having a boyfriend nevermind a husband!

    I'm sure I'll get there eventually though:)


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    Aard wrote: »
    Civil Marriage, which currently is available only to a man and woman -- this is pretty much your average wedding, except that it takes place in a registery office (or maybe a hotel or something).

    Just as an aside, when people talk about Civil Marriages they always seem to reference that dreary registry office, "or a hotel or something". As if it's completely opposed to something wonderful like the traditional church wedding.

    I think easily the nicest wedding I was ever at was a Civil Marriage. They rented a room in a castle. Friends and family all looking wonderful. Bride walked down the aisle. They chose a celtic / druidic priest to preside over the ceremony which was full of beautiful words and vows. Seriously, it beat the socks off any catholic ceremony I've been to. And at the end of the ceremony the "registry office" came to them -- papers were signed in the castle. Was all very lovely. Just sayin' :).



    @ShanePouch -- You want to remove the state-recognition of religious / church weddings and force everyone to go to the registry office? If that's what you mean, I kinda see where you're coming from but seems like it might be a fight too far.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 83 ✭✭ShanePouch


    Goodshape wrote: »



    @ShanePouch -- You want to remove the state-recognition of religious / church weddings and force everyone to go to the registry office? If that's what you mean, I kinda see where you're coming from but seems like it might be a fight too far.

    Currently , the state does not recognise religious marriages.

    When you get married in a church you, in fact, get married twice. Once by the church, and the second time it is a civil or state marriage. Both ceremonies happen at the same time in the same place. The only marriage which has any legal recognition is the state or civil marriage, and the religious marriage is not a matter in which the state has any interest.

    What some churches seem to want is a situation where only those of whom they approve, and sanction, can avail of either a civil or a religious marriage in their properties.

    But they don't stop there, they also say the state should not be able to marry anyone or any people, of whom the churches don't approve, even if they are being married in a state registry office.

    The main church opposing this is a church which is run by a group of (mainly) men whose chief claim to fame is they either stood by and did nothing while their colleagues systematically raped and tortured generations of Irish people, men, women and children, or else they took part thmselves in raping, torturing and abusing generations of Irish men, women and children.

    They seem to think that they are the sorts of people who the Irish people need to give them moral guidance regarding marriage. The irony of this group of hysterical sex obsessed virgins giving anyone guidance on anything is ridiculous, but to give it to others on the subject of marriage is hubris of a high order, and must be exposed for what it is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    ShanePouch wrote: »
    What some churches seem to want is a situation where only those of whom they approve, and sanction, can avail of either a civil or a religious marriage in their properties.
    "in their properties"... well, so what? Would you demand to be married in a mosque because you like the decor? Those buildings (mosque or church) are sacred to those people, I don't think they should be forced to open them up to the general public just for... whatever reasons you think are valid.
    But they don't stop there, they also say the state should not be able to marry anyone or any people, of whom the churches don't approve, even if they are being married in a state registry office.
    Yeah, but they don't have the power to decide any of that. What they may or may not want is a bit irrelevant.


    It's a moot point if you ask me. Let the religious folk have their fun... we're talking about state recognition. And thankfully, that's a separate issue.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 83 ✭✭ShanePouch


    Goodshape wrote: »
    "in their properties"... well, so what? Would you demand to be married in a mosque because you like the decor? Those buildings (mosque or church) are sacred to those people, I don't think they should be forced to open them up to the general public just for... whatever reasons you think are valid.

    I think that that's up to them and has nothing to do with me or what I think. I'm not the sort of person who goes around "demanding " things of others, and that is the very trait I despise in the churches who are doing just that, and who are going around "demanding " that no same sex couple should be allowed to marry anywhere in the state.
    Goodshape wrote: »

    Yeah, but they don't have the power to decide any of that. What they may or may not want is a bit irrelevant.

    Thankfully that appears to be the case in 2012. It's taken a long time to get here though, and that the news media continues to take seriously the views of these lonely men is a mystery.
    Goodshape wrote: »

    It's a moot point if you ask me. Let the religious folk have their fun... we're talking about state recognition. And thankfully, that's a separate issue.

    Thankfully it is a separate issue except in that those who lead the churches don't seem to recognise that, and they are actively lobbying to stop anyone of whom they don't approve getting married in a state registry office. They must be resisted and the hubris of a group of hysterical virgins giving the rest of us any advice on marriage must be highlighted and ridiculed for the nonsense it is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,488 ✭✭✭Goodshape


    I don't like the church any more than you apparently do, but I think this is veering a fair bit off-topic. The church have their teachings and their rules and you can't really expect them not to lobby and preach about them... that's just what they do, like any other interest group.

    It is a separate issue except nothing, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not prepared to debate anyones religious beliefs because they're totally irrelevant (and I think it's important to stand firm on that fact) when you're talking about state and social recognition of various civil unions.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 83 ✭✭ShanePouch


    Goodshape wrote: »
    I don't like the church any more than you apparently do, but I think this is veering a fair bit off-topic. The church have their teachings and their rules and you can't really expect them not to lobby and preach about them... that's just what they do, like any other interest group.

    I don't expect them not to lobby, just as I think its fine for me to point out the inconsistencies in their arguments, and the irony of a group of hysterical virgins who have a history of raping and torturing children in their care, or have a history of standing by and doing nothing while their colleagues raped and tortured children in their care, thinking they have some insignt into marriage that the rest of us don't have, is too serious, and too ironic, to leave unsaid.
    Goodshape wrote: »
    It is a separate issue except nothing, as far as I'm concerned. I'm not prepared to debate anyones religious beliefs because they're totally irrelevant (and I think it's important to stand firm on that fact) when you're talking about state and social recognition of various civil unions.

    No one is forcing you to debate anything you don't want to debate. I also have little interest in their religiouis views, and have no intention of debating them either.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 853 ✭✭✭toexpress


    Conor30 wrote: »
    Are you LGBT yourself, if you don't mind my asking?

    Yes am gay


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Goodshape wrote: »
    Just as an aside, when people talk about Civil Marriages they always seem to reference that dreary registry office, "or a hotel or something". As if it's completely opposed to something wonderful like the traditional church wedding.

    Oh, of course - don't get me wrong! I didn't mean it to come across that Civil Marriage is boring or drab in any way! Sure atm 30% of all weddings in Ireland are "civil", and that proportion is only going to go up in the future.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,635 ✭✭✭xsiborg


    i didnt realise myself until now when goodshape mentioned it there that civil marrriage and civil partnership werent the same thing! :eek:

    im a straight guy and i had a civil marriage and thats what i thought gay people could opt for too and have the same recognised rights as a heterosexual couple. the whole "partnership" thing then seems to suggest that this is a different thing completely?

    just curious then, if someone would care to help me out here- my brother in law is getting married to his scottish boyfriend in scotland in february next year, but they normally reside in london. i didnt ask him too much about it (i just turn up, lol), but what im now wondering is-

    is this a civil partnership or a civil marriage, and is it recognised as so in england then, or is that why they decided to get married in scotland? basically what are the legalities of it or what is it legally recognised as then- is gay civil marriage legally recognised in britain, or is this just recognised as another civil partnership (for want of a better word)- effort, and would their union be recognised in ireland?


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,537 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    xsiborg wrote: »
    i didnt realise myself until now when goodshape mentioned it there that civil marrriage and civil partnership werent the same thing! :eek:

    im a straight guy and i had a civil marriage and thats what i thought gay people could opt for too and have the same recognised rights as a heterosexual couple. the whole "partnership" thing then seems to suggest that this is a different thing completely?

    just curious then, if someone would care to help me out here- my brother in law is getting married to his scottish boyfriend in scotland in february next year, but they normally reside in london. i didnt ask him too much about it (i just turn up, lol), but what im now wondering is-

    is this a civil partnership or a civil marriage, and is it recognised as so in england then, or is that why they decided to get married in scotland? basically what are the legalities of it or what is it legally recognised as then- is gay civil marriage legally recognised in britain, or is this just recognised as another civil partnership (for want of a better word)- effort, and would their union be recognised in ireland?


    It's a civil partnership

    The UK Civil Partnership is somewhat superior to the Irish version because it is more equal to marriage or marriage like than the Irish version (Marriage Equality have showed there are 169 differences between marriage and civil partnership in Ireland http://www.marriagequality.ie/download/pdf/missing_pieces.pdf) - Most importantly the rights of children are excluded

    Currently same sex couples can get a civil partnership in the UK but they cannot marry - There are moves to introduce same sex marriage

    Their Civil Partnership would be recognised in Ireland as an Irish civil partnership

    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



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,635 ✭✭✭xsiborg


    It's a civil partnership

    The UK Civil Partnership is somewhat superior to the Irish version because it is more equal to marriage or marriage like than the Irish version (Marriage Equality have showed there are 169 differences between marriage and civil partnership in Ireland http://www.marriagequality.ie/download/pdf/missing_pieces.pdf) - Most importantly the rights of children are excluded

    Currently same sex couples can get a civil partnership in the UK but they cannot marry - There are moves to introduce same sex marriage

    Their Civil Partnership would be recognised in Ireland as an Irish civil partnership

    nice one mango, that's a big PDF btw, im just gonna print it out in the morning and have a read over it then instead, too late now for what looks like a heavy read! :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 361 ✭✭Caiseoipe19


    ShanePouch wrote: »
    I don't expect them not to lobby, just as I think its fine for me to point out the inconsistencies in their arguments, and the irony of a group of hysterical virgins who have a history of raping and torturing children in their care, or have a history of standing by and doing nothing while their colleagues raped and tortured children in their care, thinking they have some insignt into marriage that the rest of us don't have, is too serious, and too ironic, to leave unsaid.
    ShanePouch wrote: »
    The main church opposing this is a church which is run by a group of (mainly) men whose chief claim to fame is they either stood by and did nothing while their colleagues systematically raped and tortured generations of Irish people, men, women and children, or else they took part thmselves in raping, torturing and abusing generations of Irish men, women and children.

    They seem to think that they are the sorts of people who the Irish people need to give them moral guidance regarding marriage. The irony of this group of hysterical sex obsessed virgins giving anyone guidance on anything is ridiculous, but to give it to others on the subject of marriage is hubris of a high order, and must be exposed for what it is.

    A great minority of the clergy were involved in the abuse of children. There have been many decent men in the priesthood so how about not making sweeping insults? The same way many gay men don't like the being painted as being promisuous or some flamboyant drama-queen just because they're gay. What evidence have you that all priests knew that their fellow priests were abusing children? Fine disagree with the Church's stance etc. but it's possible to argue a point without making sweeping insulting statements.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 310 ✭✭Nebit


    Short answer.... Yes I want to marry the man I love and have it called what it should equally be. Civil partnerships are a joke IMO and a halfway point that won't be looked into for another 10 years.




  • Nebit wrote: »
    Short answer.... Yes I want to marry the man I love and have it called what it should equally be. Civil partnerships are a joke IMO and a halfway point that won't be looked into for another 10 years.
    Or maybe Civil Partnerships are a big step in the right direction and with more lobbying etc there will be further progress in creating an equal society.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 310 ✭✭Nebit


    Nebit wrote: »
    Short answer.... Yes I want to marry the man I love and have it called what it should equally be. Civil partnerships are a joke IMO and a halfway point that won't be looked into for another 10 years.
    Or maybe Civil Partnerships are a big step in the right direction and with more lobbying etc there will be further progress in creating an equal society.

    I don't believe that is the case. The civil partnership laws are based on the marriage laws mostly except every reference to a child removed. It was a way to attempt to appease both church and LGBTs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 40,537 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Nebit wrote: »
    Short answer.... Yes I want to marry the man I love and have it called what it should equally be. Civil partnerships are a joke IMO and a halfway point that won't be looked into for another 10 years.

    The constitutional convention is looking at marriage equality this year

    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
  • Registered Users Posts: 831 ✭✭✭DubArk


    Just saw this thread.

    Yes I would love to be able to marry because I would like to publicly celebrate our union in the manner that the majority of the citizens in the Republic can.

    Legally I want our rights protected, including our assets, pensions and living wills etc…...

    Simples. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 5 Finally a woman


    What is the actual difference between getting married and having a civil union? Is it the religious aspect?
    Well if its a Church wedding with a blessing it is a religious aspect, but they still have to sign state documents to make it all legal.
    I had a civil union 2years ago but still consider myself a married woman, it wasn't a gay marriage, I married my Fiancé (boyfriend) who is definitely straight, Im a post op transwoman also straight. My husband fully excepts me as a woman, getting married was the best thing I did, Id recommend it, my only regret I didn't store sperm, so sadly no children, my life now is even better as a woman, marrying the man I love.


  • Registered Users Posts: 36 waterglass305


    When I was younger, before I realized I like guys, I dreamed of finding that perfect gal to settle down with.

    I had it all planned out, we'd meet, date, fall in love and get married :rolleyes:
    One of the biggest problems with coming out was giving up on that idea of having a family and being married.
    I wanted to have wife, children etc so badly that that was my barrier to overcome.

    I may have accepted that I like guys but the plan is the same, I want to get hitched :D obviously not anytime soon, I'm only 23 I want some fun first ;)
    To me marriage is a commitment and a sacrament, it would be wrong for me not to get married. And yes it would have to be monogamous but that wouldn't mean no sex, far from it....:eek:

    Of course if you don't want to get married/don't believe in it then don't get married. I don't judge we should be free to choose what we want to do.
    And I choose not some BS civil crap drivel that society thinks I'll accept, I want a full proper marriage that lasts a lifetime.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 83 ✭✭ShanePouch




    And I choose not some BS civil crap drivel that society thinks I'll accept, I want a full proper marriage that lasts a lifetime.

    Does that mean you want some sort of religious ceremony also?

    For me, I had never considered that a civil marriage was not a full or proper marriage.


  • Registered Users Posts: 36 waterglass305


    ShanePouch wrote: »
    Does that mean you want some sort of religious ceremony also?

    For me, I had never considered that a civil marriage was not a full or proper marriage.

    Hang on I was taking about civil partnership, two men (or women) cannot have a civil marriage.

    Honestly I don't know about having a religious ceremony, if I meet a guy who wanted one I'd go for it as long as I didn't have to convert.

    You see in Ireland we can only get a civil partnership, which doesn't have the same rights as a civil marriage, if we wanted children we can't jointly adapt, if I died, my husband would not automatically be the the guardian, we'd be at the mercy of the Courts or my family.

    How the hell is that fair? In terms of tax laws, inheritance, children etc their not the same.
    Civil partnership is a proto-marriage, a degraded form of what I want.


  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 2,283 Mod ✭✭✭✭Chorcai


    American take on things
    In a humorous talk with an urgent message, LZ Granderson points out the absurdity in the idea that there's a "gay lifestyle," much less a "gay agenda." (Filmed at TEDxGrandRapids.)
    http://www.ted.com/talks/lz_granderson_the_myth_of_the_gay_agenda.html


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,080 ✭✭✭McChubbin


    I'm bisexual and yes, I would like the option of marrying a woman if, in time, I found love with someone of my own gender. I honestly believe that I'd have a better shot at love with a woman but then again, I want babies and the white picket fence dream. So, marriage to a woman with the option of sperm donation or adoption please.


  • Registered Users Posts: 36 waterglass305


    Yes, but feminism has violated the sanctity of marriage

    How?


  • Registered Users Posts: 36 waterglass305


    I don't know who that is or what you are getting at.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement