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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Gays Against Gay Marriage?

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Joeytheparrot wrote: »
    I agree with most of what you said. I'm not sure about the future though. I think that we may eventually see FF disappear and merge with FG or perhaps Sinn Fein.

    One thing though I do give recognition to certain people within FG or FF who stood out and offered strong leadership on social issues; Garret Fitzgerald, Donogh O Malley and Maire Geoghegan Quinn.

    Yeah, I agree those people deserve a lot of credit for leading from within.
    However, I think the fact that you can basically count those people on one hand says a lot about the 1930s-1990s era of Irish politics.

    I would add Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese to that list too as establishment figures in terms of being presidents who really saw in a lot of change during their terms in office without having any executive power themselves.

    The really loudest advocates for social change here have come from outside the political party system and certainly outside FF and FG.

    Even look at how a group within FF effectively had to form the PDs to push through economic and social reforms. As much as they're now disliked by some for their economic policies, they were a breath of fresh air in the 1980s when it came to social issues and their economic policies were probably needed (they just went a bit too far during the Bertie era).

    I actually think for me the big indicator of change was when Bertie Ahern was able to sit as Taoiseach while his marriage was splitting up and he had a new partner and the majority of the population didn't bat an eyelid about it.

    I wouldn't be at all a fan of Bertie in terms of his economic policies or how he ran the country, but I do think that era during the celtic tigre was a major turning point in Irish social attitudes.

    I would say the biggest factor in social change in Ireland really was the introduction of free education in 1967 which saw a surge in the numbers going on to university and a major awakening in terms of how a large % of people analysed the world around them. It's that generation that came up through the ranks of areas that impact social systems like the legal profession, journalism, politics, teaching, business, economics etc etc etc Before that era, those ranks were very much closed to an elite.

    The generation that went to university in the 1970s and 1980s are the people who made some of the biggest social changes. We take that for granted now, but if you think about Ireland in the 1930s-50s very few people had those opportunities and most people were never really given an opportunity to explore abstract subjects.

    The basic education system was very much about rote learning and conformity with a very heavily religious and conservative type of life.

    When you look at Europe in general, the more socially progressive countries tend to be the ones that have had better access to third-level education for much longer. Ireland was really quite late to that level of access to education for all. So, really we saw a social change happen in the 1990s that many countries would have seen in the 1960s/70s. Most of our Northern European counterparts went through educational revolutions immediately after WWII. So, they were probably 20 years ahead of us.

    I think what you're really seeing in Ireland is by the 1990s a lot of people who were in positions of influence were well educated, and able to think for themselves.

    Even our political system in the past would have been full of people who really didn't have a very broad world view. I'm not trying to mock them or anything like that, but they were often just the farmer, the local publican, the local primary teacher or the local establishment figure in terms of the relatively small % of legal professionals etc who were in the mix in the Dail in the old days.

    I'd also say that you don't even have to have necessarily gone to university to have benefited from this. The fact that a large % of people suddenly start thinking outside the box and are open to new ideas and are competent and confident enough to use and interact with 'the system' changes society profoundly.


  • Options
    #93
    Capannori78
    Registered Users Posts: 2 ✭Capannori78


    The gays I know who are against gay marriage all tend to be Catholic. It's their own opinion and they don't force it on anyone, so I say leave them to it. Blackstone just produced a documentary about gay people in the Church. It's worth a watch, at least to see what the Church really thinks about homosexuality.

    vimeo.com/93079367


  • Options
    #94
    Aurongroove
    Registered Users Posts: 876 ✭✭✭Aurongroove


    I used to think it was spiteful for Gay people to want the word 'marriage' until I learned that a Civil Union did not offer the same rights as a state marriage, and that it is in fact the state that is denying equal rights to the LGBT Community.

    It became clear that unless 'we' get marriage, not equal legal status to marriage, but "marriage" called marriage and legally identical to marriage, that it's not really going to work any other way.


  • Options
    #95
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    I find this whole notion of wheeling out a gay person who is against gay marriage as if it proves something completely ridiculous.

    Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s they did exactly the same and found women who disapproved of women's votes.

    All it shows is that there's some gay guy or lesbian who doesn't approve of gay marriage. That doesn't make their opinion somehow correct or representative of anything other than their particular point of view.


  • Options
    #96
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    Aurongroove wrote: »
    I used to think it was spiteful for Gay people to want the word 'marriage' until I learned that a Civil Union did not offer the same rights as a state marriage, and that it is in fact the state that is denying equal rights to the LGBT Community.

    It became clear that unless 'we' get marriage, not equal legal status to marriage, but "marriage" called marriage and legally identical to marriage, that it's not really going to work any other way.

    Spiteful?

    How dare we want equal footing!

    What's spiteful is when the 'Phobes argue that we should be happy with a separate but equal regime.

    They are willing to concede that we can be treated equally on paper, just as kind as they find a way to mark the relationship out as somehow "other" or not the same.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I find this whole notion of wheeling out a gay person who is against gay marriage as if it proves something completely ridiculous.

    Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s they did exactly the same and found women who disapproved of women's votes.

    All it shows is that there's some gay guy or lesbian who doesn't approve of gay marriage. That doesn't make their opinion somehow correct or representative of anything other than their particular point of view.
    It's sadder when you can clearly see that said person against it has an inner conflict of sorts between what ideology they want to be part of and who they are.


  • Options
    #98
    Genegirl83
    Registered Users Posts: 107 ✭✭Genegirl83


    Capannori78 wrote: »
    The gays I know who are against gay marriage all tend to be Catholic. It's their own opinion and they don't force it on anyone, so I say leave them to it. Blackstone just produced a documentary about gay people in the Church. It's worth a watch, at least to see what the Church really thinks about homosexuality.

    vimeo.com/93079367


    Yeah, I'm talking about the gays that publicly denounce gay marriage. I know gays against gay marriage exist, I named a few. I just doubt their mental integrity. However seemingly arrogant, I can't see how a person can have healthy self-esteem and deny themselves equality. That's my only point. Your friends might be talking about "holy matrimony" ,if they're Catholics. Denying yourself the option of civil marriage is another beast in my opinion.


  • Options
    #99
    Genegirl83
    Registered Users Posts: 107 ✭✭Genegirl83


    SpaceTime wrote: »
    I find this whole notion of wheeling out a gay person who is against gay marriage as if it proves something completely ridiculous.

    Back in the late 1800s and early 1900s they did exactly the same and found women who disapproved of women's votes.

    All it shows is that there's some gay guy or lesbian who doesn't approve of gay marriage. That doesn't make their opinion somehow correct or representative of anything other than their particular point of view.

    Again, I'm not denying the existence of gay people against gay marriage or women that were against women's right to vote.
    My inquisition is about the pathology of that belief and if it can co-exist in a "truly" healthy mind. I too would prefer they didn't believe gays didn't deserve gay marriage but accept that they do. My point is, I cannot understand (and my scientific knowledge cannot rationalise) how a healthy organism can behave this way.

    In summary: I'm not so much interested in their opinion so much as its pathology.


  • Options
    #100
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    Genegirl83 wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm talking about the gays that publicly denounce gay marriage. I know gays against gay marriage exist, I named a few. I just doubt their mental integrity. However seemingly arrogant, I can't see how a person can have healthy self-esteem and deny themselves equality. That's my only point. Your friends might be talking about "holy matrimony" ,if they're Catholics. Denying yourself the option of civil marriage is another beast in my opinion.
    I understand the heteronormativity argument though. It just shouldn't be extended to denying those who still want it.


  • Options
    #101
    Ambersky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Ambersky


    Earlier I argued that there were two different questions being answered in this thread.
    One is why would, lets call them conservative gays be anti gay marriage.
    The other is what is the logic behind the arguments in favour of or against gay marriage.
    I said I thought that these are two different questions and that one clouds the other.
    Conservatives have a set of values they live by and they come to conclusions based on those values.
    People who believe in gay marriage tend to be more liberal and they too have a set of values that influence the conclusions they come to.

    I think this thread has its focus on arguing the logic in favour of gay marriage and I dont think there has been an effort to understand those of an opposing view. All that has happened and all that usually happens, is the opposing arguments are laid out and taken apart, logically of course. I dont think trial by logic is a way to get to understand anyone. We don't have to use scientific measuring sticks to understand one another, we can understand even if we don't agree but we have to be able to empathise and to value each others emotions as much as our heads. Understanding happens with a head and a heart combination.

    I still think trying to understand the values of those who hold a different opinion to you is essential in any effort to understand what shapes peoples perceptions and influences the conclusions they come to. If you want to understand why people take the position they do about any social structure like marriage, divorce, education etc. it helps to understand the values that shape their decisions.
    Despite the perspective from each of the polar extremes, individuals in the opposite group are not in fact amoral, instead, Haidt et al., (2009) claim that they have different valuations of five universal morals. According to Haidt, the five universal morals include: (a) harm/care (strong empathy for those that are suffering and care for the most vulnerable); (b) fairness/reciprocity (life liberty and justice for all); (c) ingroup/loyalty – (tribalism, patriotism, nationalism); (d) authority/respect (“mechanisms for managing social rank, tempered by the obligation of superiors to protect and provide for subordinates” Haidt, 2008); and (e) purity/sanctity (“related to the evolution of disgust, that makes us see carnality as degrading and renunciation as noble” Haidt, 2008).

    From a political perspective, liberals tend to value care and fairness at a higher level than their conservative counterparts, and hold a lower valuation of ingroup loyalty, authority and purity/sanctity – while conservatives value all at a uniform lower level.
    http://geraldguild.com/blog/2010/09/24/moral-foundations-theory/

    So according to this theory liberals and those writing in this thread so far would have a high value on equality and wouldnt put as much value on other things like group loyalty, authority, purity/sanctity whereas conservatives would give all those things more equal weight along with equality and fairness. In constantly asking conservatives why they dont value their own equality we are perhaps missing and not understanding the things they do value along with equality and the conflicts they may face. Also maybe in our own constant focus on equality and holding it up as our main measure of all that is good and right maybe we are missing out or just not seeing some of the dangers conservatives are anxious about. If we have no understanding or even awareness of what someone else is anxious about we cant reassure them or get them to feel ok about the things we want to change.

    Here is Jonathan Haidt talking about this theory its very American but if you give it time I think it gives one of the best talks on understanding the reasons conservatives and liberals think as they do. With a little translation it can also help in understanding why some gays might be anti gay marriage and even the importance of us here on this board making an effort to understand those who think differently than "our team".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SOQduoLgRw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭suicide_circus


    Capannori78 wrote: »
    The gays I know who are against gay marriage all tend to be Catholic. It's their own opinion and they don't force it on anyone, so I say leave them to it. Blackstone just produced a documentary about gay people in the Church. It's worth a watch, at least to see what the Church really thinks about homosexuality.

    vimeo.com/93079367

    that video is sinister


  • Options
    #103
    SpaceTime
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,088 ✭✭✭SpaceTime


    Genegirl83 wrote: »
    Again, I'm not denying the existence of gay people against gay marriage or women that were against women's right to vote.
    My inquisition is about the pathology of that belief and if it can co-exist in a "truly" healthy mind. I too would prefer they didn't believe gays didn't deserve gay marriage but accept that they do. My point is, I cannot understand (and my scientific knowledge cannot rationalise) how a healthy organism can behave this way.

    In summary: I'm not so much interested in their opinion so much as its pathology.

    Humans have an amazing ability to hold two (or more) completely contradictory points of view and then attempt to stick them together into a completely illogical philosophy.

    What you'll find with most of these people is a conflict between logic and dogma. They're locked into a belief that this is wrong and even though they're denying themselves rights they'll still justify it to themselves.

    Dogmatic beliefs like that can be religious, they can be political or they can just be social mores and taboos that are locked into someone's thinking.

    The majority of irish people don't think like that about gay marriage. That's quite evident in polling with well over 75% in favour.

    I think in a way a successful referendum also will serve to underline to everyone that a majority of the population is fully supportive of this. It's a powerful message.


  • Options
    #104
    Dr. Shrike
    Registered Users Posts: 102 ✭✭Dr. Shrike


    Capannori78 wrote: »
    The gays I know who are against gay marriage all tend to be Catholic. It's their own opinion and they don't force it on anyone, so I say leave them to it. Blackstone just produced a documentary about gay people in the Church. It's worth a watch, at least to see what the Church really thinks about homosexuality.

    vimeo.com/93079367

    Apparently some dubious individuals were involved with this. Doubt many are surprised.

    http://jpatrickredmond.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/the-third-way-a-depressing-study-in-catholic-ex-gay-propaganda/


  • Options
    #105
    Ambersky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Ambersky


    Thanks for that link Dr. Shrike. Its a long article but the author has done a lot of research into the off screen activities and attitudes of some of the participants in that "compassionate and understanding" Catholic video on LGBT people.
    Im trying my best to understand where people are coming from, the moral beliefs that shape their decisions and attitudes. Sometimes that understanding can lead to an realisation of how careful you need to be around certain people. It can be a case of yep I understand how you got here and I understand what you believe and probably even why you believe it, but now when it comes to your actions it isnt ok to lie, manipulate, deceive, control and abuse people in order to get them to subscribe to your belief system.

    The video is basically just a love the sinner but not the sin and it is a sin kind of video which is just more of the same really and you could say what the harm its their opinion but unfortunately the people in the video go further than that off screen and the author of the article linked to has looked into them.
    The people in the video want to get it into schools and some have already been involved in trying to sell anti bullying programs in schools that were acting as introduction to an ex gay program.
    Another participant has gone on radio to state the following as facts
    “Over 50% of gay relationships are controlling and violent and abusive.”
    “You are 100 times more likely to die in a gay domestic dispute than any other.”
    “Disease and cancers among homosexuals are staggering. There are literally hundreds of STDs and cancers rampant in the homosexual community that did not exist 25 years ago – many of them unknown to the heterosexual.”
    “The average lifespan of a gay man is 42. The average lifespan of a lesbian is 45.”


  • Options
    #106
    Rory28
    Registered Users Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Rory28


    If civil unions offered the same rights as marriage this discussion would not be happening. I would be against gay marriage too if the civil unions were legally the same. Keep religion as far away as possible. If i'm an abomination why would i seek their approval for marriage? Reform the civil unions!!!


  • Options
    #107
    Ambersky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Ambersky


    LGBT people are not looking for the right to be married in any church or to change the rules of any religion.
    Gay marriage is about civil marriage and the right to be have a union recognised by the state not by the churches.
    The argument is it has to be called marriage in order for it to be seen as the same and as equal and it must have all the same rights responsibilities and conditions as an opposite sex marriage.

    The churches are arguing that not only should gay marriage remain unlawful in their churches they also want to stop any state recognition of a marriage between two people of the same sex.


  • Options
    #108
    Rory28
    Registered Users Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭Rory28


    Ambersky wrote: »
    LGBT people are not looking for the right to be married in any church or to change the rules of any religion.
    Gay marriage is about civil marriage and the right to be have a union recognised by the state not by the churches.
    The argument is it has to be called marriage in order for it to be seen as the same and as equal and it must have all the same rights responsibilities and conditions as an opposite sex marriage.

    The churches are arguing that not only should gay marriage remain unlawful in their churches they also want to stop any state recognition of a marriage between two people of the same sex.

    Ah, I see. So it would seem I already back gay marriage but I call it another name. I feel foolish.


  • Options
    #109
    Ambersky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,220 ✭✭✭Ambersky


    No wonder people are confused Rory28. I think the arguments put out against gay marriage are designed to confuse and a lot of people think gay marriage is about forcing religious to carry out gay marriages in their churches.
    We are also use to considering church recognition of marriage and state recognition of marriage as one and the same probably because a lot of people sign the state papers in the church after the church service instead of having to appear at a registry office as well as a church.
    Gay marriages would be carried out like registry office marriages are now where no one has to go near a church.
    If LGBT people who are members of churches want to also have a religious marriage they will have to continue that struggle from within their church but thats not what this campaign is about.

    Its going to be a central point to clear up in peoples minds before the referendum.


  • Options
    #110
    periodictable
    Closed Accounts Posts: 931 ✭✭✭periodictable


    Genegirl83 wrote: »
    SpaceTime

    ..... an experienced legally trained individual.

    WTF?:confused:


Advertisement