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.

Why are people so afraid of gay marriage?

Options
12467…13

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    jaffa20
    Registered Users Posts: 4,509 ✭✭✭jaffa20


    Why does a discussion about Gay marriage on Boards always end up to be a discussion about Adoption. They are totally separate issues. I don't want to adopt yet i am not allow to marry because a few narrow minded people have a traditional view of family life. That tradition is long lost with many children already being raised without a mother and father.

    It is more or less on a par with saying "i am against a black and white couple marrying because they could have children who are coloured". Imagine the bullying they would get in school!!!.

    I think children would probably have more cop on that adults re this topic!


  • Options
    #93
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ynotdu wrote: »
    by that i assume the catholic/christian version of marridge?

    I don't mean any religious marriage, it could be a civil marriage, a Jewish marriage, an Islamic marriage.

    I mean the traditional family unit of mother / father / child. If marriage is going to be the basis of the family as written in the Constitution, I would want to make sure that as many children as possible were being raised by a mother and a father.
    ynotdu wrote: »
    the facts are that priests were allowed to marry up to around the 14th century.the reason it was stopped was because the widows and children of the priest inherited the home and surrounding land.
    the greedy goats in the vatican decided it was theirs by right.
    look what these *christians*turned the priesthood into by banning marriage:mad:

    Considering I am a non-Catholic, I couldn't agree with you more. Biblically pastors and bishops have the right of marriage. I believe the Catholic Church is mistaken on this.
    jaffa20 wrote: »
    Why does a discussion about Gay marriage on Boards always end up to be a discussion about Adoption. They are totally separate issues. I don't want to adopt yet i am not allow to marry because a few narrow minded people have a traditional view of family life. That tradition is long lost with many children already being raised without a mother and father.

    Adoption is the real crunch issue. When we are dealing with whether or not something should be legalised we generally check all possible impacts it could have.

    Just because something is "being lost" doesn't mean that one should not defend it, or at least aim to get some form of affirmative action in relation to it. I don't believe this is something I can be particularly liberal with.


  • Options
    #94
    Cjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Cjoe


    ynotdu wrote: »
    I think it is both a common sense and a human rights issue.
    how dare a society prevent ANY two consenting adults who love each other from their wish to publicly express it through marridge?

    for children to be adopted by a gay couple is IMO a breach/betrayel of Their human rights as they cannot choose their parents and have no say.
    Their is no doubt that these children would be the subject of snide remarks throughout their childhood as things stand.

    children are born by and large by hetrosexual sex,it seems to be natures way of saying that a femine and masculine mix is best for balance.

    Harsh though it may sound to gay couples but would,nt adopting a child almost guarantee that they would get way above average hurts in their formative years?

    it is SO cruel to gay couples who have maternal/paternal instincts like everybody else,but i think it sadly is realism to say so.

    Have to completely agree with you here.
    I totally for gay marriage but as previously mentioned you would have to allow them to adopt and like myself I am not for gay couples adopting
    Nature plays the major part here. It must be a hard pill to swallow for gay people to know they cannot naturally have children but its nature.
    A perfect balance for a child is a strong male and female in their family. Mam and dad. This has to be a priority choosing for an adoption council.
    It gives the child the best possible chance to a healthy social and family life.
    Gay people need to stop thinking about what they want and think about the life of child.
    That also applies to hetrosexuals too who want kids but cant bring a child up in the best possible way.


  • Options
    #95
    Cjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Cjoe


    jaffa20 wrote: »
    Why does a discussion about Gay marriage on Boards always end up to be a discussion about Adoption. They are totally separate issues. I don't want to adopt yet i am not allow to marry because a few narrow minded people have a traditional view of family life. That tradition is long lost with many children already being raised without a mother and father.

    It is more or less on a par with saying "i am against a black and white couple marrying because they could have children who are coloured". Imagine the bullying they would get in school!!!.

    I think children would probably have more cop on that adults re this topic!

    From what I can gather if gay marriage was introduced you would have adoption rights just like a hetrosexual couple which alot of people have a problem with. This is one of the main issues that gay marriage isnt introduced and so of course its going to crop up in threads.


  • Options
    #96
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Cjoe wrote: »
    It must be a hard pill to swallow for gay people to know they cannot naturally have children but its nature.
    Gay people can have children; just not with their partner. I could easily find a surrogate mother, and have a child. My husband and I would raise that child. If I died, then under current legislation my husband would have no legal right to be the child's guardian. Is this fair on the child?
    Cjoe wrote: »
    A perfect balance for a child is a strong male and female in their family. Mam and dad. This has to be a priority choosing for an adoption council.
    Were an opposite-sex couple the priority, would you agree with same-sex couples adopting if there were no other suitable opposite-sex couples?
    Cjoe wrote: »
    It gives the child the best possible chance to a healthy social and family life.
    That is pure speculation, not to mention entirely unquantifiable.
    Cjoe wrote: »
    Gay people need to stop thinking about what they want and think about the life of child.
    You are assuming that children do not want gay parents.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Cjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Cjoe


    Aard wrote: »
    Gay people can have children; just not with their partner. I could easily find a surrogate mother, and have a child. My husband and I would raise that child. If I died, then under current legislation my husband would have no legal right to be the child's guardian. Is this fair on the child?


    Were an opposite-sex couple the priority, would you agree with same-sex couples adopting if there were no other suitable opposite-sex couples?

    That is pure speculation, not to mention entirely unquantifiable.


    You are assuming that children do not want gay parents.


    No its not. The legislation is all over the place and contradicts itself.
    You should absolutley be able to leave the child with your husband if you already have one. Its in the childs interests.

    I would yes definetly. But as I said priority should go to hetrosexual couples once they are suitable.

    No im not. Im saying as a person who wants to be a parent are you making the best descion for the child you may adopt? Weigh up the pros and cons for the child. The potential abuse they may get for being an adoptive child of a homosexual couple, their upbringing without a male or female figure in their family life. As I said already every couple (hetrosexual and homosexual) should think about the child first. Can you give the child as healthy a life in every aspect as possible.

    Sure you can argue for an against there is plenty of information to back up both claims. I beileve it is healthier though to have a traditional family unit.
    To not have a father or mother means you are missing out on one or the other expierence. It might not be detremental to your life in the future but in general it is positive expierence and one which is invaluable. Having a decent mother and father means you have expierence of both male and female role models. It is obviously a good thing expierence for later life.


  • Options
    #98
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Could you please address the points I've made, before bringing new information into the discussion.


  • Options
    #99
    MultiUmm
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭MultiUmm


    jaffa20 wrote: »
    Why does a discussion about Gay marriage on Boards always end up to be a discussion about Adoption. They are totally separate issues. I don't want to adopt yet i am not allow to marry because a few narrow minded people have a traditional view of family life. That tradition is long lost with many children already being raised without a mother and father.

    It is more or less on a par with saying "i am against a black and white couple marrying because they could have children who are coloured". Imagine the bullying they would get in school!!!.

    I think children would probably have more cop on that adults re this topic!

    I initially asked that people left adoption as a seperate issue, but it became a topic of discussion fairly quickly.
    Problem is that technically, if gay couples were given the same marriage rights as straight couples, they should be legally allowed to adopt.


  • Options
    #100
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    It comes back to adoption because gay marriage is about equality, and you can't be less equal than a straight couple. It's full rights, including adoption, or discrimination. Either or, there is no half way, which goes back to my original ignorance and/or religious hatred point.


  • Options
    #101
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    It comes back to adoption because gay marriage is about equality, and you can't be less equal than a straight couple. It's full rights, including adoption, or discrimination. Either or, there is no half way, which goes back to my original ignorance and/or religious hatred point.

    I don't think we have established if it is about equality. It is only about equality if you consider a relationship between a man and a woman to be the same thing as two of the same gender. I personally don't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    ynotdu
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭ynotdu


    MultiUmm wrote: »
    I initially asked that people left adoption as a seperate issue, but it became a topic of discussion fairly quickly.
    Problem is that technically, if gay couples were given the same marriage rights as straight couples, they should be legally allowed to adopt.


    Hi Multium,
    I find that our poliTHICKens can usually find a way to legislate how they like:eek: eg: neice 2 and coming shortly to a polling booth near you Lisbon 2.they could if they wanted to come up with a wording that allows gay marriage but forbids gay couples adopting.

    I am no legal expert so i do not know for sure if gay marriage would require just Dail legislation or a referendem?

    i think a referendem on gay marriage would be defeated at present though.


  • Options
    #103
    Cjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Cjoe


    Cjoe wrote: »
    No its not. The legislation is all over the place and contradicts itself.
    You should absolutley be able to leave the child with your husband if you already have one. Its in the childs interests.

    I would yes definetly. But as I said priority should go to hetrosexual couples once they are suitable.

    No im not. Im saying as a person who wants to be a parent are you making the best descion for the child you may adopt? Weigh up the pros and cons for the child. The potential abuse they may get for being an adoptive child of a homosexual couple, their upbringing without a male or female figure in their family life. As I said already every couple (hetrosexual and homosexual) should think about the child first. Can you give the child as healthy a life in every aspect as possible.

    Sure you can argue for an against there is plenty of information to back up both claims. I beileve it is healthier though to have a traditional family unit.
    To not have a father or mother means you are missing out on one or the other expierence. It might not be detremental to your life in the future but in general it is positive expierence and one which is invaluable. Having a decent mother and father means you have expierence of both male and female role models. It is obviously a good thing expierence for later life.
    Aard wrote: »
    Could you please address the points I've made, before bringing new information into the discussion.

    I have. Each Paragraph has addressed each point you made. Sorry I forgot to multi quote it


  • Options
    #104
    ChocolateSauce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭ChocolateSauce


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't think we have established if it is about equality. It is only about equality if you consider a relationship between a man and a woman to be the same thing as two of the same gender. I personally don't.

    Fair enough, that's your opinion.

    It is an extremely insulting and condescending attitude regarding the personal lives of people you don't know. When you can come up with a reason why the love and parental urges a man and a woman feel is intrinsically superior to the love and parental urges a gay couple feel, get back to me.

    Do you wonder why some posters in A&A get so angry at you?


  • Options
    #105
    MultiUmm
    Registered Users Posts: 972 ✭✭✭MultiUmm


    they could if they wanted to come up with a wording that allows gay marriage but forbids gay couples adopting.


    They could well do that, and I for one would be happy to settle with it for the time being. Gay rights have only come very gradually in this country, in 1993 when homosexuality was legalised the idea of gays marrying or even CP would have been unthinkable.

    I am no legal expert so i do not know for sure if gay marriage would require just Dail legislation or a referendem?


    I'm not entirely sure on this so I'll have to look into it, but under the Irish Constitution the right to marry is preserved for a man and a woman. So a referendum would be required to leagalise it.


    i think a referendem on gay marriage would be defeated at present though.


    Maybe, depending on how well each side that was for and against conveyed their points. Then again, Ireland still has a large rural population who would be quite uncomfortable with the notion of gay marriage. They could have a "silent majority".


  • Options
    #106
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ChocolateSauce wrote: »
    Fair enough, that's your opinion.

    It is an extremely insulting and condescending attitude regarding the personal lives of people you don't know. When you can come up with a reason why the love and parental urges a man and a woman feel is intrinsically superior to the love and parental urges a gay couple feel, get back to me.

    Do you wonder why some posters in A&A get so angry at you?

    Being true to your opinion sometimes rubs people up the wrong way. However, given my beliefs on the importance of the family, it's not something I feel I can retract.

    I have no issue with homosexual people entering into relationships with each other, it is when children are involved where concerns are raised for me and for quite a lot of other people.

    Get as angry as you like. We have to eventually learn to tolerate that people will differ on this issue in the end. I welcome your advocacy on the issue, it is clear that this is something you care a lot about. It's an issue that I care a lot about, albeit for different reasons. However, ignoring legitimate concerns isn't going to make the opposition disappear.

    Tolerance doesn't mean getting angry at people because they disagree with you. It's strange how the liberal consensus is starting to make it seem that way though.


  • Options
    #107
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't think we have established if it is about equality. It is only about equality if you consider a relationship between a man and a woman to be the same thing as two of the same gender. I personally don't.
    So we have finally gotten to the crux of the problem!


    What are your reasons for believing that the two relationships are not equal? Is it anything beyond religious conditioning?


  • Options
    #108
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    Aard wrote: »
    Why not? They educate about hetersexuality. Not educating it doesn't mean that it will go away.
    Becuase it is not the states job to educate children on the issue of homosexuality. I believe that is a parents job
    Aard wrote: »
    It is a fact. I know somebody whose parents have taught him that homosexuality is evil. And I'm willing to bet that he's not the only one who has been taught that.
    So you are saying that the State must steep in to educate children "properly" because the childs natural parent isn't ?
    Don't you see how wrong that sounds ?


  • Options
    #109
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I've outlined the 2 differences above.


  • Options
    #110
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    anoisaris wrote: »
    And what if your future children or their peers are homosexual?
    What if they are ? That is a non issue.
    anoisaris wrote: »
    Is it not better for it to be mentioned in school that not all couples are male-female, that not all children have to grow up to marry someone of the opposite sex. Surely it would be better for your child to know there was nothing wrong with them rather than think they were some kind of freak (at the same time educating children for who the issue does not directly apply to).
    That's funny, I don't remember my teacher talling me that all children have to marry someone of the opposite sex.


  • Options
    #111
    answer me
    Closed Accounts Posts: 59 ✭✭answer me


    Everyone should have equal rights so i don't understand why gay marriage can not happen:confused::confused::confused:

    :mad::(


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    GeeNorm
    Registered Users Posts: 162 ✭✭GeeNorm


    People will approve/disapprove based on whatever beliefs they have but IMO the government will simply not want to jeopardise the inheritance tax revenue stream.

    The level of assets passed between gay partners on death is probably not huge, but it is (with small exemptions) taxed at 25%.

    The danger is that if gay couples are granted spouse exemption, then other people could be/feel entitled to it e.g. two old bachelors living together. Worst case scenario from a revenue point of view is that eventually every person who dies is then allowed nominate one person to inherit their estate tax free.


  • Options
    #113
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I sometimes wish the Government would just have a referendum on this so that we could soldify Irish opinion on the matter.

    If a majority voted yes, I would have to accept the democratic mandate was to change civil marriage. If the majority voted no, people would have expressed the view that civil partnerships are adequate, and that LGBT couples should negotiate to improve the rights offered to them under civil partnerships rather than redefining marriage.


  • Options
    #114
    giddybootz
    Registered Users Posts: 867 ✭✭✭giddybootz


    IMO it boils down to a very simple sentance: Everyone, regardless of their race, gender, sexuality, favourite colour etc should be entitled to equal rights...be it marriage, adoption, education, employment etc.


    To say that 'oh maybe we should let the gays marry but not adopt because their children might get teased' is a joke.

    What about kids who get teased because daddy is a binman? Perhaps binmen should not be allowed have children.

    What about kids who get teased because mummy has a disability? Perhaps those with disabilitys should not be allowed have children.

    I could go on with a million differant examples but I am sure you get my point. Children tease eachother...it is sad but true...and having gay parents is just one of a million reasons they could get teased.


  • Options
    #115
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    giddyboots, everyone already has the right to get married. Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The issue here isn't the right to marriage, but to redefine marriage.


  • Options
    #116
    Cjoe
    Registered Users Posts: 67 ✭✭Cjoe


    giddybootz wrote: »
    IMO it boils down to a very simple sentance: Everyone, regardless of their race, gender, sexuality, favourite colour etc should be entitled to equal rights...be it marriage, adoption, education, employment etc.


    To say that 'oh maybe we should let the gays marry but not adopt because their children might get teased' is a joke.

    What about kids who get teased because daddy is a binman? Perhaps binmen should not be allowed have children.

    What about kids who get teased because mummy has a disability? Perhaps those with disabilitys should not be allowed have children.

    I could go on with a million differant examples but I am sure you get my point. Children tease eachother...it is sad but true...and having gay parents is just one of a million reasons they could get teased.

    And what about the "traditional family" arguement? Do you think this is not an issue?


  • Options
    #117
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    Becuase it is not the states job to educate children on the issue of homosexuality. I believe that is a parents job
    But why though? Do you believe that your child will become homosexual, just because they're told about it in school? What about gay children who - in the absence of school-provided education - grow up to believe that their sexual orientation makes them evil? Should those children not be taught that they are normal like everybody else? And don't say that their parents can do that job, because there are people out there who will tell their gay children that homosexuality is evil.


  • Options
    #118
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    So you are saying that the State must steep in to educate children "properly" because the childs natural parent isn't ?
    Don't you see how wrong that sounds ?
    That doesn't sound wrong to me at all; there will be people who "educate" their children incorrectly on the matter.


  • Options
    #119
    Aard
    Registered Users Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The issue here isn't the right to marriage, but to redefine marriage.
    Please see this post: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61659805&postcount=64. The constitution doesn't define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. If the issue here is about, as you say, the legal definition of marriage, then your argument falls apart.


  • Options
    #120
    Iwasfrozen
    Registered Users Posts: 16,250 ✭✭✭✭Iwasfrozen


    answer me wrote: »
    Everyone should have equal rights so i don't understand why gay marriage can not happen
    Everybody does have the ability* to marry people of the opposite sex.
    Gay perople are not being denied that ability.


    *I say ability not right because marriage is not a right.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Aard wrote: »
    Please see this post: http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61659805&postcount=64. The constitution doesn't define marriage as exclusively between a man and a woman. If the issue here is about, as you say, the legal definition of marriage, then your argument falls apart.

    The Irish marriage law currently does. The Constitution is not the only law in Ireland. Even if we are dealing with the Irish constitution, the High Court have ruled that the original intention of De Valera was to promote traditional marriage.
    In a December 2006 judgement in the 'KAL Case' (see below), the Irish High Court held that marriage as defined in the Irish Constitution was between a man and a woman and that there was no breach of rights in the refusal of the Revenue Commissioners to recognise foreign same-sex marriages.

    This is the same court that rules on the interpretation of the Constitution.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement