Gay Marriage (same-sex civil partnerships) ahoy!

samb

Is anyone against gay marriage, and if so why?

I think this could be a good thread. I'll watch my language.

lili

i'm for people do what they want if that doesn't affect my own life. what's the prob frankly? if they love each other, who i am for decide what they have to do of their lives?

BuffyBot

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054858959

rsynnott

Bear in mind the civil partnership and civil marriage are not quite the same things. NI will have civil partnership, (as will Ireland, if Norris' bill goes through). A few European countries have marriage, as does Massachusetts, and South Africa's high court is forcing it to adopt marriage as well.

Maskhadov

I dont want gay marriage, but im all for same sex partnership. A seperation from the religious orders should be made.

AARRRGH

I believe everyone should have the same rights and do whatever they want to do as long as they're not hurting anyone. This does not mean I believe being gay is right. But whether I think it is right or wrong, gays should be able to do whatever I do...

rsynnott

Maskhadov wrote:

I dont want gay marriage, but im all for same sex partnership. A seperation from the religious orders should be made.

Common point of confusion; marriage is not intrinsically a religious institution, at least in this country. Civil marriage, which is marriage, is nothing to do with any church. In any case, there are religious orders (at least the Unitarians and some more liberal Jewish sects) who are willing to perform gay marriages - might as well let them do it.

dublindude wrote:

But whether I think it is right or wrong,

Surely if it's not hurting anyone it can't be wrong? Am I missing something here?

lili

Maskhadov wrote:

I dont want gay marriage, but im all for same sex partnership. A seperation from the religious orders should be made.

if god is love then i don't see why homosexuals couldn't get benediction of their love. after all, they are believers like the others.
i think that religions should take in consideration that we are in the 3rd millenaire.

AARRRGH

rsynnott wrote:

Surely if it's not hurting anyone it can't be wrong? Am I missing something here?

Indeed it's not hurting anyone. But if I believe a man putting his peepee into another mans asshole is wrong, it still wouldn't stop me from letting them have the same rights as me.

gandalf

samb wrote:

Is anyone against gay marriage, and if so why?

I think this could be a good thread. I'll watch my language.

You have 24 hours to put your own opinion in this thread as per the rules. If you don't the thread will be locked.

Maskhadov

i dont really give a hoot about religion. But the word marriage seems to be associated with region. I thought the churchs would be up in arms. Still the best of luck to them. they should have equal rights as the rest of us.

The Corinthian

I’ll make an observation, if I may. A common argument being used here in favour of homosexual unions (be they civil or otherwise) is that it does not harm those not directly involved.

This may be the case, however it seems based upon the fact that people do not see a direct and immediate effect upon their lives. As an example, tax evasion could be viewed in the same light. It does not affect people in a direct and immediate manner, however if enough people evade their taxes for long enough, then the effect will eventually be felt.

This may be the case with homosexual unions, or it may not. However arguing that it causes no harm simply because you’re not directly and immediately effected is ultimately irrelevant to whether you will be harmed or not.

rsynnott

Not a good analogy, as tax evasion does clear and demonstrable harm.

Really, I think that where rights are being denied to a certain section of society, the onus is on those who wish to continue denying those rights to show why they SHOULD be denied.

pretty*monster

I personally don't think any couple, regardless of wheather they are married, co-habbiting, joined by a civil partnership, gay, or straight, should be able to avail of tax breaks unless they have children. Since it's cheaper to live as a couple than as a single person anyway there's no reason why a childless couple should get tax breaks.

That aside, gay people should be entitled to the security of marriage, and able to avail of next of kin laws and all that jazz.

I'm a little bit wary of this civil union as opposed to civil marriage distinction. If it's only the word that's different than I think there's an implied assumption of the superiority of a straight relationship, and a very petty unwillingness to let 'them' use 'our' word. And if it's more than just the word that's different, well then the fight for equality is going to have to continue.

rsynnott

pretty*monster wrote:

I'm a little bit wary of this civil union as opposed to civil marriage distinction. If it's only the word that's different than I think there's an implied assumption of the superiority of a straight relationship, and a very petty unwillingness to let 'them' use 'our' word. And if it's more than just the word that's different, well then the fight for equality is going to have to continue.

That is, to a large extent, the case. And petty isn't the word. It's beyond belief.

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

Not a good analogy, as tax evasion does clear and demonstrable harm.

It would have been a really bad analogy if it didn’t

I was trying to give an analogy of something that does not cause immediate and direct harm, yet that would still be easily demonstrable that it causes harm.

Really, I think that where rights are being denied to a certain section of society, the onus is on those who wish to continue denying those rights to show why they SHOULD be denied.

True.

rsynnott

The Corinthian wrote:

I was trying to give an analogy of something that does not cause immediate and direct harm, yet that would still be easily demonstrable that it causes harm.

Is it easily demonstrable that same-sex civil unions cause harm (besides negligible loss to the exchequer?)

lili

The Corinthian wrote:

I’ll make an observation, if I may. A common argument being used here in favour of homosexual unions (be they civil or otherwise) is that it does not harm those not directly involved.

This may be the case, however it seems based upon the fact that people do not see a direct and immediate effect upon their lives. As an example, tax evasion could be viewed in the same light. It does not affect people in a direct and immediate manner, however if enough people evade their taxes for long enough, then the effect will eventually be felt.

This may be the case with homosexual unions, or it may not. However arguing that it causes no harm simply because you’re not directly and immediately effected is ultimately irrelevant to whether you will be harmed or not.

do you think it could be a threat to the society?

damien

rsynnott wrote:

as will Ireland, if Norris' bill goes through).

There is no Norris Bill. His last "bill" got nowhere it was so moronic and was shot down as it was introduced. His bill stated marriage in all but name and for a man who argued the constitution he seemed to forget that the bill was an attack on and an undermining of marriage in this state, which has constitutional protection.

Unless there's a constitutional change (which there won't be as FG and FF have already rigged the findings of the Committee on Constitutional Change) then at most same-sex couples can have some but not all of the rights heterosexuals have. But notso for couples from NI who marry and then move down here. The Good Friday agreement says the state here has to honour the rights they had in NI.

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

Is it easily demonstrable that same-sex civil unions cause harm (besides negligible loss to the exchequer?)

That’s not the point I was making. If something is not easily demonstrable as causing harm does not mean it is not causing harm. I simply used am easily demonstrable example because easily demonstrable examples work better at illustrating points.

lili wrote:

do you think it could be a threat to the society?

Hey, I'm wasting enough time arguing with some bloke who’s one whore short of a brothel in another thread, so I’ve no intention of getting into this one in further.

You kids can figure this one out.

rsynnott

lili wrote:

do you think it could be a threat to the society?

Do you have any reason to suppose that it is? Few nations who have adopted a civil union system have collapsed in chaos due to crazed homosexuals roaming the streets, looting, raping and killing.

The thing is that there are (gasp, shock, horror) already long-term same-sex couples. Civil unions will simply give them access to a set of benefits which their straight counterparts already have access to. These are fundamental enough - the right to inherit without being taxed on it, the right to be treated as a couple for tax free purposes, and by far the most important, the right to be named as next of kin. There have been cases where the long-term partner is excluded from their partner's deathbed and funeral because the family disapprove of them being homosexual.

In response to the Corinthian, yes, it is possible that same-sex civil unions will cause harm somewhere. Any societal change, or change of any sort, carries some risk of causing harm. I would submit, however, that in the case of same-sex civil union, the risk of societal harm (and no-one has, as far as I've seen, been able to bring forward convincing possibilities for said harm) is vastly outweighed by the benefits of the introduction of such an institution.

What upstanding stalwart of Fine Gael once told the nation, and within the past 15 years mind, that he simply could not understand how one person would have such a fascination with another person's back passage...:eek:

rsynnott

Deleted User wrote:

What upstanding stalwart of Fine Gael once told the nation, and within the past 15 years mind, that he simply could not understand how one person would have such a fascination with another person's back passage...:eek:

Oh, few of the mainstream political parties are entirely innocent of this sort of thing.

Perhaps, but there was one particularly odious character - some guy from Louth afaik...

samb

My opinion is that gay marriage is fine. Nobody has made any sort of argument against it yet.

Daithio

I think that most people's problem with gay marriage has to do with a deep entrenched notion that marriage, by definition, is the union of a man and a woman. Not a man and a man, nor a woman or a woman. This is probably because for most of us marriage began as a concept in our minds with religious overtones, and to get away from those influences is pretty difficult. So I think it's fair enough to call gay marriages civil unions for the mean time rather than actual marriages. This is not intended to offend anybody, nor is it any decree about the rightness or wrongess of gay marriage, but merely a way of giving people time to adjust to the new concept of what marriage is; a union of two people, regardless of what sex they are.

lazydaisy

Just wait for gay divorce and gay custody battles. That will be a trip.

ArthurDent

lazydaisy wrote:

Just wait for gay divorce and gay custody battles. That will be a trip.

Course heterosexual ones are just great crack.:eek: :rolleyes:
Breakdown of relationships especially when there is property or kids involved has any number of ways to turn nasty, I'm pretty sure very few (if any) have to do with your sexuality

Cronus333

damien.m wrote:

There is no Norris Bill. His last "bill" got nowhere it was so moronic and was shot down as it was introduced. His bill stated marriage in all but name and for a man who argued the constitution he seemed to forget that the bill was an attack on and an undermining of marriage in this state, which has constitutional protection.

Unless there's a constitutional change (which there won't be as FG and FF have already rigged the findings of the Committee on Constitutional Change) then at most same-sex couples can have some but not all of the rights heterosexuals have. But notso for couples from NI who marry and then move down here. The Good Friday agreement says the state here has to honour the rights they had in NI.

we protect 'the family' and I think marraige, but no specifics were made....

lazydaisy

It often has to do with your gender - who gets the house, who raises the kids, who pays the child maintenance. Who is the mom and who is the dad.

rsynnott

lazydaisy wrote:

It often has to do with your gender - who gets the house, who raises the kids, who pays the child maintenance. Who is the mom and who is the dad.

Bear in mind that few, if any, gay couples will have kids. Even assuming it's allowed, adoption certainly won't be a mainstream thing. And to be honest, it'll be decided like it is, or at least should be, for heterosexual couples - who has been doing most of the child raising up to this point?

Also, "mom" is a hideous Americanism.

Freelancer

The Corinthian wrote:

I simply used am easily demonstrable example because easily demonstrable examples work better at illustrating points..

But it's a false analogy. Tax evasion by another does hurt me. The evader is not contributing their share to society. Not only are they gaining the benefits in living in a contributory society (roads, protection, health care etc) but they are not paying their fair share towards the upkeep of these services, therefore forcing the rest of society to pay more to make up the shortfall.

But rysnott has already pointed this out. If you can give a demostrable example of a manner in which homosexual couples could cause harm, I'd be interested to hear it.

lazydaisy

Its usually the MOM who gets the kids. [Mom being a hideous americanism is your opinion and irrelevant to the topic and I'll keep using it just because you're being a snob about it. I guess youd prefer MAMMY or is MUMSY better?].

Gay couples having kids is already happening. And there are more ways than adoption - surrogacy, sperm donation, etc.

rsynnott

lazydaisy wrote:

Its usually the MOM who gets the kids. [Mom being a hideous americanism is your opinion and irrelevant to the topic and I'll keep using it just because you're being a snob about it. I guess youd prefer MAMMY or is MUMSY better?].

Gay couples having kids is already happening. And there are more ways than adoption - surrogacy, sperm donation, etc.

Yes, some gay couples will have children. This is not a big issue. Custody will presumably go to the parent who is considered most capable, and is most experienced in raising the children. For heterosexual couples this is usually the mother, thus the mother usually gets custody. There's nothing mysterious about this, and it should not be a reason to oppose gay civil union or marriage.

SexeeAussie

I think it's a good thing....we are just introducing legislation in my City(territory) regarding same sex relationships.....

http://chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.asp?media=927&id=927&section=24&title=Jon%20Stanhope,%20MLA

Love is something that you cannot quantify or control, if people love each other, they love each other. It is a good thing that they will be recognised as being a legally 'attached' couple. I am pleased :-)

The Corinthian

Freelancer wrote:

But it's a false analogy. Tax evasion by another does hurt me. The evader is not contributing their share to society. Not only are they gaining the benefits in living in a contributory society (roads, protection, health care etc) but they are not paying their fair share towards the upkeep of these services, therefore forcing the rest of society to pay more to make up the shortfall.

This does not explain why it was a false analogy.

But rysnott has already pointed this out.

Pointed what out? You’ve not actually pointed anything out.

If you can give a demonstrable example of a manner in which homosexual couples could cause harm, I'd be interested to hear it.

It was never my intention to give an example of a manner in which homosexual couples could cause harm. It was simply my intention to point out that harm can sometime not be immediate and direct by using an example that showed easily demonstrable harm that was not immediate and direct.

Freelancer

The Corinthian wrote:

This does not explain why it was a false analogy.

Because tax evasion does hurt me directly.

Pointed what out? You’ve not actually pointed anything out.

It was never my intention to give an example of a manner in which homosexual couples could cause harm. It was simply my intention to point out that harm can sometime not be immediate and direct by using an example that showed easily demonstrable harm that was not immediate and direct.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm A number of people havee pointed out tax evasion has a real and immediate effect on our lives. Suggesting that you should not be in favour of homosexual unions being legalised because of a potential imaginary harm, that you don't even know in what manner it could cause harm is like not leaving the house because you are afraid of being attacked by a monogol horde, unless you can show evidence that such a horde exists theres little point being worried about it.

The Corinthian

Freelancer wrote:

Because tax evasion does hurt me directly.

Tax evasion does not hurt you directly. If someone evades tax they are not taking money out of your bank account or wallet. However, because for the shortfall they generate, either services funded by tax revenue will suffer or your tax rate will be increased to compensate. This is an indirect effect - the effect is the result of the knock on effects of the original act, not the act itself.

Hmmm A number of people havee pointed out tax evasion has a real and immediate effect on our lives.

I made the point to begin with because it was evident that a number of people don’t know what an indirect effect is. Including you.

Suggesting that you should not be in favour of homosexual unions being legalised because of a potential imaginary harm, that you don't even know in what manner it could cause harm is like not leaving the house because you are afraid of being attacked by a monogol horde, unless you can show evidence that such a horde exists theres little point being worried about it.

Again, I’ve never suggested anything of the sort and my argument could be applied to any sociological discussion. People suggested that there was no direct harm and I suggested that they don’t ignore the possibility of indirect harm. End of story.

If there’s not, then good for you. But I would suggest you stop jumping to conclusions.

rsynnott

The Corinthian wrote:

Again, I’ve never suggested anything of the sort and my argument could be applied to any sociological discussion. People suggested that there was no direct harm and I suggested that they don’t ignore the possibility of indirect harm. End of story.

So, FUD, then? You can't suggest any specific possible indirect harm?

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

So, FUD, then? You can't suggest any specific possible indirect harm?

FUD? No - perhaps you should take the tin foil hat off now.

samb

The Corinthian wrote:

I’ll make an observation, if I may. A common argument being used here in favour of homosexual unions (be they civil or otherwise) is that it does not harm those not directly involved.

This may be the case, however it seems based upon the fact that people do not see a direct and immediate effect upon their lives. As an example, tax evasion could be viewed in the same light. It does not affect people in a direct and immediate manner, however if enough people evade their taxes for long enough, then the effect will eventually be felt.

This may be the case with homosexual unions, or it may not. However arguing that it causes no harm simply because you’re not directly and immediately effected is ultimately irrelevant to whether you will be harmed or not.

Anyone with half a brain can see why tax evasion is wrong, so the analogy is rubbish. Nobody has yet came up with any significant harm Gay marriage could cause, direct or indirect. Anyway, I can't find any posts below, that concentrated solely on the lack of direct adverese effects.

The purpose of this thread was to tease out why so many people have a problem with it. This has not yet happened at all, hopefully because those opposed are older and less computer literate

murphaph

samb wrote:

...hopefully because those opposed are older and less computer literate

...or younger and just less literate!

The Corinthian

samb wrote:

Anyone with half a brain can see why tax evasion is wrong, so the analogy is rubbish.

Analogy with what? Are you suggesting I was creating an analogy with homosexuality or with indirect effect or harm? If you picked the former you’re not paying attention. And without resorting to finger puppets I really don’t know how better to explain the latter to you, TBH.

Of course anyone with half a brain can see why tax evasion is wrong - that’s the point of picking a simple analogy as it makes a good example. Which, just in case you have the memory of a goldfish, was an example of indirect effect or harm. Not homosexuality.

If you prefer I could have picked a complex example which is more open to debate?

Nobody has yet came up with any significant harm Gay marriage could cause, direct or indirect.

Give the boy a cigar, he got something right.

Anyway, I can't find any posts below, that concentrated solely on the lack of direct adverese effects.

The following concentrated on the rather simplistic “if it doesn’t harm/affect me, it can’t be bad” argument - none suggested anything other than direct effect or harm:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50512254&postcount=2
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50514024&postcount=6
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50514030&postcount=7

The purpose of this thread was to tease out why so many people have a problem with it. This has not yet happened at all, hopefully because those opposed are older and less computer literate

I suspect that it has more to do with being flamed. I have throughout this thread simply pointed out that people had been a little simplistic. I made no judgement myself, either way. For my troubles I’ve had one induhvidual after another convinced that I was in some way debating against homosexual unions, when in reality they don’t appear to be able to understand what I actually did say.

I blame either it’s too much MTV or pollution from Sellafield.

samb

The following concentrated on the rather simplistic “if it doesn’t harm/affect me, it can’t be bad” argument - none suggested anything other than direct effect or harm
fair enough, I hadn't seen them.

Your analogy is not good because the effects of tax evasion are fairly direct, less cash for exchequer. I suppose it depends on your definition of direct. On a scale of one-to-ten (ten being very direct), I would put tax evasion being direct, 6 maybe.

Please don't be so patronising, it did seem like you were trying to imply that gay marriage has indirect harmfull effects.

The Corinthian

samb wrote:

Your analogy is not good because the effects of tax evasion are fairly direct, less cash for exchequer. I suppose it depends on your definition of direct. On a scale of one-to-ten (ten being very direct), I would put tax evasion being direct, 6 maybe.

Obvious is not the same as direct. As you said yourself, anyone with half a brain can see why tax evasion is wrong - however this does not make the harm it does direct. Indeed it is the knock on effects of the loss in government revenues that causes the harm - decrease in services, increase in taxation to compensate - and not the evasion itself. No one is robbing you directly. This is one of the reasons that tax evasion has often been seen as victimless crime in Ireland.

I could have used a more obtuse example - how bombing poppy fields results in higher violent crime in Western cities, or how the introduction of simple contraceptives will lead to an increase in both unwanted pregnancies and STI’s (both of which are debatable - but don’t bother engaging me on them now), but given the vitriol that even a simple, obvious example has engendered, it would have been a bad idea, to say the least.

Please don't be so patronising, it did seem like you were trying to imply that gay marriage has indirect harmfull effects.

I can see how someone could have interpreted that, but only if they did not tolerate the slightest dissention. And if I am patronising, well - you don’t jump to conclusions and I won’t be patronising.

Nevyn

Cronus333 wrote:

we protect 'the family'

But what is family is not clearly defined in the consititution nor are the genders
of who may make up a married couple. It mentioned them being fit for marriage but does not define what that is,
one would assume that the catholic standard was applied but it is not stated in the consitituation and as we are ment to be
a republic with a seperation of church and state assumptions of catholic and
christian norms can not be accepted and actual legal state definations are needed.

lazydaisy wrote:

It often has to do with your gender - who gets the house, who raises the kids, who pays the child maintenance. Who is the mom and who is the dad.

Family law in this country needs to be reformed for all parents regaurdless of
thier gender and sexual preferences, custody should be jointly awarded or
awarded in the best intrest of the child and it can not be assumed that is by matter of default to be the child's mother.
But heavens above tis happens and we have childrens advocates looking out for the needs of children in this country

rsynnott

To The Corinthian - So, your talk of non-obvious consequences is nothing to do with gay marriage? You might want to consider going back on topic, then.

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

To The Corinthian - So, your talk of non-obvious consequences is nothing to do with gay marriage? You might want to consider going back on topic, then.

It was on topic. You just didn't understand how. But that's not my problem.

rsynnott

The Corinthian wrote:

It was on topic. You just didn't understand how. But that's not my problem.

Has it or has it not got anything to do with gay marriages, the topic on hand. If it has, it is an obvious attempt at FUD; if it hasn't, it is clearly off-topic.

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

Has it or has it not got anything to do with gay marriages, the topic on hand. If it has, it is an obvious attempt at FUD; if it hasn't, it is clearly off-topic.

People were debating a topic that, TBH, I don't have particularly strong opinions on either way. However, call me pedantic, but I found that people were being a little simplistic and superficial in their approach to the debate. If people are going to suggest a pretty major sociological change, I think it quite reasonable that they be asked to look closely rather than go with an initial reaction. It also makes for an interesting discussion, which is more to the point.

Now from your own, from what I can see rather paranoid, perspective this was an attempt to create Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Of course, FUD only really comes into play if you’re too stupid to work out things for yourself - that is to say, if by placing another layer of questioning the audience will decide it’s too complex to work out and you’re better off erring on the side of caution.

Now you can take from that what you will. As I’ve already pointed out, it is not my problem. But it was a reasonable addendum to the debate and not meant to mislead, but expand it.

samb

The Corinthian wrote:

People were debating a topic that, TBH, I don't have particularly strong opinions on either way. However, call me pedantic, but I found that people were being a little simplistic and superficial in their approach to the debate. If people are going to suggest a pretty major sociological change, I think it quite reasonable that they be asked to look closely rather than go with an initial reaction. It also makes for an interesting discussion, which is more to the point.

Your analogy was relevant but not good. tax evasion to me is fairly direct, and I find it hard to believe people really thought it was victimless. Anyway, we'll agree to disagree about how good it was and move on.

Why would gay marriage or civil unions be or cause a ''pretty major sociological change''? I think it would simply facitilitate and acknowledge a sociological reality and incourage equality.