Gay marriage

taibhse

So they banned gay marriage in California again so no more mano on mano married action.

So what do people think, should it be legalised in Ireland? I'm straight but I think all people should have the same rights. Why should people be able to tell others you dont have the same rights as me?

Is this not the same as black people being second class citizens or women not being able to vote.

What do people think

jill_valentine

I'm all for gay marriage. I mean, there's no logical reason to oppose it.

Gummy Panda

LGB forum that way ==>

Clare Bear

I think it should be legalised here but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

philologos

I'm opposed to changing anything about marriage and it's definition, however I do encourage the proposed civil partnership legislation.

Randi

taibhse wrote: »

So they banned gay marriage in California again so no more mano on mano married action.

So what do people think, should it be legalised in Ireland? I'm straight but I think all people should have the same rights. Why should people be able to tell others you dont have the same rights as me?

Is this not the same as black people being second class citizens or women not being able to vote.

What do people think

Yeah I totally agree, it should be legalised over here. What difference does it make if gay people get married??? Its not like gay people can have kids together beside adopt. Its a pity not everyone sees it in the same way as you mentioned above, maybe one day it'll come about.......

SoupyNorman

Gummy Panda wrote: »

LGB forum that way ==>

Is it not ==><== That way?

jill_valentine

A hundred bazillion euro says that at some point in this thread, somebody will say "Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN!" as if that settles it.

philologos

Well I do believe that jill_valentine, and that's what I meant by my last point. I don't see why we need to change what marriage currently is to make a point. Civil partnerships are a perfect alternative. Infact if they wish LGBT couples can define their partnerships as marriage, I don't know why we need a legislative decision to make this the case.

4Xcut

taibhse wrote: »

So they banned gay marriage in California again so no more mano on mano married action.

So what do people think, should it be legalised in Ireland? I'm straight but I think all people should have the same rights. Why should people be able to tell others you dont have the same rights as me?

Is this not the same as black people being second class citizens or women not being able to vote.

What do people think

Just out of curiosity, was this a retro active law which nullified previous ga marraiges.

Randi

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm opposed to changing anything about marriage and it's definition, however I do encourage the proposed civil partnership legislation.

Get with the times. Its all heading that way anyways. And the definition of marriage in most cases states that its a "couple" and "Individual" not man and woman.

JBoyle4eva

I'm gay, so you should all know my opinion........





For those still wanting to know, I'd support it :P

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm opposed to changing anything about marriage and it's definition

There is no rational reason for you to say this, so I'm going to assume it has something to do with the Bible?

jill_valentine

4Xcut wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, was this a retro active law which nullified previous ga marraiges.

There's some dispute over whether gay marriages that have already taken place still stand, but yes, the ban rolled back on something that was already in place. The exact wording was:

"Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry."

Imagine being presented with a situation where you're being asked to "eliminate" a "right", and clicking "Yes."

I don't understand people sometimes.

taibhse

4Xcut wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, was this a retro active law which nullified previous ga marraiges.

yeah afaik the people who got married will no longer be seen as such in the eyes of the law

Gauge

jill_valentine wrote: »

Imagine being presented with a situation where you're being asked to "eliminate" a "right", and clicking "Yes."

I don't understand people sometimes.

This. Human rights shouldn't be put to a vote.

taibhse

Gauge wrote: »

This. Human rights shouldn't be put to a vote.

yeah of course they shouldn't be at the moment there is nothing in Irish law to legalise a couple so that is what the question is. IMO it should be legal as even civil partnerships don't confer all the same advantages of marriage so its still discriminating against people

Prof.Badass

I think all state recognition of marraige should be abolished.

Marraige is a religious thing, nothing to do with the state.

However i do think a child is best off living with non-changing parental figures of both sexes (where possible), and the state should encourage this.

2 things need to happen.

1. men need to be given equal rights to women when it comes to child rearing.

2. The state should give the same amount of money to all people raising children.


Marraige really is between a man and a woman, that's the way it's always been.
You can raise children and recieve benifits all you want, just please don't say you're "married".

btw, i'm not religious at all, i just think state recognition of something religious is kinda dumb.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

vinylmesh wrote: »

Marraige really is between a man and a woman, that's the way it's always been.
You can raise children and recieve benifits all you want, just please don't say you're "married".

And there we go...narrow minded illogical bigotry dressed up as reasonable debate.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

philologos

jill_valentine wrote: »

Imagine being presented with a situation where you're being asked to "eliminate" a "right", and clicking "Yes."

It's not about eliminating a right. It's about society determining the terms of a marriage when it is coming under a challenge. The question is as stands, is a LGBT relationship the same as a heterosexual one. I personally would disagree as a child can never come through the purposes of LGBT biologically, whereas it can in a straight relationship. It also raises other questions such as are we willing to change the family unit, and if we do will there be difficulties to be seen in the future with how children feel about their identity not knowing their parents etc. Mind you the same could be argued for adoption. I just don't think it's as simplex as people make out. A decision like this does have the capacity to affect society as a whole.

Carturo

taibhse wrote: »

So they banned gay marriage in California again so no more mano on mano married action.

So what do people think, should it be legalised in Ireland? I'm straight but I think all people should have the same rights. Why should people be able to tell others you dont have the same rights as me?

Is this not the same as black people being second class citizens or women not being able to vote.

What do people think

There may not be a reason to oppose it but there's also no need for it imo.

Oh and it's mano e mano.

Ass

It shouldn't be decided by our government. It should be decided by what ever religious body the marriage is taking part under if it is a religious marriage.


Homo's should be allowed to marry each other in a civil marriage.

Steve

I think civil partnership is OK.

Don't know about gay marriage though, wouldn't it just cause lots of fights over who gets to wear the dress?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

SteveC wrote: »

I think civil partnership is OK.

Don't know about gay marriage though, wouldn't it just cause lots of fights over who gets to wear the dress?

I did always wonder what would happen if two lipstick lesbians showed up in the same thing. Would someone have to go home and change or would they just avoid each other for the day?

Davidius

Give it all the same benefits as marriage but don't call it marriage?

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally would disagree as a child can never come through the purposes of LGBT biologically, whereas it can in a straight relationship.

Exactly! We do not allow old people or sterile couples to marry for the very same reason.

Randi

vinylmesh wrote: »

Marraige really is between a man and a woman, that's the way it's always been.
You can raise children and recieve benifits all you want, just please don't say you're "married".

The same could be said for the new US president, all the presidents before him were white, "thats the way it always had been" so you were on of these people who didnt want a black president. so thats what your saying, thats bull. If I want to be able to get married I should be able to, bet you wouldn't like it if you couldn't call your relationship Married.

Think it's time something was done about this in Ireland, maybe all the people For gay marriage should get together and organize something.

jill_valentine

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not about eliminating a right. It's about society determining the terms of a marriage when it is coming under a challenge. The question is as stands, is a LGBT relationship the same as a heterosexual one. I personally would disagree as a child can never come through the purposes of LGBT biologically, whereas it can in a straight relationship. It also raises other questions such as are we willing to change the family unit, and if we do will there be difficulties to be seen in the future with how children feel about their identity not knowing their parents etc. Mind you the same could be argued for adoption. I just don't think it's as simplex as people make out. A decision like this does have the capacity to affect society as a whole.

In California, it was already recognised as a right. Which is what I was referring to. It was a right, and it has been eliminated.

I'm not saying religious groups should have to recognise gay marriages, they can fail to recognise gravity if they want, that's up to them. But they are actively imposing their own religious mores on the rest of their community. In California, they actually had the front to claim that their rights were being impinged by gay weddings, which blows my f**king mind.

But ethically and governmentally, there is no good reason why a straight marriage and a gay marriage shouldn't look exactly the same in the eyes of the law. Marriage, big M.

Anything else, anything less is an attempt to fob the gay community off so they won't keep trying for "real" marriage. Although how somebody else's marriage is supposed to have a blind bit of influence on mine is beyond me. Civil Partnership isn't the same damn thing as a marriage.

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

Well I do believe that jill_valentine, and that's what I meant by my last point. I don't see why we need to change what marriage currently is to make a point.

Christian marriage is indeed between a man and a woman, and no-one is trying to change that. However there is no reason to impose the Christian interpretation of marriage on state recognised marriages in a secular country such as Ireland.

Christianity did not invent marriage and through history there have been numerous societies which have permitted same-sex unions, such as ancient Greence and Rome. It is not as if marriage has always been between man and woman and that the idea of gay marriage is a modern phenonenon which is desecrating this age old institution.

If anything Christianity has desecrated the act of marriage by imposing its narrow minded beliefs on an act which originally permitted gay unions.

jaffa20

I see Catholic Ireland is still alive and well.:rolleyes: Marriage or civil partnership, who cares As long we have the same rights, the former is only a name for a couple that have vowed to stay together.

jill_valentine

Davidius wrote: »

Give it all the same benefits as marriage but don't call it marriage?

I don't know about this, to be honest.

It would be a step, a big step, but so long as a society still needs to differentiate between a "Marriage" and "You know, one of those things gay people have instead of our Marriages", then that society is still making it very clear that it doesn't consider gay couples to be equal citizens.

They have to have their own laws to cater for them, as though their marriages and our ones couldn't share the same playpen safely... Might give our ones funny ideas and that.

philologos

jill_valentine wrote: »

In California, it was already recognised as a right. Which is what I was referring to. It was a right, and it has been eliminated.

I would argue that the Supreme Court never had the right to overturn the peoples mandate on the decision of marriage. All constitutional decisions should be brought to referendum, it's clear what the people of California, Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida think of the issue following November 4th.

Prof.Badass

Brenna Unkempt Bathroom wrote: »

And there we go...narrow minded illogical bigotry dressed up as reasonable debate.

My whole point was that marraige sould be abolished, and left as a religious thing. It's discrimination against single people to give money to people purely for just being a couple.

Saying you're married is disrespectful towards those whom marraige means a lot more (sorry, but it does, they're blind religion freaks, it means more to them, deal with it).

let them have their "marraige" what difference does it make to you?

philologos

jaffa20 wrote: »

I see Catholic Ireland is still alive and well.:rolleyes: Marriage or civil partnership, who cares As long we have the same rights, the former is only a name for a couple that have vowed to stay together.

It's nothing to do with Catholic Ireland (It'd be strange to say so considering I consider myself Christian but not Catholic), it's to do with how best we can manage the future. This is relatively unchartered territory we are entering into especially when it potentially could change the way families could live for the next series of generations. It's only fair that we give it proper consideration.

jill_valentine

Jakkass wrote: »

I would argue that the Supreme Court never had the right to overturn the peoples mandate on the decision of marriage.

My understanding was that the Constitutional attitude to marriage had simply been re-interpreted by the State of California. No changes needed to be made, as such.

philologos

jill_valentine wrote: »

My understanding was that the Constitutional attitude to marriage had simply been re-interpreted by the State of California. No changes needed to be made, as such.

A previous vote had been done on the topic with the majority choosing to define it as man and a woman, then the Californian Supreme Court overturned it saying it was an unfair decision. Now after this they decided to seek the mandate of the people again to see if this was what the people agreed with. Well you now know the result it wasn't, and Proposition 8 was passed.

jaffa20

Jakkass wrote: »

it's to do with how best we can manage the future. This is relatively unchartered territory we are entering into especially when it potentially could change the way families could live for the next series of generations. It's only fair that we give it proper consideration.

That is ridiculous. The main thing you are worried about is adoption and that if we obtain rights for marriage that adoption will eventually be passed. We have to move with the times. If a child needs to be adopted, it will be brought up and cared for in a loving home. Of course, they could catch a dose of the gheyness. We wouldn't want that!

jill_valentine

I laughed my ass off at this, I have to say:

You Can Forget My Taxes
by Melissa Etheridge

Okay. So Prop 8 passed. Alright, I get it. 51% of you think that I am a second class citizen. Alright then. So my wife, uh I mean, roommate? Girlfriend? Special lady friend? You are gonna have to help me here because I am not sure what to call her now. Anyways, she and I are not allowed the same right under the state constitution as any other citizen. Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen. I mean that would just be wrong, to make someone pay taxes and not give them the same rights, sounds sort of like that taxation without representation thing from the history books.

Okay, cool I don't mean to get too personal here but there is a lot I can do with the extra half a million dollars that I will be keeping instead of handing it over to the state of California. Oh, and I am sure Ellen will be a little excited to keep her bazillion bucks that she pays in taxes too. Wow, come to think of it, there are quite a few of us fortunate gay folks that will be having some extra cash this year. What recession? We're gay! I am sure there will be a little box on the tax forms now single, married, divorced, gay, check here if you are gay, yeah, that's not so bad. Of course all of the waiters and hairdressers and UPS workers and gym teachers and such, they won't have to pay their taxes either.


Oh and too bad California, I know you were looking forward to the revenue from all of those extra marriages. I guess you will have to find some other way to get out of the budget trouble you are in.

...Really?

When did it become okay to legislate morality? I try to envision someone reading that legislation "eliminates the right" and then clicking yes. What goes through their mind? Was it the frightening commercial where the little girl comes home and says, "Hi mom, we learned about gays in class today" and then the mother gets that awful worried look and the scary music plays? Do they not know anyone who is gay? If they do, can they look them in the face and say "I believe you do not deserve the same rights as me"? Do they think that their children will never encounter a gay person? Do they think they will never have to explain the 20% of us who are gay and living and working side by side with all the citizens of California?

I got news for them, someday your child is going to come home and ask you what a gay person is. Gay people are born everyday. You will never legislate that away.

I know when I grew up gay was a bad word. Homo, lezzie, ******, dyke. Ignorance and fear ruled the day. There were so many "thems" back then. The blacks, the poor ... you know, "them". Then there was the immigrants. "Them." Now the them is me.

I tell myself to take a breath, okay take another one, one of the *thems* made it to the top. Obama has been elected president. This crazy fearful insanity will end soon. This great state and this great country of ours will finally come to the understanding that there is no "them". We are one. We are united. What you do to someone else you do to yourself. That "judge not, lest ye yourself be judged" are truthful words and not Christian rhetoric.

Today the gay citizenry of this state will pick themselves up and dust themselves off and do what we have been doing for years. We will get back into it. We love this state, we love this country and we are not going to leave it. Even though we could be married in Mass. or Conn, Canada, Holland, Spain and a handful of other countries, this is our home. This is where we work and play and raise our families. We will not rest until we have the full rights of any other citizen. It is that simple, no fearful vote will ever stop us, that is not the American way.

Come to think of it, I should get a federal tax break too...

EDIT: Damn, I thought I was all clever with my post earlier on, looks like I just completely stole from this. Sorry all.

philologos

I honestly don't think a man can replace a mother, or a woman replace a father. I don't see the need in going any further than civil partnerships.

Caoimhín

I dont care either way thb. What harm would it do if it was allowed?
Life is too short to get worked up over little things like that.

jill_valentine

Jakkass wrote: »

I honestly don't think a man can replace a mother, or a woman replace a father.

But that doesn't matter, does it? I mean, there's plenty of single parents raising their kids right now, and the world hasn't flown off it's axis into the sun just yet.

So long as a kid is healthy, happy, and has a basic understanding of right and wrong, then who cares who gave them those things? There's plenty of kids who never get that chance.

That's a slightly separate issue though, I digress.

Zillah

I always think of this when I hear people making terrible arguments against gay marriage.

1 - Being gay is not natural. We* always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2 - Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3 - Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4 - Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5 - Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6 - Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

7 - Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8 - Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

9 - Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10 - Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

*This originally said "Americans".

marcsignal

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm opposed to changing anything about marriage and it's definition, however I do encourage the proposed civil partnership legislation.

+1

Gay couples should have exactly the same rights as hetrosexual couples do, in terms of civil law/civil union entitlements etc. but i cant help feeling there's an element of immaturity, poor discretion, and just 'wanting to have a poke at the church' in there in terms of some of the 'demands' being made regarding gay marriages

I don't want it to sound like i think gay people are 'immature, dirty and/or sinful' or any crap like that, but I've always believed you can do most anything you want in this world without any hassle, as long as you are discreet and do it with dignity.

Fozzie Bear

jill_valentine wrote: »

A hundred bazillion euro says that at some point in this thread, somebody will say "Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN!" as if that settles it.

MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN!!!!


Wheres my hundred Bazillion euro?


No problem with Gay marriage. I have a gay brother and friends and they don't all have acid for blood or act all Ghey in front of ya as your eating your cornflakes in the morning! No idea why people (apart from religious nutjobs) have such issues with them to be honest. Live and let live.....

Dudess

Yeah, don't see why gay marriage shouldn't be - doesn't affect me in the slightest, don't see how anyone could be any different. If they're really religious maybe, but they don't have the right to impose their views on the greater society.

And it wouldn't be a poke at the church by same sex couples. I can get married but it won't be in a church.

I will say though, Jakkass is a christian and is entitled to his views, which he's putting across in an intelligent, reasoned, civilised manner, so he doesn't deserve anyone dismissing him or taking digs at him.

jill_valentine

Fozzie Bear wrote: »

MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A MAN AND A WOMAN!!!!


Wheres my hundred Bazillion euro?


No problem with Gay marriage. I have a gay brother and friends and they don't all have acid for blood or act all Ghey in front of ya as your eating your cornflakes in the morning!

"Ah, lads, can ye not give it a rest for a few hours? This is a food preparation area, for Christ's sake..."

bluto63

Ok, someone clarify this for me: Is the only difference between marriage and civil partnership recognition from the church? Or are there some rights involved as well?
If it's just the recognition from the church, gay people will not be allowed to marry. But so what? What's the point of getting the thumbs up from a group of people who hate you for the person you love?

To me, the only thing that's holding off equal rights is the adoption of children. And I haven't fully decided my position on that. I wouldn't have thought having the same sex parents would interfere with the upbringing of a child

Holsten

Yes it should.

Let the gays marry.

philologos

jill_valentine wrote: »

But that doesn't matter, does it? I mean, there's plenty of single parents raising their kids right now, and the world hasn't flown off it's axis into the sun just yet.

So long as a kid is healthy, happy, and has a basic understanding of right and wrong, then who cares who gave them those things? There's plenty of kids who never get that chance.

That's a slightly separate issue though, I digress.

Arguably not as well as how they would be raised with a mother and a father. It does matter. Kids should have the right to have a father and a mother. Unless perhaps in LGBT situations where adoption is practised the biological father could have a right to contact the child? That is arguably not as good either.

A child has the right to know his or her biological father and mother. We should definitely care.

irlbloke

why not, who is it going to hurt?