Should gay marriage be legal in Ireland?

O'TOOLE79

In my opinion without a doubt, I mean its absolute nonsense that in the 21st century a religous nut from the sticks in some backwater in Ireland can restrict the freedom of a person who lives hundreds of miles away.

I'm not gay and if I seen two gay guys I might have a little snigger to myself on the odd occassion but when it comes down to it I fully support same sex marriage.

I have added a poll, please give me some faith in the people of this country because sometimes I just don't know.:rolleyes:

Random

It's not that it should be legal .. it's more a case of it shouldn't be illegal.

What 2 people want to do is up to them.

Dennis the Stone

Yes.

mikemac

Civil Partnership - Yes
Marriage - hell no!

thelordofcheese

Godamn it, yes.

There isn't a single good reason as to why it shouldn't.

aoibhebree

mikemac wrote: »

Marriage - hell no!

But why do you think that? Religious reasons?

smk89

if 2 people want to enter a partnership resulting in extreme unhappyness i dont think we should stop them

galwayrush

Why marriage? Civil partnerships are recognised and legal, surely that's enough.

thelordofcheese

mikemac wrote: »

Civil Partnership - Yes
Marriage - hell no!

Hey, the 60's called. They wanted to let you know that 'separate but equal' is a really terrible idea.

The_Minister

I posted this (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html) in the thread for the Expand your Horizons forum, and I think it asks some good questions regarding gay marraige and it's introduction. (It looks really long, if you look at the sidebar - but that's mostly comments)

Overall, I'm in favour of it, but I don't see it as 'disgraceful' or 'backward' that we don't have it, and I don't look down on people who disagree with it.

Oh, and opposition to gay marriage is not just to do with religion. Or bigotry.
There are valid sociological concerns regarding messing around with marriage and how it is constituted.

nehcola

Yes!

Sleipnir

Random wrote: »

It's not that it should be legal .. it's more a case of it shouldn't be illegal.

What 2 people want to do is up to them.

Meh, the church is a club and makes up rules for its members to follow. If they don't want gay people to marry within the church then that's up to them. Why try to force them to? They spent a long time forcing people to do thing and now we think it's right to the the same to them? I say let them have their crazy religion.

Civil partnerships for gay people should be allowed. Immediately, and with the same legal rights as married heteros.

AlmightyCushion

No. The problem is when two gay guys get married they'll then start having gay kids. Then before you know it the gayness will spread like wild fire.

Vinta81

Yes.

mateo

galwayrush wrote: »

Why marriage? Civil partnerships are recognised and legal, surely that's enough.

They are not the same. Civil unions do not offer the same privileges.

mikemac

Sleipnir wrote: »

Civil partnerships for gay people should be allowed. Immediately, and with the same legal rights as married heteros.

I would agree.

thelordofcheese wrote: »

Hey, the 60's called. They wanted to let you know that 'separate but equal' is a really terrible idea.

I've only heard of separate but equal rights to do with civil rights in America which ain't the topic of this thread and that went in 1954, not the 1960's!

shenanigans1982

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

No. The problem is when two gay guys get married they'll then start having gay kids. Then before you know it the gayness will spread like wild fire.

Thats the negative side, on the plus side if two camp ghey's get married one will assume the role of the wife and remain indoors thus reducing the amount of annoying campness inflicted upon normal non camp people.

thelordofcheese

Sleipnir wrote: »

Meh, the church is a club and makes up rules for its members to follow. If they don't want gay people to marry within the church then that's up to them. Why try to force them to? They spent a long time forcing people to do thing and now we think it's right to the the same to them? I say let them have their crazy religion.

Civil partnerships for gay people should be allowed. Immediately, and with the same legal rights as married heteros.

*ahem* There is a legal marriage which means something, and a religious one, which means diddlysquat. The former is the one we're concerned with.

though as to your reasoning, Fuck that noise, the church (any church) does not own the word marriage or dictate how it gets to be applied.

thelordofcheese

mikemac wrote: »

If you're referring to civil rights in America which ain't the topic of this thread then "seperate but equal" went in 1954, not the 1960's!

the Civil rights act of 1964 wants a word with you.

Also, it is very much the topic as people who advocate civil partnerships for same sex couples are making the exact same bullshit excuses as the original proponents of 'seperate but equal'.

mikemac

O'TOOLE79 wrote: »

In my opinion without a doubt, I mean its absolute nonsense that in the 21st century a religous nut from the sticks in some backwater in Ireland can restrict the freedom of a person who lives hundreds of miles away.

Cool, that's your opinion

O'TOOLE79 wrote: »

I have added a poll, please give me some faith in the people of this country because sometimes I just don't know.:rolleyes:

OP, I've started threads in this forum, in fact I started one 20 minutes ago before a mod moved it to a more appropiate forum.
And in my opinion you can't realy start a poll and then add a sarcastic line about everyone who will disagree with you. Poor form if nothing else

But it's done anyway, and it's an interesting topic

markok84

This video was posted around the time of the Miss America debacle, I found it interesting, and I like cartoons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zbpDe_QhS0

Mac Masters

I think they should be allowed! It's aload of crap that some people feel that they should deny others this right. We say we live in a free world and everybody is equal but aparently some are 'more' equal than others!

The problem I see though is generally gay people are not very religious and I think people who don't believe in God and religion shouldn't be allowed to get married, the same goes for straight people. It is a religious ceremony, so what is the point of performing it if you do not believe in religion?

bronte

smk89 wrote: »

if 2 people want to enter a partnership resulting in extreme unhappyness i dont think we should stop them

LOL! True!

I think there's no reason in the world it shouldn't be legal

FearDark

No.
Its just wrong, Im not coming from a religious point of view at all but when I see two guys kissing or being intimate I physically feel sick, I know its cool these days to be gay but Im not buying it. Savage me all you want people but I thnk its wrong.

AnonoBoy

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

No. The problem is when two gay guys get married they'll then start having gay kids. Then before you know it the gayness will spread like wild fire.

Yeah - gay guys are always getting each other ass pregnant. It's a fuppin' disgrace.

galwayrush

Mac Masters wrote: »

I think they should be allowed! It's aload of crap that some people feel that they should deny others this right. We say we live in a free world and everybody is equal but aparently some are 'more' equal than others!

The problem I see though is generally gay people are not very religious and I think people who don't believe in God and religion shouldn't be allowed to get married, the same goes for straight people. It is a religious ceremony, so what is the point of performing it if you do not believe in religion?

That's like my kids fighting over not having equal pieces of Pepporoni on their pizza. then one of them pulled the pieces off coz, she didn't like pepporoni, she just wanted what her sister had.:D

mikemac

thelordofcheese wrote: »

the Civil rights act of 1964 wants a word with you.

True enough, that was the main case.
But in 1954 was the main Supreme Court case.

Realy, that are several cases in different years which changed things.
You picked the main one, I picked one of the earliest.

Tar.Aldarion

Of course it should be, I'm not a philistine.

The_Minister

Random wrote: »

It's not that it should be legal .. it's more a case of it shouldn't be illegal.

What 2 people want to do is up to them.

That arguement doesn't really apply here, since gay people aren't asking to be allowed to call each other husband and husband.
They want tax breaks etc, which involve state recognition, which means it's not a case of "Ah sure, leave them alone", but rather "Give us money and recognise/approve of our union and let us adopt children".
It's not a case of them being stopped from doing something (they can already get 'married'), but of the government actually actively recognising their unions, and treating them like normal marraiges.

The arguement that "the state should stay out of the bedroom" does not apply in this instance.

AnonoBoy

FearDark wrote: »

Savage me all you want people but I thnk its wrong.

But if I savaged you wouldn't that make you physically sick? Or would it only do that if we were in front of a mirror and you could see me savage you?

El_Dangeroso

Yes, yes, for the love of god yes!

If someone has objections on a basis of religion, there is separation of church and state for that very reason.

This is the civil rights movement of our generation.

GLaDOS

Cival Unions should be a minimum imo.

Marriage I belive should be available though. Its just a name in comparision to Cival Unions I know but I feel its a little discrimitory saying only straight people can marry, and gay people can have something similar, but not as good. (In some people eyes).

Ultimatley if it is only cival unions, gay couples can call each other husband/wife anyway and more power to them.

high horse

Whether gays get married or not is none of my business. I don't care if they do nor will i campaign for their equal rights. they can do what they want as far as i'm concerned, not my place to stop them

The_Minister

FearDark wrote: »

No.
Its just wrong, Im not coming from a religious point of view at all but when I see two guys kissing or being intimate I physically feel sick, I know its cool these days to be gay but Im not buying it. Savage me all you want people but I thnk its wrong.

That's a completely illogical point of view.
But thank you for recognising that.

I think some of the people who will savage you now would have the same gut reaction to incest, and yet see no hypocrisy with using their squeamishness as a reason to ban a different kind of relationship, one which they do not approve of.

KnifeWRENCH

100% in favour of gay marriage. Civil partnerships do not afford gay couples all the same rights as married hetereosexual couples and so they are not an adequate solution. (Also "I'm married" has much nicer ring to it than "I'm civilly partnered")
If religious institutions don't want gay couples having ceremonies in their fancy buildings, that's their business. But that should not stand in the way of a gay couple having a legally recognised civil marriage.
As for sociological implications - I fail to see any.

O'TOOLE79 wrote: »

I'm not gay and if I seen two gay guys I might have a little snigger to myself on the odd occassion

*facepalm*

FearDark

The_Minister wrote: »

That's a completely illogical point of view.
But thank you for recognising that.

I think some of the people who will savage you now would have the same gut reaction to incest, and yet see no hypocrisy with using their squeamishness as a reason to ban a different kind of relationship, one which they do not approve of.

Im sorry I dont get you.

The_Minister

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Cival Unions should be a minimum imo.

Marriage I belive should be available though. Its just a name in comparision to Cival Unions I know but I feel its a little discrimitory saying only straight people can marry, and gay people can have something similar, but not as good. (In some people eyes).

Ultimatley if it is only cival unions, gay couples can call each other husband/wife anyway and more power to them.

What if we simply distinguish the two?
Marraige = heterosexual union
Marklar = Homosexual union

GLaDOS

Incest is slightly different due to the slightly increased level of genetic abnormality, but thats an issue for another day.

O'TOOLE79

Knife-WREEENCH wrote: »

100% in favour of gay marriage. Civil partnerships do not afford gay couples all the same rights as married hetereosexual couples and so they are not an adequate solution. (Also "I'm married" has much nicer ring to it than "I'm civilly partnered")
If religious institutions don't want gay couples having ceremonies in their fancy buildings, that's their business. But that should not stand in the way of a gay couple having a legally recognised civil marriage.
As for sociological implications - I fail to see any.



*facepalm*

I didn't mean I laugh at them, just like a smile as in noticing a difference, I don't think what they're doing is wrong I'm just not used to seeing it.

The_Minister

FearDark wrote: »

Im sorry I dont get you.

I was trying to say that I liked the fact that you admitted that you had no solid intellectual reason for opposing gay marriage, but simply disapproved of it.

I was also pointing out that people will slate you for it, citing the harm principle, when they themselves apply the same (lack of) reasoning to the issue of incest.

Essentially, nearly every argument in favour of gay marraige, can also be applied to incest. Which amuses me.

GLaDOS

The_Minister wrote: »

What if we simply distinguish the two?
Marraige = heterosexual union
Marklar = Homosexual union

My point is that it shouldn't be distinguished

FearDark

FearDark wrote: »

No.
Its just wrong, Im not coming from a religious point of view at all but when I see two guys kissing or being intimate I physically feel sick, I know its cool these days to be gay but Im not buying it. Savage me all you want people but I thnk its wrong.

Stop watching gay guys get it on then :rolleyes:
Personally I think if I was gawking at ugly straight couples being "intimate" I'd feel sick, but I don't think that's enough reason to stop them marrying :rolleyes:

The_Minister

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Incest is slightly different due to the slightly increased level of genetic abnormality, but thats an issue for another day.

Only in small populations, large populations such as ours can do grand with it, as long as it doesn't become a family tradition (several generations worth of incest causes massive problems, which I'm told can be seen in certain traveller families, but small amounts of incest can exist without causes problems, unless both siblings are cariers of a genetic abnormality).
EDIT: I don't want to legalise incest, it just amuses me to wach people struggle to justify banning one and encouraging the other.

PlayGirl

galwayrush wrote: »

Why marriage? Civil partnerships are recognised and legal, surely that's enough.

So it would be enough for you if you weren't allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex, you were only allowed a civil partnership ?
I don't know that much on the subject but it all seems veryy silly to have people think that civil partnerships will "do" for gay people, and that its not reallyy discriminating them as we allow civil partnerships.

Its like going in to a deli and asking for a ham sandwich, but they give you turkey 'cause they think it will "do" as a substitute ? (bad comparison but still)

galwayrush

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Incest is slightly different due to the slightly increased level of genetic abnormality, but thats an issue for another day.

It's a family matter.................grabs coat and runs.

philologos

markok84 wrote: »

This video was posted around the time of the Miss America debacle, I found it interesting, and I like cartoons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zbpDe_QhS0

This is a great video, and it shows why people can be concerned about the issue of gay marriage without it being the result of homophobia. People often wrongly link opposition to gay marriage and homophobia and in a sense some people are interested in stifling free discussion on the issue by calling people bigots and homophobes for showing opposition when there are potential issues to society that could transpire. So thanks a lot for showing my position in a nice and easy manner

AlmightyCushion

The_Minister wrote: »

Only in small populations, large populations such as ours can do grand with it, as long as it doesn't become a family tradition (several generations worth of incest causes massive problems, which I'm told can be seen in certain traveller families, but small amounts of incest can exist without causes problems, unless both siblings are cariers of a genetic abnormality).

Look it's someone's very attractive cousin.

GLaDOS

The_Minister wrote: »

Only in small populations, large populations such as ours can do grand with it, as long as it doesn't become a family tradition (several generations worth of incest causes massive problems, which I'm told can be seen in certain traveller families, but small amounts of incest can exist without causes problems, unless both siblings are cariers of a genetic abnormality).

True, I'm just saying that it is a slightly different issue as there is a small negative effect with incest while there is none with gay marriage.

I do agree that most arguments could b applied to both incest and homosexuality, and a lot of the time it comes down to people saying ew.

KnifeWRENCH

Mac Masters wrote: »

The problem I see though is generally gay people are not very religious and I think people who don't believe in God and religion shouldn't be allowed to get married, the same goes for straight people. It is a religious ceremony, so what is the point of performing it if you do not believe in religion?

Marriage is not always religious. People can easily have a civil wedding service at a registry office or somewhere else without the need to involve religion.
I'd imagine loads of couples just go through the formalities of a religious wedding to please their families and/or because a beautiful church is a nice place to get married.

FearDark wrote: »

No.
Its just wrong, Im not coming from a religious point of view at all but when I see two guys kissing or being intimate I physically feel sick, I know its cool these days to be gay but Im not buying it. Savage me all you want people but I thnk its wrong.

Oh right, so gay couples who love each other and want to spend their lives together should not be allowed get married just because you personally don't like watching fellas get off?

O'TOOLE79 wrote: »

I didn't mean I laugh at them, just like a smile as in noticing a difference, I don't think what they're doing is wrong I'm just not used to seeing it.

"snigger" was probably the wrong word to use if that's what you meant.

smk89

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

No. The problem is when two gay guys get married they'll then start having gay kids. Then before you know it the gayness will spread like wild fire.

someone quick, get me the stupid comment punishment stick

galwayrush

PlayGirl wrote: »

So it would be enough for you if you weren't allowed to marry a member of the opposite sex, you were only allowed a civil partnership ?

Honestly wouldn't bother me, i have a strong enough commitment with wife, not worried what a piece of paper days.:)