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
Full rights for the LGBT community.
Options
Comments
-
Of course it's not about dictionary, it's a question about foundation of our society. It's about values that we care about.
I am thankful for love, dedication and sacrifices of my parents, mom and dad.
I thank my Lord, Jesus Christ for creating a male and a female, not two males or two females.
Your right , it's about the foundation of our society - that needs to be fixed to make it completely level to build a fair and equal world for everyone. Your right again about values too - values like equality !0 -
Equality? Are you joking?
What about singles, what about people who are already married, what about 2+ people wanting to get married, underaged etc.? If you're consequent why you're not fighting for their "rights"? Because you aren't really interested in equality.
If you did you'd dismantle institution of marriage and propose something new for example a form of a flexible partnership.0 -
Equality? Are you joking?
What about singles, what about people who are already married, what about 2+ people wanting to get married, underaged etc.? If you're consequent why you're not fighting for their "rights"? Because you aren't really interested in equality.
If you did you'd dismantle institution of marriage and propose something new for example a form of a flexible partnership.
If this referendum passes, two non-related people capable of giving informed consent will be able to marry regardless of the gender of either partner.
Also, humans evolved, they weren't created.0 -
Equality? Are you joking?
What about singles, what about people who are already married, what about 2+ people wanting to get married, underaged etc.? If you're consequent why you're not fighting for their "rights"? Because you aren't really interested in equality.
If you did you'd dismantle institution of marriage and propose something new for example a form of a flexible partnership.
The issue we'll be voting on in May is to allow same sex couples to marry subject to the same laws that opposite sex couples can currently do so. There's little point bringing other types of marriage into the discussion because they won't be on the ballot paper in May.
Do you have any valid, cogent arguments against letting same sex couples marry?0 -
Equality? Are you joking?
What about singles, what about people who are already married, what about 2+ people wanting to get married, underaged etc.? If you're consequent why you're not fighting for their "rights"? Because you aren't really interested in equality.
If you did you'd dismantle institution of marriage and propose something new for example a form of a flexible partnership.
@zielarz.. our law already cover's multiple partner marriages and underaged people separately. The issues you mention above have already been debated on the thread and are not relevant here. This thread is about same-sex couples being allowed access to Civil Marriage.
As for married people, if you mean existing marriages; what about them? Existing marriages made under church or civil law are NOT affected in any way. Changes feared likely to existing marriages is all in the mind of the viewer, imaginary and not real.
As for singles, most couples waiting to use the existing marriage laws are two single people who haven't tied the knot. No change is being made to the way that they will marry. It is a change in the wording of the constitution that is at issue here.0 -
Advertisement
-
No, it's a fair point s/he's making.Joeytheparrot wrote: »whatabout whataboutery
'Full rights' for the LGBT community, which is the title of this thread, is a fair representation of the proposed amendment, since its aim is to maximise LGBT rights relative to the category of couples presently eligible to contract a marriage, and to give LGBT couples enhanced rights over other couples not presently entitled to contract a valid marriage.
However to call it equality, when there are so many groups in society whom we arbitrarily exclude from eligibility to contract a marriage, is grossly inaccurate.
If you define 'equality' as the allocation of a special status to some conjugal couples over others, I suggest your interpretation of the word 'equality' is seriously lacking. It's as bad as the anti-SSM brigade who routinely argue that other couples don't matter enough to be equal.0 -
give LGBT couples enhanced rights over other couples not presently entitled to contract a valid marriage.
No, if passed, it gives LGBT couples equal treatment in law. Part of that equal treatment will mean being subject to the same restrictions as opposite sex couples. Same-sex couples aren't looking for anything extra, they're looking for the same as everyone else.0 -
Just like zielarz has made clear there is no good argument to vote no.0
-
No, it's a fair point s/he's making.
'Full rights' for the LGBT community, which is the title of this thread, is a fair representation of the proposed amendment, since its aim is to maximise LGBT rights relative to the category of couples presently eligible to contract a marriage, and to give LGBT couples enhanced rights over other couples not presently entitled to contract a valid marriage.
However to call it equality, when there are so many groups in society whom we arbitrarily exclude from eligibility to contract a marriage, is grossly inaccurate.
If you define 'equality' as the allocation of a special status to some conjugal couples over others, I suggest your interpretation of the word 'equality' is seriously lacking. It's as bad as the anti-SSM brigade who routinely argue that other couples don't matter enough to be equal.
Going back to the first post in this thread, Pride Fighter wrote this:
However there is a lack of political will on behalf of most political parties to give them equal rights. Currently people in the LGBT community are second class citizens. This is because they cannot marry or adopt children. Surely it is about time we grow up as a nation and do not discriminate against people due to their sexual orientation: end quote.
Nowhere was it written that LGBT folk wanted "enhanced rights over other couples not presently entitled to contract a valid marriage". As far as I know, no LGBT person has ever said that was what he/she wanted. The request is for LGBT persons to have equality with those others citizens who do have access to the right to marry and to seek to adopt children as married couples.
The marriage item is subject to approval by us in the referendum & the adoption item separately by the houses of the Oireachtas. I find your interpretation and apparent understanding of what LGBT citizens seek (equality in law) as being seriously lacking in accuracy, whatever about it grossly misunderstanding what is being sought.
Perhaps you could provide the source for this part your last sentence "the anti-SSM brigade who routinely argue that other couples don't matter enough to be equal". It's something I'd like to tackle the "anti-SSM brigade" about.0 -
I thank my Lord, Jesus Christ for creating a male and a female, not two males or two females.
I think you'll find this stance is completely lacking in any fact or validity. I feel very sorry for people who believe this lie that they have had engrained in them their entire lives.
In reality, the one true god (the Flying Spaghetti Monster) accidentally created the universe after a night of heavy drinking. That means he accidentally created you, me, dinosaurs, deep fried mars bars, whatever the hell Lady Gaga is, Ls, G,s Bs and even Ts.
We have all been touched by His Noodly Appendage which has made us the way we are. To deny LGBT people the right to marry is an abomination in His Meatballs.0 -
Advertisement
-
Right to marry isn't an inalienable right which means that society decides what's marriage, who is eligible to marry etc. Why we need marriages? Because we believe it benefits the society, healthy families build healthy society. For this reason we give marriages special rights in a form of privileges.
Here are my issues with SSM:
- I personally don't know any person that's been raised by two fathers or two mothers. There are reasons to be at least sceptical about this new form of a family.
- Homosexual lifestyle is different than heterosexual one. Like it or not, on average they've got many more sexual partners. Many of them claim they are in a relationhip but they're not faithful to each other. Is this a good example for children?
- I believe that approval of SSM marriage will enhance sexual indoctrination of children. I wouldn't worry about this point too much if parents had influence on curriculum. Unfortunately, this isn't the case which means my children will have to be taught things that are contrary to my views and beliefs.
- Homosexual people cannot have children on their own which means that they either need to adopt or get involved in morally questionable arrangements. Again, I am not convinced that children will be best when they for example don't even know their mother. It seems to me that a child is treated more like a commodity, not as a human being. I don't know how it is not to have mother or father. I don't wish that to anybody.
- The last point only applies to followers of Christ. Our God created us as a male and a female and told us to procreate. If God wanted homosexuals to breed he'd have allow it.0 -
Right to marry isn't an inalienable right which means that society decides what's marriage, who is eligible to marry etc. Why we need marriages? Because we believe it benefits the society, healthy families build healthy society. For this reason we give marriages special rights in a form of privileges.
Here are my issues with SSM:
- I personally don't know any person that's been raised by two fathers or two mothers. There are reasons to be at least sceptical about this new form of a family.
- Homosexual lifestyle is different than heterosexual one. Like it or not, on average they've got many more sexual partners. Many of them claim they are in a relationhip but they're not faithful to each other. Is this a good example for children?
- I believe that approval of SSM marriage will enhance sexual indoctrination of children. I wouldn't worry about this point too much if parents had influence on curriculum. Unfortunately, this isn't the case which means my children will have to be taught things that are contrary to my views and beliefs.
- Homosexual people cannot have children on their own which means that they either need to adopt or get involved in morally questionable arrangements. Again, I am not convinced that children will be best when they for example don't even know their mother. It seems to me that a child is treated more like a commodity, not as a human being. I don't know how it is not to have mother or father. I don't wish that to anybody.
- The last point only applies to followers of Christ. Our God created us as a male and a female and told us to procreate. If God wanted homosexuals to breed he'd have allow it.
I. Re your issues with SSM, maybe you should get to know people who've been raised by two fathers or two mothers. That might help you sort through whatever scepticism you have about same-sex parented families.
2. Your 2nd Para refers to homosexuals, relationships and sexual partners as if it is solely homosexuals that are unfaithful and have had multiple partners. Talking of failing to be good examples to children is not exclusively an issue for homosexuals, given how they are less likely to have procreated than the average heterosexual who doesn't usually need a third person's help there.
3. I'm surprised at your views on curriculum. It sound's like you imagine that those who set it do not include heterosexual married parents, nor that parents have any input into how schools are run, or what's introduced to the pupils. Maybe you should raise it at the next school parents meeting.
4. Re homosexual people not being able to procreate, that'd be true when it come's to solely same-sex couples without what you call morally questionable arrangements. If you mean IVF, then it must follow that you don't approve of heterosexual couples who can't procreate and go the IVF route to have children. The issue you raise on adoption also applies to children adopted by heterosexual couples, the child won't know who his/her parent/s is/are.
5. Your last point about God making men and women and telling them to procreate, after writing that that only applied to followers of Christ makes it sound like you think that people who don't follow Christ weren't intended by God to procreate. That's not alone a slap in the face to homosexuals (Christian or otherwise) but also to those of all faiths outside Christianity. It also sound's like you think God didn't intend for male and female homosexuals to procreate, or "breed" as you put it.
So..... how do you reason out why homosexuals manage to "breed", who gave them the ability? Was it a divine error of GOD or did the horned one say to homosexuals: "go forth and multiply"?
Your piece about marriage being a benefit to society, healthy families building a healthy society sound's like something from the 1930's. It's utopia, as humans have an inbuilt habit of messing things up, regardless of the master plan.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13626
zielarz wrote:Homosexual lifestyle is different than heterosexual one. Like it or not, on average they've got many more sexual partners. Many of them claim they are in a relationhip but they're not faithful to each other. Is this a good example for children?
Why should gay people have all the fun? IMO we should get ridnof marriage completely and we can all live promiscuous hedonisic lives.Unfortunately, this isn't the case which means my children will have to be taught things that are contrary to my views and beliefs.
Like religion?Homosexual people cannot have children on their own which means that they either need to adopt or get involved in morally questionable arrangements. Again, I am not convinced that children will be best when they for example don't even know their mother. It seems to me that a child is treated more like a commodity, not as a human being. I don't know how it is not to have mother or father. I don't wish that to anybody.
But if a child is adopted to a straight couple they still wont know their mother. The child is not treated as a commodity but as a precious being that needs to be nurtured. In an ideal world there would be no adoption and everyone would have a happy family life. But adoption is necessary because parents die or fail in their duty towards their children.The last point only applies to followers of Christ. Our God created us as a male and a female and told us to procreate. If God wanted homosexuals to breed he'd have allow it.
Didnt He make woman out of the rib of man? So really we should all practice self love as God originally intended.0 -
I personally don't know any person that's been raised by two fathers or two mothers. There are reasons to be at least sceptical about this new form of a family.
It's not a new form of family. Same sex couples in Ireland have been raising children since at least the late 70s, and Census figures conservatively estimate there to be over 200 same-sex headed families in Ireland at the moment. That you haven't personally come across means nothing more than you haven't personally come across it.
What's more, whether you are skeptical about it or not, voting No in the referendum doesn't prevent these family types forming. All it means is that these children will continue to be raised by unmarried or civil partnered same sex couples. Is it your contention that these children are better off being barred from the benefits of marriage?- Homosexual lifestyle is different than heterosexual one. Like it or not, on average they've got many more sexual partners. Many of them claim they are in a relationhip but they're not faithful to each other. Is this a good example for children?
Leaving aside your generalisations, you're assuming that the bar on marriage is a bar on parenting. It's not, and if it was meant to be, then it's failed spectacularly.
Secondly, assuming your assertions about faithfulness, etc, are true, did you ever consider that maybe it's caused by the bar on marriage? Marriage is pretty synonymous with monogamy and faithfulness, so is it any wonder that people barred from marriage would be less monogamous and faithful? Your stance on marriage could be causing the very thing you're condemning!I believe that approval of SSM marriage will enhance sexual indoctrination of children. I wouldn't worry about this point too much if parents had influence on curriculum. Unfortunately, this isn't the case which means my children will have to be taught things that are contrary to my views and beliefs.
What do you mean by "sexual indoctrination"? You sounds like Susan Phillips predicting that "sex talks in schools will have to include illumination on all sorts of sexual practices" when homosexuality was decriminalised 22 years ago.
As for being your children being taught things contrary to your views and beliefs, the only thing that children will be taught is that same sex couples can marry (assuming the referendum is passed). That will be the truth and fact of the matter, and I'm sure you'd want your children to learn truth and facts. You can still take the time to teach them that these truths and facts are contrary to your views and beliefs if you so wish.- Homosexual people cannot have children on their own which means that they either need to adopt or get involved in morally questionable arrangements. Again, I am not convinced that children will be best when they for example don't even know their mother. It seems to me that a child is treated more like a commodity, not as a human being. I don't know how it is not to have mother or father. I don't wish that to anybody.
Again, a No vote doesn't stop any of this happening. The bar on marriage doesn't stop same sex couples being parents, it just stops married same sex couples being parents.
Adoption especially is a red herring. Same sex couples can already apply to adopt (just not jointly) and they are subject to the vetting and assessments as everyone else. And unless you're adopting a child you're already raising (e.g. step family, long term foster child), the odds of actually having a child placed with you are about 13 to 1, because there are so few children put up for adoption these days.
What's more, opposite sex couples are more likely to use methods of procreation that you disagree with. Yet, not once have I heard anyone propose barring them from marriage.The last point only applies to followers of Christ. Our God created us as a male and a female and told us to procreate. If God wanted homosexuals to breed he'd have allow it.
If God didn't want homosexuals to marry, He'd have said so.
By the way, no one actually thinks that getting married grants the ability to procreate. At least, no one I've ever met.0 -
That's actually a pretty strong own goal there. I agree, marriage is a legal matter which means, pursuant to Art 40.1° of the Constitution, that equality of all citizens before the law is guaranteed. Therefore it should be unconstitutional to prevent same-sex marriage.Right to marry isn't an inalienable right
Exactly correct, we will let society decide via a referendum.which means that society decides what's marriage, who is eligible to marry etc.
There is little to no evidence to support this claim. The majority of marriages end in divorce internationally, and perhaps even worse here, "divorce Irish style".Why we need marriages? Because we believe it benefits the society, healthy families build healthy society. For this reason we give marriages special rights in a form of privileges.
I was going to take the time to respond to each of these, but:Here are my issues with SSM:
(i) I see some other posters have adequately conveyed my views;
(ii) After reading the first 2, I realise that you are so ignorant and biased regarding the situation that it's really not worth engaging with you.
As a heterosexual man, I can attest that of my gay and lesbian friends I was much more promiscuous in my youth than they were. I can think of 4 gay and lesbian couples off the top of my head right now that I personally know that don't like this "lifestyle" that you refer to, and 2 other gay people immediately come to mind that are looking to settle down. Let me tell you right now that I have struggled over the past 5 minutes to think of more than 2 straight couples that I know that are settled down and faithful for an extended period of time.
So, there's my personal experience plus the fact that you have no evidence to support your biased views.
I wouldn't want my children indoctrinated by some religious whackjob's views and beliefs either.Unfortunately, this isn't the case which means my children will have to be taught things that are contrary to my views and beliefs.
Yeah 10,000 years ago I'm sure. I'm agnostic to the whole idea of god, but our planet if 4.54 billion years old - if there is a god, it did not design and create us.The last point only applies to followers of Christ. Our God created us as a male and a female and told us to procreate. If God wanted homosexuals to breed he'd have allow it.0 -
Q: Apart from same-sex couples, are there other conjugal couples who are not presently entitled to contract a valid marriage?aloyisious wrote: »Nowhere was it written that LGBT folk wanted "enhanced rights over other couples not presently entitled to contract a valid marriage".
A: Yes
Q: Does the amendment aim to rectify their situation?
A: No
Q: Will couples who are not presently entitled to marry continue to be discriminated against in the event of the success of a referendum to amend the constitution to allow for same-sex marriage?
A: Yes
Q: Is this 'marriage equality'?
A: No.
Sure.The request is for LGBT persons to have equality with those others citizens who do have access to the right to marry
But that's not marriage equality. It's equality for selected groups only. It's analogous to WJ Simmons and Rosa Parks telling the Mexicans to sit at the back of the bus, in the name of equality.
By all means, LGBT people are more than entitle to advocate for their own cause alone. I have no problem with that. But is this equivalent to a campaign for "equality"? No. Absolutely not.0 -
-
Deleted User wrote: »Big Ignorant hand going up in the back of the classroom here.
Which other conjugal couples are you talking about in the above?
These would be "whatabouterysexual" couples.0 -
Co-habiting couples who have not yet married but who have children together and which the constitution does not recognize as a family; separated individuals who cannot afford to divorce their former spouses in order to remarry; divorcees whose divorces are not recognized in Ireland; and more rarely, individuals ineligible to marry in law, such as those related by blood or marriage, even if the relationship is not incestuous.Deleted User wrote: »Big Ignorant hand going up in the back of the classroom here.
Which other conjugal couples are you talking about in the above?
That's not what whataboutery is.PopePalpatine wrote: »These would be "whatabouterysexual" couples.
Whataboutery would be if I said 'you shouldn't be allowed marry, because separated individuals cannot'.
I am not saying that.
I am saying it cannot be 'equality' if it creates inequality for a substantial amount of couples and, more importantly, their offspring.0 -
Q: Apart from same-sex couples, are there other conjugal couples who are not presently entitled to contract a valid marriage?
A: Yes
Q: Does the amendment aim to rectify their situation?
A: No
Q: Will couples who are not presently entitled to marry continue to be discriminated against in the event of the success of a referendum to amend the constitution to allow for same-sex marriage?
A: Yes
Q: Is this 'marriage equality'?
A: No.
Sure.
But that's not marriage equality. It's equality for selected groups only. It's analogous to WJ Simmons and Rosa Parks telling the Mexicans to sit at the back of the bus, in the name of equality.
By all means, LGBT people are more than entitle to advocate for their own cause alone. I have no problem with that. But is this equivalent to a campaign for "equality"? No. Absolutely not.
All right, do you want the wording used to describe what is being debated here "that civil marriage be equalized between heterosexual and homosexual couples" to something on the lines of "that civil marriage be equalized between heterosexual couples and all other persons and couples deprived of it"?
If you insist on the absoluteness of equality across the board, will you go to the Gov't or the A.G. and complain about the wording of the referendum on the self-same grounds, if it only mention's equality between heterosexual and homosexual couples when it come to civil marriage?
I've just seen the last sentence in your post above about creating inequality. It seem's to me that it is likely that those inequalities you mentioned already exist and will NOT be created by the equalizing of civil marriage between heterosexual and homosexual couples. A pre-existing inequality would NOT be created.0 -
Advertisement
-
I have no problem with the thread title, as I have already said. I took issue with the term "marriage equality".aloyisious wrote: »All right, do you want the wording used to describe what is being debated here "that civil marriage be equalized between heterosexual and homosexual couples"
Same-sex marriage is a perfectly accurate term. "Equality" is a deliberately loaded and emotive term, and is not an accurate representation of what the amendment aims to achieve.
Lets stop there. No. I don't insist on absolute equality.If you insist on the absoluteness of equality across the board
I accept that individuals have inherent characteristics which render them unsuitable for certain activities and undertakings, such as a marriage contract. So, for example, children and the mentally disabled should not be allowed to marry.
But if you are telling me that nobody should be allowed impose their own moral values on conjugal relationships between consenting adults, then an absurd level of inequality is created in respect of the excluded couples referred to above.
Sure.those inequalities you mentioned already exist
So this referendum is not truly about marriage equality.
It is about enhanced rights for one more group, whilst retaining inequality for the other outcasts.
On what planet is that "equality"?
"Equality for some" is a contradiction in itself; you get that, right?0 -
-
Of course it's not about dictionary, it's a question about foundation of our society. It's about values that we care about.
I am thankful for love, dedication and sacrifices of my parents, mom and dad.
I thank my Lord, Jesus Christ for creating a male and a female, not two males or two females.
Hows your lord on incest? Cos if he only created one man and one woman, there has to be some amount of it to get us to the present.0 -
In that particular case the comparison is not a direct one. I inserted a reference to children. The State effectively taxes those households at a higher rate than childless married households.How are couples who have chosen not to marry, for whatever reason, in any way analogous with couples who are specifically barred from marriage?
You can't really blame the children for the absence of a marriage contract, but the children nevertheless pay the penalty of non-marriage via diminished resources. Although it remains the parents' responsibility to marry (where they are allowed to), it is questionable whether the State should be aggravating the situation by putting higher taxes on them and refusing to recognize their membership of a family.
In any event, bear in mind that "the parents should marry" is not a valid response if, as is often claimed, nobody should be allowed to arbitrarily impose their personal moral values on the validity or value of conjugal relationships between consenting adults.0 -
- Homosexual people cannot have children on their own which means that they either need to adopt or get involved in morally questionable arrangements. Again, I am not convinced that children will be best when they for example don't even know their mother. It seems to me that a child is treated more like a commodity, not as a human being. I don't know how it is not to have mother or father. I don't wish that to anybody.
- The last point only applies to followers of Christ. Our God created us as a male and a female and told us to procreate. If God wanted homosexuals to breed he'd have allow it.
Why did he create some women that are incapable of having children?
Why does he allow some parents to die leaving children to be raised by one or no parents?
Why are adoption and other questionable arrangements ok as long as "the gays" aren't involved?0 -
the comparison is not a direct one.
It's not even an indirect one. There is no comparison between couples, with or without children. who choose not to marry, and couples, with or without children, who are denied the choice in the first place. Particularly when one struggles to find a valid, cogent reason to continue denying the choice.0 -
By saying "they should marry" are you not imposing your moral values on them? Many couples with children are simply not ready for marriage, and it could be destructive to force them down that route using penal taxation methods.It's not even an indirect one. There is no comparison between couples, with or without children. who choose not to marry, and couples, with or without children, who are denied the choice in the first place.
There are various reasons why couples with children do not marry, or can not marry.
Regarding the former group, are you saying it is fair to impose our moral values on their relationships, and in fact to penalize their relationships?0 -
-
You have attempted to distinguish between conjugal couples who cannot marry, and conjugal couples with children who may marry, but know they should not marry. It appears that you think tax penalties are more acceptable in the latter case, do you not?I think you have me confused with a poster who said that.
The end result is the same. The State imposes its values and penalizes one set of couples, whilst enhancing the rights of another set of couples, in an arbitrary or else morally-doctrinaire way.
Is this equality?0 -
Advertisement
-
[1]Co-habiting couples who have not yet married but who have children together and which the constitution does not recognize as a family; [2]separated individuals who cannot afford to divorce their former spouses in order to remarry;[3] divorcees whose divorces are not recognized in Ireland; and more rarely,[4] individuals ineligible to marry in law, such as those related by blood or marriage, even if the relationship is not incestuous.
Are these valid examples? Consider the question you raised initially.Q: Apart from same-sex couples, are there other conjugal couples who are not presently entitled to contract a valid marriage?
A: Yes
[1]
How are the co-habiting couples not entitled to a marriage contract? They could (if they so wished) rock up and get married could they not?
[2]
The affordability is a strange entrant to this debate. I am entitled to buy a plane and keep it on my property. I cannot afford a plane though. However, I am permitted to own one. I cannot exercise my entitlement as I cannot afford to do so, correct, but the affordability and the entitlement are independent surely?
[3]
I plead utter ignorance.
[4]
Again, I'm utterly ignorant of these scenarios and would have to read more before asking you.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement