Do you think that gay marriage would get passed in Ireland?

cooltown

Do you think gay marriage would get passed in Ireland?
I think that many of the posters here would have no problem with it but when I think of the older generation. I sadly can say I don't think it would!

Millicent

I hope so. Misery should not predominantly be the entitlement of the heterosexual. :pac:

Celly Smunt

we can barely get common sense passed here,gay marriage is a long way off

OutlawPete

By the time it gets passed, marriage will be so rare that nobody will care.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Jesus had two dads and he turned out alright

Millicent

Rodrigo Full Frown wrote: »

Jesus had two dads and he turned out alright

If by crucified and dead by 33 you mean alright, then yes... Sicko. :pac:

OutlawPete

Rodrigo Full Frown wrote: »

Jesus had two dads and he turned out alright

What I want to know is the REAL reason Joesph was turned away from that Inn.

No rooms left .. my ass donkey.

mikemac

cooltown wrote: »

I think that many of the posters here would have no problem with it but when I think of the older generation. I sadly can say I don't think it would!

Now I know we have posters from all backgrounds and ages here.
But the views you see on boards.ie just isn't what exists in Ireland, not a majority anyway.

I don't see it getting passed anytime soon.

Einhard

If everyone in the country turned out to vote in a referendum, then yes. But as often happens, those who are against it would likely be most motivated to get out and vote, whilst those who'd have no problem would likely not be as enthusiastic.

Wolfe Tone

Einhard wrote: »

If everyone in the country turned out to vote in a referendum, then yes. But as often happens, those who are against it would likely be most motivated to get out and vote, whilst those who'd have no problem would likely not be as enthusiastic.

We need those voting machines in pubs.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Millicent wrote: »

If by crucified and dead by 33 you mean alright, then yes... Sicko. :pac:

Well you know he was Irish anyway, didn't leave home until he was thirty, hung around with twelve lads and his mother was convinced that he was God :pac:

Sticky_Fingers

Sorry but the Joe Duffy Army scuttled the only hope of the general population accepting this when they had our bath salts taken away from us, so no.

Celly Smunt

Sticky_Fingers wrote: »

Sorry but the Joe Duffy Army scuttled the only hope of the general population accepting this when they had our bath salts taken away from us, so no.

terrible,go on,go on,bath salts,go on

KnifeWRENCH

cooltown wrote: »

but when I think of the older generation. I sadly can say I don't think it would!

Yeah but they'll all die at some point.

So it hopefully will be passed some day, but perhaps not for another good while yet.

Wolfe Tone

KnifeWRENCH wrote: »

Yeah but they'll all die at some point.

So it hopefully will be passed some day, but perhaps not for another good while yet.

Yeah, I wish everyones parents and grandparents would hurry up and die!! Uh wait a min....

StinkySocs

if voting was on a saturday then everyone would vote!

There would probably be a lower divorce rate if gay marriage was allowed.

starbelgrade

If gay marriage is passed, next thing you know, the floodgates will open & we'll have gay penguins raising kids.

Oh wait, that already happened.

Carry on...

scientific1982

Unfortunately I dont think it would pass. Theres still a lot of conservatism in this country.

KnifeWRENCH

MUSSOLINI wrote: »

Yeah, I wish everyones parents and grandparents would hurry up and die!! Uh wait a min....

:rolleyes: I never said I wanted anyone to die, just pointing out the fact that society has become more progressive and that at some point in the future we will more than likely have a more liberal older generation who will be more accepting of things like gay marriage.

foxyboxer

"Civil Union" between homosexual couples...yes.

"Marriage" between homosexual couples...no.

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman who will start a family.

That's just the way it is. My 2c

Usertaken

Simple fact of life:

Marriage: Union between Male and a Female. All religions don't recognise homosexuality as a marriagable union, so how can the State legislate a union which no religion would confirm ? Civil Union just fine have it, marriage would place a staus on it reserved for Male and Females.

We vote to let "them" marry... then they adopt kids....

I dare you put a kid with 2 men as their parents into a school and god bloody help that kid.

Ballymun area with 2 men as father and wife... having a laugh like ? WHat suddenly all of Ireland will accept Gay people ?

That kid would endure probably the most bullying ever recorded !

So no, i would vote no... not that i care what 2 men do behind their doors... think of the children they may have ! T'isnt a black and white issue at all.

plein de force

foxyboxer wrote: »

"Civil Union" between homosexual couples...yes.

"Marriage" between homosexual couples...no.

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman who will start a family.

That's just the way it is. My 2c

yeah because there isn't a childless married couple out there at all or a couple who got married without the pretense of having children

Usertaken wrote: »

Simple fact of life:

Marriage: Union between Male and a Female. All religions don't recognise homosexuality as a marriagable union, so how can the State legislate a union which no religion would confirm ? Civil Union just fine have it, marriage would place a staus on it reserved for Male and Females.

We vote to let "them" marry... then they adopt kids....

I dare you put a kid with 2 men as their parents into a school and god bloody help that kid.

Ballymun area with 2 men as father and wife... having a laugh like ? WHat suddenly all of Ireland will accept Gay people ?

That kid would endure probably the most bullying ever recorded !

So no, i would vote no... not that i care what 2 men do behind their doors... think of the children they may have ! T'isnt a black and white issue at all.

when a secular state makes provisions for marriage they do that outside the parameters of definition set up by religions, they can then go down one of either two routes, recognise marriages that take place in registry offices set up by the state and recognise religious marriages that take place in churches etc. like we do in ireland OR they can choose to not recognise religious ceremonies at all like for instance in france. to imply that because a religion wouldn't recognise it, a government shouldn't either is ludicrous.

and in regards to your second point, so because some uneducated skangers might bully a kid that has been adopted by gay couple, then all gay couples, regardless of whether they want to adopt a child or not, shouldn't be allowed marry? also, i'm sure if you asked a child in care, they'd be more than happy to be adopted by two able people who will provide a loving and nurturing environment for them to grow up in regardless of the sex of the people caring for them.

and anyway to answer the OP
yes, i think the irish people would have the maturity to recognise the love between two people of the same sex as no less meaningful than that of two people of the opposite sex

Einhard

Usertaken wrote: »

Simple fact of life:

Marriage: Union between Male and a Female. All religions don't recognise homosexuality as a marriagable union, so how can the State legislate a union which no religion would confirm ? Civil Union just fine have it, marriage would place a staus on it reserved for Male and Females.

If it's a state marriage then the state can legislate for it just fine, and can even decide whom to afford it to. You do realise that the various religious groups don't have executive powers?

The Church doesn't agree with divorce. You think the state should follow their lead on that issue too?

We vote to let "them" marry... then they adopt kids....

Gay men don't have to be married to take care of children as partners.

I dare you put a kid with 2 men as their parents into a school and god bloody help that kid.

Ballymun area with 2 men as father and wife... having a laugh like ? WHat suddenly all of Ireland will accept Gay people ?

That kid would endure probably the most bullying ever recorded !

This was one of the arguments used when they were dismantling the Jim Crow laws in the southern United States in the '60s. A black man and a white woman can't be allowed to marry! Think of the poor mixed race kids!! Small minded intolerance and naked prejudice should never be allowed to influence the granting of rights to any group.

The majority in Ireland have accepted gay people actually. And the actions of a few knuckle dragging social neanderthals isn't going to change that.

spurious

I have taught children from Ballymun and similar areas with same sex parents. It wasn't an issue. Parents tend to be taboo in their bullying world. The best they could manage was that one had a hairstyle 'like a gonk' and the other drove a 'poxy Micra'.

If bullying is tolerated by a school it will flourish. The chance of bullying occurring is not a valid ground on which to deny people rights.

The Dev-inspired roses round the gate view of a family being one man, one woman and children they had between them doesn't actually fit a large number of Irish families. It's high time we adopted the UN definition of family and enshrined it in a secular Consitution:

Any combination of two or more persons who are bound together by ties of mutual consent, birth and / or adoption or placement and who, together, assume responsibility for, inter alia, the care and maintenance of group members, the addition of new members through procreation or adoption, the socialisation of children and the social control of members.

Links234

we'll see full marriage equality in this country for definite but how long until that happens is the real question. I hope sooner rather than later.

philologos

I'd vote against it, but I think it would be passed.

Truley

First gay marriage

Then abortion...

Then what will we have to argue about on boards :eek:

Links234

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd vote against it

why?

Truley wrote: »

First gay marriage

Then abortion...

Then what will we have to argue about on boards :eek:

where the connection between gay marriage and abortion?

philologos

Links234 wrote: »

why?

I've argued for my position quite thoroughly in the past. It mostly is based on concerns surrounding radical changes in family structure. I believe that a loving marriage with both a mother and a father is the best context for a child to be raised in. I think people would really need to sit down and think about the possible impact such decisions could have on society at large.

Personally, I hope it doesn't pass, but more than likely it will.

PeterIanStaker

I'm not sure if it'd get passed, but I hope it would. Knowing the idiots, bigots, journos, jesus freaks and Joe Duffy fan club, it'd be a close call like Divorce in '96.

If they had a referendum on it I'd vote in favour of same sex marriage. We are all human.

Another nail in the coffin of McQuaid and Dev's necrotic Catholofascist Roman colony would also be a good thing.

sponsoredwalk

This man obviously knows of nothing other than the nuclear family

Radical changes? Man you need to read up on a bit of anthropology ffs...

Here is a good starting point.

sponsoredwalk

Those Darned Anthropologists wrote:

"Around the world, the structures of family norms are different. Ideas of
what constitute a family changes based on culture, mobility, wealth, and
tradition. Yet, as James Q. Wilson has stated:

In virtually every society in which historians or anthropologists have inquired, one finds people living together on the basis of kinship ties and having responsibility for raising children. The kinship ties invariably imply restrictions on who has sexual access to whom; the child-care responsibilities invariably imply both economic and non-economic obligations. And in virtually every society, the family is defined by marriage; that is, by a publicly announced contract that makes legitimate the sexual union of a man and a woman.[6]

In many cultures, the need to be self-supporting is hard to meet,
particularly where rents/property values are very high, and the foundation
of a new household can be an obstacle to nuclear family formation. In
these cases, extended family forms. People remain single and live with their
parents for a longer period of time. Generally, the trend to shift from
extended to nuclear family structures has been supported by increasing
mobility and modernization.

Some have argued that the extended family, or at least the three-
generational family including grandparents, provides a broader and deeper
foundation for raising children as well as support for the new parents. In
particular, the role of grandparents has been recognized as an important
aspect of the family dynamic. Having experienced the challenges of
creating a family themselves, they offer wisdom and encouragement to the
young parents and become a reassuring presence in the lives of their
grandchildren. Abraham Maslow described the love of grandparents as "the
purest love for the being of the other." [7] The benefits of these
intergenerational encounters are substantial for all involved."
...

"Contemporary society generally views the family as a haven from the
world, supplying absolute fulfillment, and encouraging “intimacy, love and
trust where individuals may escape the competition of dehumanizing forces
in modern society.”[8] The family is often referred to as a haven providing
love and protection from the rough and tumble industrialized world, and as
a place where warmth, tenderness and understanding can be expected
from a loving mother and protection from the world can be expected from
the father. It is important to note that the cohesiveness of the family is
contingent upon the relationship of all its members, particularly the father
and mother. They establish the bonds each member has to each other,
strengthening the nuclear family.


However, the idea of protection is declining as civil society faces less
internal conflict combined with increased civil rights and protection from
the state. To many, the ideal of personal or family fulfillment has replaced
protection as the major role of the family. The family now supplies what is
“vitally needed but missing from other social arrangements.”[8]

Social conservatives often express concern over a purported decay of the
family and see this as a sign of the crumbling of contemporary society.
They feel that the family structures of the past were superior to those
today and believe that families were more stable and happier at a time
when they did not have to contend with problems such as illegitimate
children and divorce. Others refute this theory, claiming “there is no golden
age of the family gleaming at us in the far back historical past.”[8]


The number of single parent families in society is challenging the idea of
the nuclear family. Divorce has given rise to different living arrangements
for parents and children. These post-nuclear families have been described
as “broken because the marriage bond has been broken.”[9] Single parent
families also form as a result of the death of a spouse in the family. This
changes the family dynamic, shifting responsibilities to the remaining
spouse and new obligations for the children."

Link

I'm surprised that nobody, in all those posts in which you'd made your opinion clear,
called you on such a superficial concern as a reason to tell others how to
live, to try to dictate what way people can express love for each other.
Regardless of your parochial concerns & lack of knowledge of the way
that people are different throughout the world you should not be given the
right to vote on a matter like this.

Nobody should be allowed to vote about fundamental human rights such as
expressing love for each other when, as the world clearly shows, it's a
natural way to form a family - through the legal & public method of union.

Some rights go beyond a vote.

Links234

Jakkass wrote: »

I've argued for my position quite thoroughly in the past. It mostly is based on concerns surrounding radical changes in family structure. I believe that a loving marriage with both a mother and a father is the best context for a child to be raised in. I think people would really need to sit down and think about the possible impact such decisions could have on society at large.

I think marriage equality would have huge benefits for society at large.
the way it works now, some people are getting caught in the cracks

transgender people have a particularly hard time when it comes to marriage, take a look at a recent case in Hong Kong where a transgender woman is fighting in court just to be allowed to marry. link. the opposition is taking up petty technicalities in order to stop her:

But Carss-Frisk argued that marriages and families have long been considered inseparable and that offspring are a core part of marriages.

this kind of stupid double standard would never ever be taken seriously if it were applied to a cisgendered couple who were incapable of having, or didn't want to have offspring. nobody would ever dare to say to them they can't get married because they're not having kids.

or the horrendous case of Nikki Araguz in Texas, who's husband died recently, only to have the husband's family and ex-wife drag her through the courts to stop her getting benefits as a widow because she's transgender, trying to argue that it was a 'gay' marriage. not only did she lose the man she loved, but now they want to strip her of her identity as a woman and tear down everything she had with him. just reading about it makes my heart ache.

of course neither of these cases could be considered gay marriages at all, but if we had full marriage equality, we wouldn't have cases where a grieving widow is dragged through the courts to have her marriage torn down, or someone who has to fight a legal battle just to be allowed to get married. nobody should have to go through things like that.

I would sincerely hope that we one day see marriage equality world wide.

Callan57

I'm really annoyed with this assumption here that 'older' people are by definition conservative .... some of the most liberal minded people I know are over 70 and I know of numerous arch-conservatives who are under 25.
As for gay marriage, I have no problem with it just as long as no one tries to make it compulsory ..... live & let live I say. But I can't see it happening in Ireland for a long long time as I don't think any political party would have the bottle to take it on ... and definitely not while we are all on road to ruin anyway

Truley

Links234 wrote: »

where the connection between gay marriage and abortion?

Two topics of discussion that regularly appear in AH and turn into absolutely huuge treads, inevitably ending up with two posters going around in circles for pages on end, trying to change each others mind.

candy-gal1

I dont see a reason to oppose gay marraige between two people who love each other, but I think I would draw the line at bringing a child up with two gay parents. Imho it would cause a lot of hassle and discrimination with the child and who needs more of that when your a teenager in school tbh.

sponsoredwalk

candy-gal1 wrote: »

I dont see a reason to oppose gay marraige between two people who love each other, but I think I would draw the line at bringing a child up with two gay parents. Imho it would cause a lot of hassle and discrimination with the child and who needs more of that when your a teenager in school tbh.

They seem to be doing fine in America...

spurious

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

They seem to be doing fine in America...

They do fine here too.
The sky hasn't fallen in.

Annasopra

candy-gal1 wrote: »

but I think I would draw the line at bringing a child up with two gay parents. Imho it would cause a lot of hassle and discrimination with the child and who needs more of that when your a teenager in school tbh.

on that basis we shouldn't allow red haired people or disabled people or muslims to adopt in this country because their child would be discriminated against.

Links234

there was a video someone posted here before, two lesbian women who raised two sons here in Ireland were interviewed, the sons didn't have any problems growing up, they spoke very well about their experiences in Ireland and didn't have any negative things happen to them because of it. if someone can find the link, it should really be reposted here

I think if anyone's worried about "discrimination" the children might face, you should look at your own prejudices first.

losthorizon

foxyboxer wrote: »

Marriage is between a Man and a Woman who will start a family.

That's just the way it is. My 2c

I'm married - I have no intention of starting a family.

MrSir

I think people need to learn that even though they may be against something that doesn't mean they have the right to force their opinions onto someone else.Everyone is entitled to Civil Rights FULL STOP.

mickydoomsux

candy-gal1 wrote: »

Imho it would cause a lot of hassle and discrimination with the child and who needs more of that when your a teenager in school tbh.

Teens and children will take the piss out of each other over anything so that's hardly a compelling argument.

I see no problem letting same sex couples get married and having kids. What business is it of mine?

It'll probably never happen in good auld cat-lick Ireland though. We're still incredibly backwards in our thinking, for the most part.

philologos

MrSir wrote: »

I think people need to learn that even though they may be against something that doesn't mean they have the right to force their opinions onto someone else.Everyone is entitled to Civil Rights FULL STOP.

In democratic systems such as the Irish one, if people are asked to vote on a particular issue, they certainly do have the right to cast their vote along with everyone else.

If people have real concerns about it, then they should be known.

The issue is a changing of definition. Marriage in the current legal context is defined as a union between a man and a woman. What is being suggested that one should change the definition of marriage to say the union of any two persons. "Marriage equality" as such is disingenuous. Everyone can be married, there are just limits on who people can be married to, more often than not for pragmatic reasons.

Link234 - I would be glad to give my opinion on the Hong Kong transgender issue, in another thread, more relevant to the subject.

Links234

Jakkass wrote: »

What is being suggested that one should change the definition of marriage to say the union of any two persons. "Marriage equality" as such is disingenuous.

I don't see a problem with changing the definition.

Jakkass wrote: »

Link234 - I would be glad to give my opinion on the Hong Kong transgender issue, in another thread, more relevant to the subject.

but it is relevant, it goes to show that if you're holding to such strict definitions (that don't even apply to heterosexual, cisgender couples), then people are going to be caught between the cracks. marriage equality is of great relevance to the lives of transgender people too

JacquesD'Ladd

N.O.

sponsoredwalk

Jakkass wrote: »

The issue is a changing of definition. Marriage in the current legal context is defined as a union between a man and a woman. What is being suggested that one should change the definition of marriage to say the union of any two persons. "Marriage equality" as such is disingenuous. Everyone can be married, there are just limits on who people can be married to, more often than not for pragmatic reasons.

Yes it should be changed because it is an antiquaited law that impinges on
the rights of human beings. This is not an issue of choice it's an issue of
the majority of people's bigoted views impinging on the freedom of other
people in the society. This is a more fundamental right than just a choice,
it's excluding people from expressing their love in the way most natural for
people all over the world - in the eyes of the law & the public.

I'd love to hear the pragmatic reasons behind excluding human beings from
expressing love in a natural way :rolleyes:

Remember, you have just voiced your opinion on a radical change of the
family;

Jakkass wrote: »

It mostly is based on concerns surrounding radical changes in family structure. I believe that a loving marriage with both a mother and a father is the best context for a child to be raised in.

as being a reason you'd vote against giving people their fundamental
human rights yet if you knew anything about cultures throughout the world
you'd realise there is no such thing as a single family structure. I'll refer
you to my post you haven't attempted to reply to here where you'll get a
more detailed answer to why this is the case.

You have to explain to us why all over the world the one common thread
anthropologists find is that marriage is a "publicly announced contract that
makes legitimate the sexual union of a man and a woman.", that is their
finding...

Again, this is not a matter that should be up for democratic vote it's too
deeply ingrained in humanity, transcending all boundaries & cultures,
to be a matter people get to choose on. Nobody gets to tell others how
to live & it's simply a matter of bigoted history that we're trying to, and
will, overcome.

If you can't face these simple truth's then I call foul & suspect some
ulterior motives...

piby

JacquesD'Ladd wrote: »

N.O.

Nitric Oxide? I thought you might be trying to say NO but that's one word

I always think it would pass no problem but you forget about how conservative a lot of people are. There are those even who out in public would be supporters of homosexuality but in private may be quite opposed to it it and the thing is they can vote as such (in private) while still retaining that face of liberalism on the outside.

I've never understood why it's such an issue. A person should be allowed to do whatever makes them happy as long as it doesn't affect another. I've never been harmed emotionally or physically by two men having a relationship so live and let live!

Cheap Thrills!

Is marriage itself not on the way out.

Instead of encouraging it why not move twords stamping it out altogether.

It's nothing but a waste of money with a huge percentage of marriages breaking down. We'd have to fix our laws to do with children and inheritance and tax and all that but it all has to be done sooner or later anyway.

philologos

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Yes it should be changed because it is an antiquaited law that impinges on the rights of human beings. This is not an issue of choice it's an issue of the majority of people's bigoted views impinging on the freedom of other people in the society. This is a more fundamental right than just a choice, it's excluding people from expressing their love in the way most natural for
people all over the world - in the eyes of the law & the public.

The issue doesn't surround whether or not people can or should express their love. It surrounds whether or not children should be raised in such situations. Or indeed, if the Government should attempt to ensure that in the vast majority of situations that children are raised with both a mother and a father.

Personally, I don't think that is that antiquated to expect the Government to ensure the very best for children.

The right of expressing your love is clearly yours, but the welfare of any children needs to be considered. If marriage is the basis for the family in the Constitution, that means we also need to consider children as well as the love expressed.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I'd love to hear the pragmatic reasons behind excluding human beings from
expressing love in a natural way :rolleyes:

See above.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Remember, you have just voiced your opinion on a radical change of the family;

I have.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

as being a reason you'd vote against giving people their fundamental human rights yet if you knew anything about cultures throughout the world you'd realise there is no such thing as a single family structure. I'll refer you to my post you haven't attempted to reply to here where you'll get a
more detailed answer to why this is the case.

LGBT couples have the right to formalise their relationships or will do within a few months.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

You have to explain to us why all over the world the one common thread anthropologists find is that marriage a "publicly announced contract that makes legitimate the sexual union of a man and a woman." is the finding...

I'm arguing based on legislation, and possible impacts. Not on the basis of anthropology.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Again, this is not a matter that should be up for democratic vote it's too deeply ingrained in humanity, transcending all boundaries & cultures, to be a matter people get to choose on. Nobody gets to tell others how to live & it's simply a matter of bigoted history that we're trying to, and will, overcome.

Given the Supreme Court ruling in 2006 (if I remember correctly), and the Constitution, this is the way it has to be.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If you can't face these simple truth's then I call foul & suspect some ulterior motives...

I've argued clearly for my position. If you wish to claim ulterior motives, be my guest.

I'm not in this discussion to be antagonistic, or even hateful in any respect, but merely to argue my case for why marriage should be kept as it is, and why civil partnership should be explored more thoroughly in respect to LGBT couples.

MrSir

Jakkass wrote: »

In democratic systems such as the Irish one, if people are asked to vote on a particular issue, they certainly do have the right to cast their vote along with everyone else.

If people have real concerns about it, then they should be known.

The issue is a changing of definition. Marriage in the current legal context is defined as a union between a man and a woman. What is being suggested that one should change the definition of marriage to say the union of any two persons. "Marriage equality" as such is disingenuous. Everyone can be married, there are just limits on who people can be married to, more often than not for pragmatic reasons.

Link234 - I would be glad to give my opinion on the Hong Kong transgender issue, in another thread, more relevant to the subject.

That's a joke right? Please,for all that is good,tell me you're joking.