Same Sex Marraige.....

Squirm

On Friday we face one of the most significant general elections in many decades. Candidates and their political parties are being scrutinized like never before and, from my personal observations, people seem to be informing themselves on said, with unprecedented interest.

I have read and heard some (heated) debate on same sex marraige and, on which parties will be taking a 'for' or 'against' stance on it, if elected.
I would consider there to be many issues of considerably greater importance, particularly given the current climate, for all the nay-sayers out there.

What is the general consensus here on same sex marraige and, for those opposed to it, why and what makes it as important for me to consider as, for example, the jobs and/or social welfare controversies?

Zubeneschamali

I'm for it, but it wouldn't be enough to change my vote this time, economic issues are at the top of my list.

BaronVon

I'm all for same sex marriage, they should suffer like the rest of us!

Kinetic^

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'm for it, but it wouldn't be enough to change my vote this time, economic issues are at the top of my list.

This. Economy is No.1 this time around.

amiable

Live and let live IMO.
If 2 people want to get married who am i to stand in the way.
I personally think our country should be open to the idea

Squirm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'm for it, but it wouldn't be enough to change my vote this time, economic issues are at the top of my list.[/QUOTE

I would think that would be the case for most people (myself included).

Yet, I'm surprised to hear of so many people prioritising same sex marraige, when making their electoral decisions.

I understand for people in same sex relationships and hoping to marry, it would be of huge importance but, for everyone else, it seems a strange things to take issue to.

Beruthiel

I have never understood what the big deal is for some people with regards to same sex marriage. Even if they are against it, the impact on their lives is zero and would mean so much to same sex couples.
Unfortunately, we have bigger fish to fry this election.

Lockstep

Fg oppose same sex marriage but support civil partnership.
Labour support holding a referendum to allow same sex marriage, also support allowing adoption by gay civil partners.
FF- no idea. It's not mentioned in their manifesto.


Personally, I'm cool with it and think it should be brought in. If the Catholic church doesn't want to allow gay marriage within their church, then that's their business and the State shouldn't be intervening. But no religion/secular group should be prohibited from performing same sex marriages either.

It wouldn't be *the* deal breaker but for me it is an important issue in terms of a party's view on equality and social progress.
Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to discriminate?

Squirm

Exactly, if it isn't going to impact your life... why make a scene about it??
Also, that is a good point, the parties' policies on it DO speak volumes about their views on equality and social progress. With that in mind, it would be something to consider but, again, only really for those who are 'pro'.

BaronVon

I think the real issue for most people would be the further seperation of church and state.

This is one of the reasons why I would welcome it, and why many people would be opposed to it.

Despite, as previously mentioned, it would not impact on anyone's lives except those in same sex relationships.

Plus it would show a political party to be somewhat progressive

Aishae

Beruthiel wrote: »

I have never understood what the big deal is for some people with regards to same sex marriage. Even if they are against it, the impact on their lives is zero and would mean so much to same sex couples.
Unfortunately, we have bigger fish to fry this election.

yup - im for it - i dont see why its anyone elses business if some girl wants to marry another girl. it doesnt affect them.

but we do have bigger fish to fry. it wouldnt matter if for eg i decided to marry a girl and it was allowed as we voted in a party that was for it - if that party had no real agenda for the economy. for eg the standard of living is more important than marrying the person you're with - you'll be with that person anyway, minus a piece of paper

dory

I'm delighted to see so much support for it!

I'm the same as above - I support it, but I'll be voting on economic issues.

I agree with the general consensus of the thread (so far) in that SSM just isnt a priority at the moment, and that a political party with the most convincing economic policy is likely to get my vote.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Shoudl it really be seen as such a side issue? I know it only has the potential to affect 10% of society but it is basically a large statement saying ''you are second class citizens''

I tihnk its one of those things that in 50-100 years time will be looked back on as medieval.

In all liklihood once the Brits do it we'll follow suit but just for once couldn't we get there first?

Reilly616

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

In all liklihood once the Brits do it we'll follow suit but just for once couldn't we get there first?

This is a point I thoroughly support. Aside from the obvious main reason for same sex-marriages, it would be great for the image of the country to set an example for the rest of the world. If,however, we wait until England does it, then it will undoubtedly be seen as "copying".

cavedave

Same sex marriage is not as big a deal to most people as public service numbers, jobs or the bank losses. However that does not mean it can be ignored. Its a fallacy to believe that we should ignore all the problems in the state until these three big ones are sorted.

My opinion on same sex marriage is that we can stick a fork in the argument, its done. My country Catholic parents went to Cirque du Soleil last time it was in Ireland. There are gay porn films that are less gay then Cirque du Soleil. When middle aged middle class people go watch that then the war is over. The gays won. Anyone delaying gay marriage is going to look really silly through schopenhauer's telescope in 50 years.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Shoudl it really be seen as such a side issue? I know it only has the potential to affect 10% of society but it is basically a large statement saying ''you are second class citizens''

I tihnk its one of those things that in 50-100 years time will be looked back on as medieval.

In all liklihood once the Brits do it we'll follow suit but just for once couldn't we get there first?

I don't mean to imply its a side issue. Of course people should never be regarded as second class citizens. What I'm getting at is that, for the time being, stability of the country should be the dominant issue. Bear in mind that it's not simply a case of legalising it. There needs to be a referendum and the electorate has to make the final decision.

liveline

As far as I'm concerned anybody who is against same-sex marriage is homophobic. When you use the word homophobic though people become very defensive. The truth is though, if you don't believe gay couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples then ultimately you believe that gays aren't equal. That may be based on religious views or negative stereotypes, but whatever it is - its still homophobia. But when it comes to voting, I don't think it would be a priority for most people. There are lots of gay people that will vote for FG or FF despite the parties deeming them second class citizens.

I've said this on these forums already but there seems to a major gap for a new political party that is socially liberal but centre-right on economic issues. That would reflect public opinion more than the parties we have now.

PeterIanStaker

I fully support same sex marriage, and also hope that a situation could arise whereby the EU issues some sort of directive forcing the backward types in the Dail to implement it.

Adrian009

At the end of the day, its something that will have to be put to a vote, and that is something no party can control. The economy is Number 1 issue - otherwise, NOBODY will be able to afford to get married.

liveline

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

I fully support same sex marriage, and also hope that a situation could arise whereby the EU issues some sort of directive forcing the backward types in the Dail to implement it.

I think it would be even sweeter if we had a referendum and the people chose to legalise same sex marriage. Opinion polls suggest people are in favour of it. I'd much prefer for it to be passed by referendum just so David Quinn and other religious fundamentalists would finally get the message that just because most Irish people are stupid enough to tick the Catholic box on the census form, it doesn't mean they're actually Catholic.

Lawrence1895

Lockstep wrote: »

Fg oppose same sex marriage but support civil partnership.
Labour support holding a referendum to allow same sex marriage, also support allowing adoption by gay civil partners.
FF- no idea. It's not mentioned in their manifesto.


Personally, I'm cool with it and think it should be brought in. If the Catholic church doesn't want to allow gay marriage within their church, then that's their business and the State shouldn't be intervening. But no religion/secular group should be prohibited from performing same sex marriages either.

It wouldn't be *the* deal breaker but for me it is an important issue in terms of a party's view on equality and social progress.
Is there so much love in the world that we can afford to discriminate?

Since you mentioned the Catholic Church and them opposing gay marriage, plus FG opposing it, too. Can it be said, that (conservative?) members of the Catholic Church tend to vote for FG?

I can only compare it to the situation in Germany, where most Catholics vote for the Christian Democrats, with both of them opposing gay marriages.

Anyway, I don't mind a gay or lesbian couple getting married, why should I? For me, everybody deserves to be happy

liveline

Lars1916 wrote: »

Since you mentioned the Catholic Church and them opposing gay marriage, plus FG opposing it, too. Can it be said, that (conservative?) members of the Catholic Church tend to vote for FG?

Quite a few of them vote FF...

Adrian009

liveline wrote: »

I think it would be even sweeter if we had a referendum and the people chose to legalise same sex marriage. Opinion polls suggest people are in favour of it. I'd much prefer for it to be passed by referendum just so David Quinn and other religious fundamentalists would finally get the message that just because most Irish people are stupid enough to tick the Catholic box on the census form, it doesn't mean they're actually Catholic.

Good point. But the real truely madly deeply fundies will never cease to agitate. Its the people who don't agree with gay marriage yet who will abide by the majority vote that we should'nt fall out with. Civil society and all that.

Adrian009

Lars1916 wrote: »

Since you mentioned the Catholic Church and them opposing gay marriage, plus FG opposing it, too. Can it be said, that (conservative?) members of the Catholic Church tend to vote for FG?

I can only compare it to the situation in Germany, where most Catholics vote for the Christian Democrats, with both of them opposing gay marriages.

Anyway, I don't mind a gay or lesbian couple getting married, why should I? For me, everybody deserves to be happy

Well, most Catholics in Ireland nowadays are really Protestant in outlook. They are part of the church but turn a deaf ear to most of the nonesence the Pope comes out with.

PeterIanStaker

liveline wrote: »

I think it would be even sweeter if we had a referendum and the people chose to legalise same sex marriage. Opinion polls suggest people are in favour of it. I'd much prefer for it to be passed by referendum just so David Quinn and other religious fundamentalists would finally get the message that just because most Irish people are stupid enough to tick the Catholic box on the census form, it doesn't mean they're actually Catholic.

Well said. Although Quinn is exceptional in the sense that he is an attention - seeking bigot, a bit like Paisley in his heyday.

WeeBushy

Recession or no recession, I'm finding it very difficult to vote for a party (FG) who don't think homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Just can't bring myself to reward that kind of thinking, even if they have superior economic ideas.

Adrian009

WeeBushy wrote: »

Recession or no recession, I'm finding it very difficult to vote for a party (FG) who don't think homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexual couples. Just can't bring myself to reward that kind of thinking, even if they have superior economic ideas.

But at least they do support the civil partnership bill. They are entitled to their opinion as long as they abide by whatever outcome brought about by a referendum. After all, they don't want to criminalize such couples.

Dr. Baltar

Adrian009 wrote: »

After all, they don't want to criminalize such couples.

"It sucks that I can't marry because of my blue eyes, but at least they're not putting me in prison for having them. I guess I'll give them a vote".

Not going to happen.

telekon

Like others here, totally for it but will be concentrating on economic issues this time around.

rainbow kirby

It is an important issue for me - thankfully pretty much anyone I was even remotely considering voting for is in favour of it. I cannot even consider giving a preference to any party which refuses to consider me an equal citizen of this country.