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.

amiable

rainbow kirby wrote: »

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.

Is it just important that they are in favour of it?
Or would you not prefer someone who will actively push for it?
These people are probably few and far between who will actively push for it

An Cuinneach

Totally for it. The positive impact it would have on so many people is reason enough. Though economic issues are absolutely vital in this election, I just couldn't give Fine Gael my vote, when even their young, vibrant candidates like Lucinda Creighton are opposed to something as important as same-sex marriage. It would also make us look a hell of a lot better on an international level - I constantly refer to Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, etc. when talking about same-sex marriage; it would be nice to have someone from the UK giving us as an example.

dominiquecruz

Perhaps its foolish of me to deprioritise our economic recovery in such a dire climate, but bearing in mind I am quite young (i.e without my own family to support), legislation of same-sex marriage is one of the key issues for me in this upcoming election. Social progress to me just seems fundamentally more important; all parties are focused on economic change, this we're guaranteed, so for me I would like to concentrate my vote on those parties who promise to take Ireland out of the backward, Catholic catchtrap we've been living in. It embarrasses me to even think we're still living in an age/country that denies LGBT folk one of their fundamental rights. The economy, of course, is currently the most pressing issue for the majority of the country, and thus they will vote accordingly; however, it saddens me to think that so many will endorse a socio-regressive party based on their economic policies.

Just to add, its not the sole motivation for my decision on Friday.

amiable

I don't think its foolish at all.
Its your vote and you use it as you like.:D

biscuiteater

infacteh wrote: »

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

i know what you mean!

i look at the crowd hunting for votes and just try to decide which one will not flush us further down the economic toilet than we already are and haven't much hope in any of them

they all talk a lot of rubbish and never live up to what they promise

seamus

A party would only turn me off if they said they were specifically in opposition to same-sex marriage or would reverse the partnership bill.

Tbh, I think a little too much is being made of it. Less than 20 years ago, it was illegal to be gay in this state. Now we are seen as one of the most gay-friendly countries in the world and civil partnership has brought gay rights close to parity. That's not bad going at all. Granted, governments have had to be dragged kicking and screaming to get this stuff in, but such an idealogical and legal shift in the space of 20 years is very quick in political terms.

I said it at the time, and I still think it's true; baby steps. There is still a sizeable proportion of the populace firmly embedded in the 1950's and 60's who have the glassy-eyed notion of marriage being sacred and for men and women only. My parents who aren't remotely religious and have no specific problem with "the gays" and civil partnership, would vote against same-sex marriage on the children basis. It's a very old rooted issue, perhaps initiated by, but not linked to religion.
Push these people to accept too much at once and they will resist. Get them used to the idea one step at a time, and they will learn to tolerate it, if not accept it.

We will have full gay marriage rights in this country within ten years at the most. But you will alienate a huge chunk of voters if you make it an immediate and headline issue. Give it a few years for civil partnership to disseminate, then go for it.

At the moment there are more important things.

[Jackass]

I can't understand how, unless your from the middle east, or middle america, where beheadings, hangings and sex with your sister are deemed normal, you could ever have a problem with same sex marriage.

I'm pro choice on virtually everything that only effects people on a personal level and gives people control on their own lives.

Same sex marriage is not an issue for me in this election, but I do think whoever is elected should hold a referendum on it, for which of course, I would vote yes, as I would imagine at least 75% of the rest of the country would.

[off topic]
Does anyone recall Obama saying pre-election in U.S. that he would introduce same sex marriage in America? Did this ever happen / will it happen?
[/offtopic]

R28

I personally see the issue of Gay Marriage as a litmus test for how rational a candidate/party is.

There are no sound rational or logical reasons for not allowing same sex marriage which has the full equal rights and responsibilities as heterosexual marriage.

Therefore if a person or party is opposed to same sex marriage, they are being irrational and irrationality is one thing I don't want to see in my elected representatives. If they can be irrational about this one simple issue, they can be irrational about other things.

It's why Fine Gael will no longer be receiving any preferences from me. They were going to get a mid to low preference but after hearing their views on same sex marriage, they won't be getting any votes from me.

Lockstep

Personally, I don't see civil partnership as a stepping stone.
If someone is to be seen as equal, this needs to put forward without any 'baby steps' or crumb throwing. If someone is equal to the rest of us, then they need to have their rights guaranteed to them as soon as possible, to give them any half-measures isn't viewing them as full citizens.

As such, I support same sex marriage.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Lockstep wrote: »

Personally, I don't see civil partnership as a stepping stone.
If someone is to be seen as equal, this needs to put forward without any 'baby steps' or crumb throwing. If someone is equal to the rest of us, then they need to have their rights guaranteed to them as soon as possible, to give them any half-measures isn't viewing them as full citizens.

As such, I support same sex marriage.

Yeah if anything its kind of a ''forget what you deserve we threw you some crumbs be happy with that''

amiable

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Yeah if anything its kind of a ''forget what you deserve we threw you some crumbs be happy with that''

I agree with you but we have to remember Ireland is an old fashioned country run by mostly old fashioned backward thinking farts so any step forward is a positive step imo.

seamus

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Yeah if anything its kind of a ''forget what you deserve we threw you some crumbs be happy with that''

Well the way I think the LGBT community should be looking at it is thus; would you prefer that you have civil partnership now, putting marriage in touching distance within 5-10 years? Or would you prefer that you had nothing now, and fought for the next 5-10 for full installation of same-sex marriage?

Same-sex marriage now is not an option. None of the parties are willing to risk their conservative vote over it. It's always easier to climb to the next ledge when you have a step in between.

I understand that the issue is about rights and respect, but it seems to me that at least partial recognition of rights is preferable to none at all and is an obvious intermediate step towards full equal rights. Universal sufferage didn't appear overnight. It was the culmination of a gradual build up of rights for those people who didn't have them.

jackal

I am for it, but I asked my dad (a normally rational guy) what he thinks and he is against it. He could not really enunciate why he is against it, he just is. He is not what you would call a homophobe/religious at all, but there just seems to be a traditional, inbuilt thing about marriage.

I think that a referendum would fail in all honesty. We are nearly there, but not quite.

rumour

liveline wrote: »

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.

Homophobia....pretty intellectual argument. People’s personal relationships are none of the state’s business in my opinion but even you seem capable of castigating and deriding anyone that disagrees with your views.

The problem is you want the state to guarantee rights and as usual do not specify responsibilities associated with these rights. Let’s face it conferring rights is ever so popular; responsibilities are a completely different matter.

The complexity of conferring this equality is best demonstrated by the complications involved when children are introduced. I mean marriage as we know it legally is set up to protect children. If you are in any doubt about that go to a divorce court and see how the courts of Ireland justify their decisions on the dissolution of a marriage. I acknowledge that is difficult as they are secret.

The state has a responsibility to protect children (even if it’s not explicit how far that goes I think is pretty fundamental) what option does the state choose to advocate???
Do they adopt the traditional model or the single parent model or the 'anybody' model or does the state assume responsibility by state orphanages or none/all of the above. The 'anybody' model is fine by me generally but as a matter of public policy it complicated.

What rights and responsibilities do the biological parents have??? Is it homophobic to write out of existence the rights of a mother to know and be involved with her child?

That is the only way you can give equal status to a gay couples with children in a marriage. What is the answer? Honestly I don't know.

Similarly is it right to ignore the rights and responsibilities of the biological father...should we assume that these things are irrelevant when compared against the rights of gay couples not to be discriminated against? I don't know the answer, but it does seem peculiar for a state to advocate this policy.

If the state advocates the 'anybody' model thus discriminating against no one, who decides?..... Ultimately that will responsibility will fall with the state, making the state increasingly involved in determining the upbringing of children. Now I have to admit I’m not in favour of this.

Seemingly the state is then forced to return to developing a model which it must advocate to protect the children, if the vast majority of people adopt the traditional model with no malign intentions whatsoever against gay couples should the state not reflect the social mores of the vast majority or should they go against this and introduce a policy to support a minority group. I have to ask, what is the reasoning for this? What are the state advocating?

Do the rights of the individual trump the rights of children???

These are only some of the issues that arise, to simply discount the issue as homophobia is rather un-intellectual and headline grabbing which probably is why every politician runs a mile from the subject.

28064212

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.

I'd be pretty much of the same mindset, but I can certainly see why people prioritise social issues over economic ones. It's of a similar kind of thinking as the phrase "governments don't create jobs"

Kurley

I'm against it. Would affect my vote if FG came out to push for it.

rainbow kirby

amiable wrote: »

Is it just important that they are in favour of it?
Or would you not prefer someone who will actively push for it?
These people are probably few and far between who will actively push for it

It is crucial that they are in favour of it, and I would strongly favour someone who will push for it. Conversely, there is no chance in hell that Fine Gael will get a preference from me after the comments which have been made stating that the half-measure of Civil Partnership is as far as they are willing to go.

(for the record, my politics tend to lean to the left anyway, and I've generally voted for miscellaneous lefties or Labour in previous GEs)

amiable

Kurley wrote: »

I'm against it. Would affect my vote if FG came out to push for it.

Why are you against it Kurley?
Its all about opinions and yours is valued too.

Kurley

amiable wrote: »

Why are you against it Kurley?
Its all about opinions and yours is valued too.

I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, with the aim being to begin a family. Saying that though, I have no issue with civil partnerships, where people who make a commitment to one another getting some of the benefits that married people do. I just don't want marriage to be redefined.

28064212

Kurley wrote: »

I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, with the aim being to begin a family. Saying that though, I have no issue with civil partnerships, where people who make a commitment to one another getting some of the benefits that married people do. I just don't want marriage to be redefined.

So infertile couples can't get married?