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

Opinions on same sex marriage in Ireland

Options
1…1012141516

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Word jumble. Great. Once logic is gone thats the response we're left with.


    You still haven't told us whats different about gay people marrying....


  • Options
    #333
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Ah here. I'm hanging up my hat. "Different". Its a word. Does anyone here speak the lingo?

    We get that you think the relationships are different, but you're not saying why that's a reason to treat the relationships differently in law. The presence of differences isn't sufficient reason to justify differing treatment.


  • Options
    #334
    godwin
    Registered Users Posts: 393 ✭✭godwin


    I'm indiffernt , if Homosexuals/Lesbians want to be subjected to the misery of marriage then let them.


  • Options
    #335
    darced
    Registered Users Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭darced


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #336
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Nodin wrote: »
    You still haven't told us whats different about gay people marrying....

    Well if put all your chalk and cheese into one basket, you'll be comparing apples and oranges and throwing the baby out with the forest you can't see for the trees we're all barking up.

    Sounds straightforward to me.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Word jumble. Great. Once logic is gone thats the response we're left with.

    The logic is simple - currently the Irish State grants certain privileged to heterosexuals who marry which by virtue of the fact that it denies marriage to homosexuals means it denies them these same privileges.

    This in effect means that not only can heterosexual Irish citizens avail of these privileges, heterosexual non-Irish citizens can but homosexual Irish citizens cannot.

    I have very nice Polish neighbours, both hardworking decent people with a new baby - the woman has a teenage daughter from a previous relationship. They are married so their relationship is recognised in law - the husband's relationship with his step-daughter is recognised in law.

    I, however, am an Irish citizen who has paid tax and PRSI for 3 decades (usually at the highest rate including in the 80s :mad:), I have a child too but my relationship with my OH is not recognised in law nor is hers with our son.

    It really strikes me as amazing that I, an Irish citizen, am denied rights available to non-citizens just because I am gay and people are ok with that. What the F is the point of citizenship???


  • Options
    #338
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Sarky wrote: »
    Well if put all your chalk and cheese into one basket, you'll be comparing apples and oranges and throwing the baby out with the forest you can't see for the trees we're all barking up.

    Sounds straightforward to me.

    you forgot to mention that we will all be forced to marry our bicycles going forward.


  • Options
    #339
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Trudiha wrote: »
    I totally accept your choice to beg for crumbs from the rich man's table but it's not a position I'm ever going to take up myself. If I have to try and convince someone that I'm a normal member of society, well able to take on all of the rights and responsibilities of adulthood, then the argument is already lost. My right to equality is self-evident to any reasonable person.

    I know the Thanks button is meant to dissuade what I'm going to say, but I have to say that is the most eloquent statements I have read on this topic, ever. Thank you.


  • Options
    #340
    Trudiha
    Registered Users Posts: 235 ✭✭Trudiha


    I honestly think that Katie Price has done more to undermine the sacred institution of marriage than all of the ghays put together but you don't see anyone brave enough to get between her and a bit of wedding cake.


  • Options
    #341
    Stinicker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,102 ✭✭✭Stinicker


    Feckin Greeks they invented Gayness!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The logic is simple - currently the Irish State grants certain privileged to heterosexuals who marry which by virtue of the fact that it denies marriage to homosexuals means it denies them these same privileges.

    This in effect means that not only can heterosexual Irish citizens avail of these privileges, heterosexual non-Irish citizens can but homosexual Irish citizens cannot.

    I have very nice Polish neighbours, both hardworking decent people with a new baby - the woman has a teenage daughter from a previous relationship. They are married so their relationship is recognised in law - the husband's relationship with his step-daughter is recognised in law.

    I, however, am an Irish citizen who has paid tax and PRSI for 3 decades (usually at the highest rate including in the 80s :mad:), I have a child too but my relationship with my OH is not recognised in law nor is hers with our son.

    It really strikes me as amazing that I, an Irish citizen, am denied rights available to non-citizens just because I am gay and people are ok with that. What the F is the point of citizenship???

    I'm not OK with it either. But giving people the same rights under same sex partnership legislation won't do for people posting on here. They insist on marriage as a panacea, a totem to all their wants. It's ridiculous. Celebrating two different relationships isn't acceptable for some illogical and undefined reason.


  • Options
    #343
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    Trudiha wrote: »
    I honestly think that Katie Price has done more to undermine the sacred institution of marriage than all of the ghays put together but you don't see anyone brave enough to get between her and a bit of wedding cake.

    All of her partners are male, so for some reason that's okay. Wasn't there a Republican senator or congressman in America saying that Gay Marriage would ruin the sanctity of marriage, and he after marrying FOUR times!


  • Options
    #344
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Trudiha wrote: »
    That hasn't been my experience; when I came out, 25 years ago, I and all of the other gays I knew, were regular targets of homophobic abuse. If I held my gf's hand in the street, the best I could hope for were cat calls and on a bad day we'd be spat at. I haven't budged an inch, my sexuality is exactly the same now as it was then and I'm no less up for an augment about me being a regular tax-paying citizen now, than I was then. I have never begged for tolerance or made excuses about not being able to help myself. However, the rest of the world has changed, hardly anyone cares who I'm shagging any more and if they do, they keep it to themselves.


    Nail on the head there with that bolded bit, and that's exactly why marital equality struggles to be recognised and will struggle to be passed at the referendum stage- People don't have to worry about others seeing what way they ACTUALLY vote.

    The rest of your post though, you're talking about a change in society, and even THAT'S been slow as fcuk really- I remember 25 years ago too when a gay man would walk into the room and there'd be whispers of "àrses to the wall lads, here comes so and so", and tbh not much has changed- now at least they salute the guy and wait for him to pass, before they make remarks like "don't bend down there, he'll drop a length in you the very same as a babys arm".

    Point is- there's a LOT of people keeping shìt to themselves, and that's why you won't hear about it on boards, but depending on who you mix with (or have no choice BUT to mix with, be it through work or college, etc), you'll come across people who will smile and be polite to your face, but behind the ballot box curtain they'll have their own true opinions.

    I totally accept your choice to beg for crumbs from the rich man's table but it's not a position I'm ever going to take up myself. If I have to try and convince someone that I'm a normal member of society, well able to take on all of the rights and responsibilities of adulthood, then the argument is already lost. My right to equality is self-evident to any reasonable person.


    And the person with the opposite stance to yours will just say that their opinion is self evident to any "reasonable person".

    A reasonable person would at least try and understand where the other person was coming from and try to talk to them on their level, not be engaging in looking down on them and dismissing them as illogical bigots at the rich man's table.


  • Options
    #345
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I'm not OK with it either. But giving people the same rights under same sex partnership legislation won't do for people posting on here. They insist on marriage as a panacea, a totem to all their wants. It's ridiculous. Celebrating two different relationships isn't acceptable for some illogical and undefined reason.


    Why/how is it different?


  • Options
    #346
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    you forgot to mention that we will all be forced to marry our bicycles going forward.

    I have no objections to men marrying ladies' bikes or vice versa. But men marrying men's bikes? SICK AND WRONG AND IT SHOULD BE OBVIOUS WHY SO I'LL NEVER EXPLAIN MYSELF!


  • Options
    #347
    1ZRed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,293 ✭✭✭1ZRed


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I'm not OK with it either. But giving people the same rights under same sex partnership legislation won't do for people posting on here. They insist on marriage as a panacea, a totem to all their wants. It's ridiculous. Celebrating two different relationships isn't acceptable for some illogical and undefined reason.

    David Quinn, is that you?


  • Options
    #348
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    1ZRed wrote: »
    David Quinn, is that you?

    That some insider joke? Care to expand


  • Options
    #349
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,775 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I'm not OK with it either. But giving people the same rights under same sex partnership legislation won't do for people posting on here. They insist on marriage as a panacea, a totem to all their wants. It's ridiculous. Celebrating two different relationships isn't acceptable for some illogical and undefined reason.

    Why are they different types of relationships? You have not provided one argument to back up your opinion


  • Options
    #350
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Why are they different types of relationships? You have not provided one argument to back up your opinion

    Pot - kettle - black.


  • Options
    #351
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,775 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Pot - kettle - black.

    Oh Really?
    VinLieger wrote: »
    Youve never explained your opinion though, i believe there is no difference as they both love each other enough to want to commit the rest of their lives to each other and who is anyone else to say they shouldnt be allowed to?

    Pretty sure thats me explaining my argument why they arent different at all, now since ive proven you wrong are you just gonne behave like a child and pretend you didnt read this like all the other times youve been asked to explain your reasoning?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I'm not OK with it either. But giving people the same rights under same sex partnership legislation won't do for people posting on here. They insist on marriage as a panacea, a totem to all their wants. It's ridiculous. Celebrating two different relationships isn't acceptable for some illogical and undefined reason.

    A panacea to what? Nothing wrong here, boss.

    We're asking for equal rights, not a lottery win. Civil partnership does not bestow the same rights as marriage.

    However, even if all of the differences were corrected, I'd still be uncomfortable with the name.

    It just doesn't sit right with me. Why give it a different title. It's like randomly picking 50,000 of the population and saying "instead of citizens, we've decided you guys will be known as "persons enjoying equal rights to Irish citizens". I think most of that group would justifiably oppose any such distinction, even though it would be meaningless in substance.

    What do you think ?


  • Options
    #353
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I'm not OK with it either. But giving people the same rights under same sex partnership legislation won't do for people posting on here. They insist on marriage as a panacea, a totem to all their wants. It's ridiculous. Celebrating two different relationships isn't acceptable for some illogical and undefined reason.

    I have read this whole thread and have not seen anyone suggesting that marriage is a panacea for anything - perhaps you would be kind enough to tell me which posts led you to this conclusion?

    It is a simple point of fact that privileges are available from the civil State to one group of citizens that are denied to another group of citizens and marriage equality advocates are calling for that exclusion to be removed.

    Marriage would remain as a union of partnership between two consenting adults which recognises non-related people as family in law where such a partnership must be exclusive and can only be dissolved by the courts.


  • Options
    #354
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I'm not OK with it either. But giving people the same rights under same sex partnership legislation won't do for people posting on here. They insist on marriage as a panacea, a totem to all their wants. It's ridiculous. Celebrating two different relationships isn't acceptable for some illogical and undefined reason.
    The reason that why that position is unacceptable to me is the exact same reason why it is attractive to you. The differentiation from a legal standpoint would be pointless, as it would carry the same legal rights, so the only point to it would be to get the state to endorse the idea that same sex couples should be regarded differently from opposite sex couples. I do not hold to that view, therefore I don't think the state should endorse it.

    I hope that defines the reason in a logical enough fashion for you.


  • Options
    #355
    1ZRed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,293 ✭✭✭1ZRed


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    That some insider joke? Care to expand

    Just that you sound like that rediculus Iona anti-gay marriage video


  • Options
    #356
    darced
    Registered Users Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭darced


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #357
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,775 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    darced wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    What does that have to do with anything, do hetero couples own the word marriage? News to me. Whats wrong with everyone being allowed use it?


  • Options
    #358
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    darced wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    And they should have to use a different title because?


  • Options
    #359
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    darced wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Because wanting a different word is as ridiculous as insisting that as historically only men could 'vote' a different word had to used when women began to 'vote'.


  • Options
    #360
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    darced wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Hi darced

    Should our 'apartment' be called 'place of civil residence' too?

    Should our dogs be called 'canids under the ownership of co-habiting men'?

    I'm really dumbfounded as to why marriage should be pulled out and given special treatment instead of all of the regular nomenclatures available to gay and straight people equally?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    1ZRed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,293 ✭✭✭1ZRed


    darced wrote: »
    Sure is'nt this it?You still would'nt be happy with equal rights?Its the term marriage now that's the problem.

    It has a different title because it's between people of the same sex.

    Funny thing is, marriage was open to anyone regardless of sex until mainstream religions kicked in an changed that, it was in their best interest as they wanted more followers which lead to more power and money.

    But before that there wasn't anything wrong with same sex anything. Romans, Greeks, Native Americans for example, all didn't care.

    It's only religion's relatively recent influence that made the word marriage between a man and a woman, when thousands of years ago it wasn't.

    So really there should be no objection to the word marriage. Straight people didn't coin the word and do not own it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement