Opinions on same sex marriage in Ireland

Bannasidhe

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

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?

Katie Taylor should not call herself a 'boxer' but something else - 'slapper' is out so what about 'hitter' and as for the Grand Slam women's rugby team, well, perhaps 'Eton players' would be a better term for their sport.

wolfpawnat

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

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?

You'll turn the dog gay!!!! :eek::eek::eek: Call the DSPCA!!!!! Sorry couldn't resist, I have actually heard people giving out about gay couples having dogs and thinking it cruel!

My partner never wants to get married, he hates the idea of it, well he hates the idea of a wedding, never really asked about the marriage thing itself. But I am bisexual. If things don't work with him, I could easily find myself with a woman, and if I wanted to marry her, then I would like to think I would have the right.

Also because my kids are mine biologically, there is never a worry about me raising them, as far as I am aware, it is allowed for a gay person/couple to adopt/foster a child here (please correct me if I am wrong). So if they are seen as an acceptable parent, why not husbands/wives?

Trudiha

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.

Actually, I'm much more into equality than marriage itself. If the State could afford all couples, gay, straight, married, single, whatevered, the same legal protection, rights and privileges as each other, I'd be happy with them calling it anything they liked, as long as it's called the same thing for everybody.

Furthermore, when I'm the boss of the world, it will all be done for hardly any money with no chair covers, big frocks or 'wedding favours'.

Bannasidhe

Sarky wrote: »

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!

Men on ladies bikes.....:eek:

Ladies swinging their legs over the crossbar of men's bikes.....:eek:

We will have none of that blurring of genders here matey. :mad:

darced

This post has been deleted.

Sierra 117

Is there something wrong with a man and a woman having a marriage and a gay couple having a marriage?

VinLieger

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well your advocating they cant have the word marriage because of their sexual orientation so maybe theres other words they cant have either? Bit weird you only have a problem with them using one word.

Daith

darced wrote: »

Why would any of those have to change? Is there something wrong with a man and woman having a marriage and a gay couple having a civil union?

You seem to think there is. What's the point of calling a marriage a civil union? So children of same sex couples don't have married parents? They have unioned parents?

What's wrong with gay people being married?

Bannasidhe

wolfpawnat wrote: »

You'll turn the dog gay!!!! :eek::eek::eek: Call the DSPCA!!!!! Sorry couldn't resist, I have actually heard people giving out about gay couples having dogs and thinking it cruel!

My partner never wants to get married, he hates the idea of it, well he hates the idea of a wedding, never really asked about the marriage thing itself. But I am bisexual. If things don't work with him, I could easily find myself with a woman, and if I wanted to marry her, then I would like to think I would have the right.

Also because my kids are mine biologically, there is never a worry about me raising them, as far as I am aware, it is allowed for a gay person/couple to adopt/foster a child here (please correct me if I am wrong). So if they are seen as an acceptable parent, why not husbands/wives?

Gay individuals can adopt/foster but gay couples cannot. Not even if they have a civil partnership.

Also in the case of children born outside marriage where no father is recognised in law via a Guardianship declaration- should the mother marry her husband can then adopt her children although he has no biological relationship to them.

Trudiha

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Yeah, you've hit the nail on the head, there is something wrong with hetro and homosexuals being treated differently and having different names for their state recognised relationships.

Jimoslimos

I'm not pro-gay marriage (or anti for that matter) because marriage regardless of whether it is comprised of homosexual or heterosexual couples, still discriminates - especially against those from lower income groups. Not to mention polygamous arrangements which IMO are no less deserving of recognition.

The State's role in recognising private relationships should be limited to next of kin and guardianship rights. Bestowing additional rights on those who can afford to get married (or withholding them from those who cannot) is ridiculous - whether they are gay or straight.

tster

darced wrote: »

Why would any of those have to change? Is there something wrong with a man and woman having a marriage and a gay couple having a civil union?

That's like saying sure why didn't rosa parks just stay down the back of the bus, she woulda still gotten to where she wanted to go.

Cody Pomeray

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I have no idea why any of those things would have to change. So you can therefore understand my confusion when you say the name of marriage must be different when it applies to gay people.

There was a time when gay people were banned from having sex.
When gay people "got the free sex" in 1993, as we call it, should it have been given another name? Maybe "sins" or "naughty goings-on"? I dunno! It's just surreal to me thinking about it. Almost comedy if it weren't our actual lives, like.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Czarcasm

Trudiha wrote: »

Actually, I'm much more into equality than marriage itself. If the State could afford all couples, gay, straight, married, single, whatevered, the same legal protection, rights and privileges as each other, I'd be happy with them calling it anything they liked, as long as it's called the same thing for everybody.

Furthermore, when I'm the boss of the world, it will all be done for hardly any money with no chair covers, big frocks or 'wedding favours'.

I'd be happy if we could go back to easier ways of addressing people than calling them androgynous non descriptive terms such as our "partner", "life partner", "significant other", "other half", etc-

Boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife.

So much easier than all the too far gone politically correct "thou shalt walk on eggshells" nonsense.

And anyone who says "We're pregnant" should be told when only one person is pregnant, it's "I", NOT "We".

NuMarvel

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

That some insider joke? Care to expand

Oh, the irony :rolleyes:.

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If the net effect is exactly the same, then the same processes and mechanisms should used. It's efficient if nothing else.

Also, having two pieces of legislation runs the risk of a future government amending one to make it lesser than the other. Which would jeopardise the equality that you agree is deserved.

Sierra 117 wrote: »

Is there something wrong with a man and a woman having a marriage and a gay couple having a marriage?

Apparently, yes.

But we're damned if anyone is actually able to explain why.

Cody Pomeray

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Actually, since you've implied that it's different even with the same rights, that's a faulty allusion.

It's more like driving a car and everyone else is telling you it's a "vehicle intended for the mechanical propulsion of homosexuals"

tster

darced wrote: »

Its nothing like it,more like someone riding a bicycle and wanting to call it a car.

Saying that a minority group should be satisfied with what they have? I think it is kind of like it!!

Phill Ewinn

Knasher wrote: »

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.

Yes. Logic is slowly creeping into the debate. On that point. The state already calls different things by different names.

Bannasidhe

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What?

Surely a polygamous marriage would be akin to a car as it fits more in.

Marriage is more like a tandem as it takes two to make it work.

With respect, that's a crap analogy.

Sierra 117

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Yes. Logic is slowly creeping into the debate. On that point. The state already calls different things by different names.

Yeah, but there's no need for them to call gay marriage a different name since it's the same thing as straight marriage.

1ZRed

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'd be happy if we could go back to easier ways of addressing people than calling them androgynous non descriptive terms such as our "partner", "life partner", "significant other", "other half", etc-

Boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife.

So much easier than all the too far gone politically correct "thou shalt walk on eggshells" nonsense.

And anyone who says "We're pregnant" should be told when only one person is pregnant, it's "I", NOT "We".

I hate partner. Husband and boyfriend do grand than that guessing game, which when used by straight people always makes me wonder are they gay.

The "we're pregnant" thing is stupid as fook to me as well.

Trudiha

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

The state already calls different things by different names.

Indeed it does and rightly so, it cuts down on confusion.

Talking of confusion, why do the gays have to have a different type of state recognised relationship? What is fundamentally different between the relationship between me and my missus who I'm currently not talking to because I'm typing at you and your relationship with your missus who you're currently not talking to because you're typing at me?

darced

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

Sierra 117 wrote: »

Yeah, but there's no need for them to call gay marriage a different name since it's the same thing as straight marriage.

Apparently it's not the same thing at all but no one has been able to explain exactly why yet.

On the plus side we haven't had any of those 'gay = icky icky bum sex/God made a wee and a hoo-hoo because that's the way he wanted it and any other permutation is lustful, evil, icky bum sex and that's why the gays shouldn't be allowed to marry' type posts that usually pop in these kind of threads. Which is nice.

darced

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Gay individuals can adopt/foster but gay couples cannot. Not even if they have a civil partnership.

I think gay couples can foster together, primarily because there's no legal relationship between the child and the couple. At the end of the day, responsibility for the child lies with the HSE, with the couple "employed" as carers.

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you referred to your bike as a car in front of someone, they wouldn't know what you're talking about.

If I told someone I got married to another man, they'd know exactly what I mean.

The meaning of the word marriage is about the entity and union it creates, not the participants.

1ZRed

darced wrote: »

It is no more crap than the post I quoted,where would the kids sit?crap analogy;)

Because your bike one was better? I still don't get it

Knasher

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Yes. Logic is slowly creeping into the debate. On that point. The state already calls different things by different names.

Can you give me a single example where the state differentiates by name yet makes no legal differentiations?

Daith

darced wrote: »

I think it has been stated many times,because a man and woman is not the same as two gay people.

Aside from biological differences why not. What are the differences?