Opinions on same sex marriage in Ireland

Vojera

hoodwinked wrote: »

this is why i think same sex marriage should be allowed over automatic marriage by virtue of living together for a specific time period. keep it as a choice

you either are Boyfriend/girlfriend (or boyfriend/boyfriend...etc) and retain your legal rights/ownerships to yourself

or

you choose to get married and your spouse gets half of everything as you give them half your legal rights/ownerships.

As it is, the former isn't even true for long-term relationships. Once you're living together for five years (it's less if you've kids together), bam, a breakup can mean you both have to divide your assets and the higher earning partner can be forced to pay maintenance to the other partner. All without the benefits of tax breaks, inheritance rights, etc. It's like being married without the upside.

maryishairy

100% in favour of same sex marriage. Live and let live. It's the last great prejudice of our times.

I'm getting married this year to a wonderful young woman. I'd like to believe that I wanted to marry a wonderful young man, I'd be free to do so.

We're supposed to be living in a democratic republic in the 21st century. It's time for the legislation in this area to change in order to reflect that.

Mike 1972

Poll is missing an option "Im against same sex marriage but then again Im also against opposite sex marriage" !

December2012

As a believer in equality of course I support it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

What annoys me most is the idea that "I'm all for gay marraige, but I'm going to vote against it because the might want to adopt."

Ignorant for many reasons.

FoxT

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

What annoys me most is the idea that "I'm all for gay marraige, but I'm going to vote against it because the might want to adopt."

Ignorant for many reasons.

That argument is not ignorant at all. If Gay people are permitted to marry, then some gay married couples will want to adopt children.

If Gay Marriage and heterosexual marriages are both recognised equally before the law, then adoptions WILL happen.

I am not going to argue whether that is a good thing or a bad thing - because I do not know.

But I know this - proponents of Gay marriage who pawn off the adoption issue as a separate question are lying.

-FoxT

VinLieger

FoxT wrote: »

That argument is not ignorant at all. If Gay people are permitted to marry, then some gay married couples will want to adopt children.

If Gay Marriage and heterosexual marriages are both recognised equally before the law, then adoptions WILL happen.

I am not going to argue whether that is a good thing or a bad thing - because I do not know.

But I know this - proponents of Gay marriage who pawn off the adoption issue as a separate question are lying.

-FoxT

LOL gay people can already adopt though, thats the issue here its not illegal, just both of them cant be a parent and if the legal parent dies the other parent has absolutely no rights to the child that he/she has been raising for however long and it will end up in state care

FoxT

VinLieger wrote: »

LOL gay people can already adopt though, thats the issue here its not illegal, just both of them cant be a parent and if the legal parent dies the other parent has absolutely no rights to the child that he/she has been raising for however long and it will end up in state care

That is adoption by an individual then, not by a couple.

Sonics2k

FoxT wrote: »

That is adoption by an individual then, not by a couple.

Right, so it's better for a singly gay person to adopt, rather than a couple. In what possible way does that make sense?

Less chance of the kid catching the ghey?
What if the new parent meets someone and has a relationship? Hand the kid back over?

VinLieger

FoxT wrote: »

That is adoption by an individual then, not by a couple.

Yes and thats the problem why is one allowed and the other is not?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

FoxT wrote: »

That argument is not ignorant at all. If Gay people are permitted to marry, then some gay married couples will want to adopt children.

If Gay Marriage and heterosexual marriages are both recognised equally before the law, then adoptions WILL happen.

I am not going to argue whether that is a good thing or a bad thing - because I do not know.

But I know this - proponents of Gay marriage who pawn off the adoption issue as a separate question are lying.

-FoxT

Therein lies the ignorannce: you say it WILL happen, but have no idea whether it's a "good or bad thing"!!
1 - how can you justify this as an argument, either pro or con, if you do not know it's a bad thing?
2 - how can you saiy gay couples WILL want to adopt if you haven;t even looke into the topic of gay adoption?

Reason number 2 - ignorant because it assumes gay couples will automatically want to adopt

Reason number 3 - ignorant because it assumes gay couples can't be good parents.

Reason number 4 - ignorant because, as poitned out above, gay single men can already adopt.

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Oh yeah, I'm being obstinate. Riiiiiiiight.

Why not just explain yourself?

FoxT

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Therein lies the ignorannce: you say it WILL happen, but have no idea whether it's a "good or bad thing"!!
1 - how can you justify this as an argument, either pro or con, if you do not know it's a bad thing?
2 - how can you saiy gay couples WILL want to adopt if you haven;t even looke into the topic of gay adoption?

Reason number 2 - ignorant because it assumes gay couples will automatically want to adopt

Reason number 3 - ignorant because it assumes gay couples can't be good parents.

Reason number 4 - ignorant because, as poitned out above, gay single men can already adopt.

You are missing my point entirely, or perhaps you are being purposely disingenuous in an attempt to pointscore.

ASSUMING THAT GAY COUPLES WILL WANT TO ADOPT IS NOT IGNORANT, IT IS COMMON SENSE & IS HAPPENING IN OTHER COUNTRIES ALREADY. there will be a demand for it here too because, collectively, there is no reason to expect Irish gay couples to behave differently from those in other countries. Also, as you point out single gay people can and do adopt in Ireland already. Are you trying to suggest that gay adoptions will halt if marriage is permitted?

I do not at all assume that Gay couples will be less effective at parenting than hetero couples - in fact, I state that I do not know.

My issue is this: many in the pro-gay marriage camp are sweeping this question under the carpet, and that is dishonest. The question of adoption by gay couples is inseparable from the Gay marriage question. Gay marriage proponents should be prepared to address this issue honestly.

Or - Would the legalisation of Gay Marriage be acceptable if the adoption of children by gay couples remained prohibited?

-FoxT

StudentDad

Marriage should be recognised full stop - the sexual orientation of the people involved is irrelevant!

If two people have decided that they want to build a life together and spend their lives exploring that paradigm who the hell are we - society - to say they cannot do that?

If marriage rights are extended to heterosexual couples it is only right that the same rights be extended to homosexual, bisexual or couldn't give a damn couples.

The fascination with sex in society and who puts what where is mystifying to me. I wish that individuals who have a hangup about a particular sexual orientation or practice would concentrate on their own private lives and stop worrying about what their 'neighbours' are doing.

Given the dysfunctional history Ireland has with sex and sexuality it's high time this country moves into the 21st century.

SD

VinLieger

FoxT wrote: »

My issue is this: many in the pro-gay marriage camp are sweeping this question under the carpet, and that is dishonest. The question of adoption by gay couples is inseparable from the Gay marriage question. Gay marriage proponents should be prepared to address this issue honestly.

-FoxT

What issue? Should they be allowed adopt? Yes!! Nobody is sweeping anything under the rug in fact its at the forefront of the argument of why gay people want to marry due to the protection marriage will give them when adopting.

Phill Ewinn

VinLieger wrote: »

What issue? Should they be allowed adopt? Yes!! Nobody is sweeping anything under the rug in fact its at the forefront of the argument of why gay people want to marry due to the protection marriage will give them when adopting.

According to another proponent of the gay marriage agenda on RTE the other night they were seperate issues. You say they're not.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

FoxT wrote: »

You are missing my point entirely, or perhaps you are being purposely disingenuous in an attempt to pointscore.

ASSUMING THAT GAY COUPLES WILL WANT TO ADOPT IS NOT IGNORANT, IT IS COMMON SENSE & IS HAPPENING IN OTHER COUNTRIES ALREADY. there will be a demand for it here too because, collectively, there is no reason to expect Irish gay couples to behave differently from those in other countries. Also, as you point out single gay people can and do adopt in Ireland already. Are you trying to suggest that gay adoptions will halt if marriage is permitted?

I do not at all assume that Gay couples will be less effective at parenting than hetero couples - in fact, I state that I do not know.

My issue is this: many in the pro-gay marriage camp are sweeping this question under the carpet, and that is dishonest. The question of adoption by gay couples is inseparable from the Gay marriage question. Gay marriage proponents should be prepared to address this issue honestly.

You're missing the point: I said the argument was ignorant because people do not know and have not researched the topic of gay adoption. You yourself said you didn't know if gay aoption was a good or a bad thing.

My point is this: people who use gay adoption as an argument for con (not nessecarily you, I accept, as you haven't your alligiance) are ignorant of the issues and have not researched them. How, then, can they use this as an argument? The reasons against gay adoption, when put forward, are usually flawed as well. Examples:

"The child may turn out to be gay"
If a child's orientation followed that of it's parents, there'd be such no thing as homosexuality.

"The child will be billied at school becaue of it's parents"
This, combined with the fact kids are bullied at school for other issus which people seem to have no porblems with (i.e. - fat parents have fat kid, no one tries to ban McDoanlds) is tolerant fo bullying. Why not be try and stamp out bullying instead? Or try and teach out kids to be more tolerant?

Or - Would the legalisation of Gay Marriage be acceptable if the adoption of children by gay couples remained prohibited?

Well - no, because that kind of defeats the pupose of bringing about equality.

VinLieger

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

According to another proponent of the gay marriage agenda on RTE the other night they were seperate issues. You say they're not.

Yeah sorry the psychic link between all proponents of gay marriage is down right now, i didnt get the message to change the argument, obviously this invalidates all my opinions.

and just in case you didnt get it /sarcasm

reprazant

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

According to another proponent of the gay marriage agenda on RTE the other night they were seperate issues. You say they're not.

Obviously everyone has to think exactly the same. Nobody is allowed have a different opinion on things. And what is most definite is that nobody should explain their opinions. Just talk about chalk and cheese and things being different but the same and how it happens all the time, etc, etc.

Bannasidhe

VinLieger wrote: »

What issue? Should they be allowed adopt? Yes!! Nobody is sweeping anything under the rug in fact its at the forefront of the argument of why gay people want to marry due to the protection marriage will give them when adopting.

Absolutely.

The undercurrent to using adoption as an excuse to prevent same-sex marriage is the implication that children are not safe with gays. It's dressed up in all sorts of nonsense about protecting the children from bullying or that having gay parents will mess them up due to blurred gender roles or....well...gay = paedophile....

Yet, those who make such statements ignore the fact the gay people can and do adopt as individuals meaning the State does not consider homosexuality as a bar to being an adoptive parent.

Lesbian and gay men have biological children - but the State does not consider the sexual orientation of the parent(s) as grounds to remove the children to 'protect' them.

The State has no issue with the existence of gay parents - if it did it would take action to prevent them rearing children - but for some reason the State refuses to allow the children of gay parents to have two legally recognised parents.

GUBU thinking.

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

According to another proponent of the gay marriage agenda on RTE the other night they were seperate issues. You say they're not.

You going to explain why gay & straight marriage are "different" now phill?

bhamsteve

hoodwinked wrote: »

but they reason they do is because of situations like these arising: imagine if the privileges / legal status of marriage were attached after you spend 5 years as a couple (or 10 years or whatever timeline) suddenly you hit that big anniversary where you qualify for the privileges / legal rights and afterwards things go south, you break up and that ex gets half your house/life/things... legally you are still tied even though you broke up.

by giving them with marriage you are effectively signing to agree to give legal status /privileges over to this person. they can't just take them or claim them you are willingly tying yourself to them,


this is why i think same sex marriage should be allowed over automatic marriage by virtue of living together for a specific time period. keep it as a choice

you either are Boyfriend/girlfriend (or boyfriend/boyfriend...etc) and retain your legal rights/ownerships to yourself

or

you choose to get married and your spouse gets half of everything as you give them half your legal rights/ownerships.




why should people be legally tied to someone just because they are dating a specific time period, if you want to be tied choose to get married.

every couple irregardless of gender should have this choice.

I see where you are coming from and it is a valid point.
My opinion is that nobody should automatically have a host of legal obligations thrust upon them if they chose to marry, and people should not be denied any legal obligations or protection if they chose not to marry.

An example would be with parenting. As an unmarried father I need the permission of my partner to be legally recognised as the guardian of my child.
I find idea of the state dictating the terms of my private relationships as unnatural.

This is going off topic as it is not just about same sex marriage, but I think there needs to be a serious review of the constitution and the religious and moral ideals it puts at the center of Irish law.

Phill Ewinn

Nodin wrote: »

You going to explain why gay & straight marriage are "different" now phill?

Am I having a conversation with a bunch of five year olds or whats the story. If you can't see the difference you really shouldn't be on here debating. Gay marriage 101. Different relationship involved in same sex partnerships.

VinLieger

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Am I having a conversation with a bunch of five year olds or whats the story. If you can't see the difference you really shouldn't be on here debating. Gay marriage 101. Different relationship involved in same sex partnerships.

Well actually you seem to be the one incapable of debating since debating actually requires explaining your argument or reasoning which everyone else seems capable of and you still have yet to do

hooradiation

FoxT wrote: »

But I know this - proponents of Gay marriage who pawn off the adoption issue as a separate question are lying.

Or, and bear with me here because this might get complex, they are able to understand the difference between the two issues.
Or rather an issue and a talking point masquerading as a concern.

"Gay adoption" , for want of a less cretinous label, is as much an separate issue for the concept of gay marriage as gay domestic violence, infidelity, tax breaks, inheritance, next of kin status and divorce.
Which is to say none at all. We put no other couples under similar scrutiny when they chose to get married, why should it be any different for people who are gay?

Also, singling out adoption as a unique issue is one of the more awful pieces of dishonesty that gets trotted out, because in order for this to be an issue you have to accept that there is something about gay people that would be harmful to children, which strays far too close to the "gay == paedophile" nonsense to be anything but a less than deliberate.

So, in short, fuck that "issue" and anyone who thinks it's worth contemplating.

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Am I having a conversation with a bunch of five year olds or whats the story. If you can't see the difference you really shouldn't be on here debating. Gay marriage 101. Different relationship involved in same sex partnerships.

How is it a "different" relationship?

Bannasidhe

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

According to another proponent of the gay marriage agenda on RTE the other night they were seperate issues. You say they're not.

Is it an issue for heterosexual couples?

Does anyone say this straight couple should be prevented from marrying because they may want to adopt?

No - they don't. It is not an issue at all.

The contract of Marriage in and of itself does not presuppose there will be children - it is a contract between two adults. That is all. Children are not intrinsically part of that contract. It is valid whether there are children or not. Therefore no, it is not an issue when discussing the access to marriage itself.

It is an issue only in that those who are married and their children have legals protections denied to those in a Civil Partnership - but one has to already be married to avail of them. That is the important point.

It's introduction into the debate on marriage is, imho, nothing more than 'won't somebody think of the children/can't trust the quares with them' scare tactics which ignores the fact that adoption by gay individuals is already legal but by virtue of a gay couple being married the State would have to extend that to gay couples.

It is dishonest and disingenuous.

NuMarvel

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Am I having a conversation with a bunch of five year olds or whats the story. If you can't see the difference you really shouldn't be on here debating. Gay marriage 101. Different relationship involved in same sex partnerships.

Why do you keep ignoring the point that being different is an insufficient reason on its own for justifying different treatment. We are all equal in the eyes of the law.

FoxT

hooradiation wrote: »

Or, and bear with me here because this might get complex, they are able to understand the difference between the two issues.
Or rather an issue and a talking point masquerading as a concern.

"Gay adoption" , for want of a less cretinous label, is as much an separate issue for the concept of gay marriage as gay domestic violence, infidelity, tax breaks, inheritance, next of kin status and divorce.
Which is to say none at all. We put no other couples under similar scrutiny when they chose to get married, why should it be any different for people who are gay?

Also, singling out adoption as a unique issue is one of the more awful pieces of dishonesty that gets trotted out, because in order for this to be an issue you have to accept that there is something about gay people that would be harmful to children, which strays far to close to the "gay == paedophile" nonsense to be anything but a less than deliberate.

So, in short, fuck that "issue" and anyone who thinks it's worth contemplating.

I think you are saying:
"Anybody who regards the question of adoption rights in the context of gay marriages is assuming that gay couples will, on the whole, be worse at parenting than hetero couples. "

You are wrong. I for one, do not make that assumption.It is a valid question, and one on which I intend to inform myself before I vote.

You also seem to say:
" Anybody who links the question of Gay Marriage with adoption by Gay couples should fuck off"

Well, That does not help your position in any way at all, does it?

Bannasidhe

New Zealand has become the 13th country to pass legislation on Same-Sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage is currently recognised in the Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, South Africa, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina and Denmark. Politicians in Uruguay approved a law last week which President Jose Mujica is expected to sign. In France the Bill to legalise passed with overwhelming support and currently the National Assembly and the Senate are debating amendments made by the Senate after the 2nd reading of the Bill.

It is also recognised in the U.S. States of Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont, and Washington—as well as the District of Columbia and by three Native American tribes (Coquille, Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, and Suquamish). Rhode Island recognises same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions, and California, which briefly granted same-sex marriages in 2008, now recognizes them on a conditional basis.