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
12467…16

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    shopaholic01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,916 ✭✭✭shopaholic01


    emo72 wrote: »
    so when we talk about marriage its nothing to do with religion? i thought it was only to do with the church? im totally confused. need to read up on this.
    A church wedding has two compenents - 'the union in the eyes of God' and the civil component.

    A civil wedding is not recognised 'in the eyes of God'.

    It's the civil component that's relevant - it's gives couples legal rights in respect of inheritance, next of kin status, financial/tax benefits etc.

    A lot of these are not available without marriage.


  • Options
    #93
    grenache
    Registered Users Posts: 6,477 ✭✭✭grenache


    I don't know if any of you were listening to Matt Cooper on Today FM this evening, they were discussing this very topic. Anyway somebody sent a text in saying that legalising gay marriage would be an abomination and was totally sick.

    It just pi$$ed me off hearing this comment, we've come a long way in the last 25 years, largely breaking free from the clutches of the Medieval Boys Club that is the Catholic Church. Its depressing to think there are still a sizeable minority of people with such backward, intolerant and unfounded views. Marriage is first and foremost, a legal institution. No church, no matter who they are or what their teachings, has a right to dictate on who can and cannot marry. The various Christian churches think they wrote the book on marriage and that they have some moral authority :rolleyes:

    Talk about delusions of grandeur.


  • Options
    #94
    mariaalice
    Registered Users Posts: 12,399 ✭✭✭✭mariaalice


    1ZRed wrote: »
    Solid, scientific proof that having same sex parents does not damage the outcome of the child and only goes to reinforce the fact that having two loving parents will always be better than having one, regardless of both parents' gender.

    The abstract from the report:


    The abstract from the report:



    Blog post on Autostraddle:
    http://www.autostraddle.com/actual-experts-tell-supreme-court-gays-are-great-parents-bigots-are-wrong-169513/

    Full text of the official report in the official Journal of Pediatrics (peer reviewed scientific journal):
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2013/03/18/peds.2013-0377.full.pdf+html

    I know people mean the best when they post something like this however it this sort of thing that causes prejudice IMO

    It is not about gay parenting its parenting first and foremost the gay bit should be seen as a very minor secondary issue, people are raised by all sort of parents good and bad but first and foremost they are raised by parents.


  • Options
    #95
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Confusing or mixing chalk and cheese is fvcking stupid. Mixing up the argument or trying to bias one groups rights over another groups rights is also fvcking stupid.

    Everyone has rights. Thats me included.

    You do have the right to be wrong about things, granted. You certainly have the right to make really bad analogies. You'd be better off talking about cheese and a slightly different kind of cheese. Is the cheddar somehow cheapened by sharing the same plate as the brie and edam?

    You don't have the right to have such wrongness enshrined in law. Get over it. Start by figuring out precisely why you're opposed to denying same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. We know it can't be evidence based, because all the evidence shows that the gender of parents doesn't make any significant difference to children, and you're not stupid, you wouldn't ignore evidence because that's what stupid people do. It can't be financial, because there more than likely aren't enough same sex couples to make a noticeable dent in tax revenue if they suddenly married tomorrow. Revenue would probably increase with all the money being spent on ceremonies here as opposed to another country that isn't so far behind on its civil rights.

    The only options appear to be because YOU feel it's wrong, or you've been TOLD to feel that it's wrong. Do you have any other reasons? Because those two are an extremely poor basis for holding any position...


  • Options
    #96
    Petey89
    Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭Petey89


    grenache wrote: »
    I don't know if any of you were listening to Matt Cooper on Today FM this evening, they were discussing this very topic. Anyway somebody sent a text in saying that legalising gay marriage would be an abomination and was totally sick.

    It just pi$$ed me off hearing this comment, we've come a long way in the last 25 years, largely breaking free from the clutches of the Medieval Boys Club that is the Catholic Church. Its depressing to think there are still a sizeable minority of people with such backward, intolerant and unfounded views. Marriage is first and foremost, a legal institution. No church, no matter who they are or what their teachings, has a right to dictate on who can and cannot marry. The various Christian churches think they wrote the book on marriage and that they have some moral authority :rolleyes:

    Talk about delusions of grandeur.

    Yeah i dont think they understand that there was marriage before religion and they dont own the rights to it.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    joe swanson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,124 ✭✭✭joe swanson


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    What are the fundamental reasons for this belief?

    Just my opinion. I belueve that 'marriage' is between a man and a woman . Now it doesn't mean gay people shouldnt have rights. They should.


  • Options
    #98
    shopaholic01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,916 ✭✭✭shopaholic01


    joe swanson wrote: »
    Just my opinion. I belueve that 'marriage' is between a man and a woman . Now it doesn't mean gay people shouldnt have rights. They should.
    Just different rights to straight people?


  • Options
    #99
    efb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35,514 ✭✭✭✭efb


    joe swanson wrote: »
    Just my opinion. I belueve that 'marriage' is between a man and a woman . Now it doesn't mean gay people shouldnt have rights. They should.

    only some. not all.


  • Options
    #100
    Aspiring
    Registered Users Posts: 2,204 ✭✭✭Aspiring


    grenache wrote: »
    I don't know if any of you were listening to Matt Cooper on Today FM this evening, they were discussing this very topic. Anyway somebody sent a text in saying that legalising gay marriage would be an abomination and was totally sick.

    It just pi$$ed me off hearing this comment, we've come a long way in the last 25 years, largely breaking free from the clutches of the Medieval Boys Club that is the Catholic Church. Its depressing to think there are still a sizeable minority of people with such backward, intolerant and unfounded views. Marriage is first and foremost, a legal institution. No church, no matter who they are or what their teachings, has a right to dictate on who can and cannot marry. The various Christian churches think they wrote the book on marriage and that they have some moral authority :rolleyes:

    Talk about delusions of grandeur.

    Fair play to Matt this evening actually as the guy who was against it was making his point about it not being a real marriage because there was no possibility of a child Matt pointed out that this also gives marriages where it's impossible to have a child where there's fertility issues/age/they simply decide they don't want a child less value also. I don't listen to him much but he took the words out of my mouth.


  • Options
    #101
    joe swanson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,124 ✭✭✭joe swanson


    If thats how you want to see my opinion thats fine.

    On a related note,playying devils advocate, marriage is intrinsicallly linked to religion, most of which are not very tolerant, so why want a 'marriage' anyway?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Sarky wrote: »
    You do have the right to be wrong about things, granted. You certainly have the right to make really bad analogies. You'd be better off talking about cheese and a slightly different kind of cheese. Is the cheddar somehow cheapened by sharing the same plate as the brie and edam?

    You don't have the right to have such wrongness enshrined in law. Get over it. Start by figuring out precisely why you're opposed to denying same sex couples the same rights as heterosexual couples. We know it can't be evidence based, because all the evidence shows that the gender of parents doesn't make any significant difference to children, and you're not stupid, you wouldn't ignore evidence because that's what stupid people do. It can't be financial, because there more than likely aren't enough same sex couples to make a noticeable dent in tax revenue if they suddenly married tomorrow. Revenue would probably increase with all the money being spent on ceremonies here as opposed to another country that isn't so far behind on its civil rights.

    The only options appear to be because YOU feel it's wrong, or you've been TOLD to feel that it's wrong. Do you have any other reasons? Because those two are an extremely poor basis cor holding any position...

    You're telling me I feel it's wrong. Thats not correct. Again you're telling me some story about marriage making peoples rights equal which again is not correct.

    You may have strong feelings about the subject. So do I. And so what?

    You've missed the part that describes marriage in your relationship. You've missed the point that says your relationship is different not unequal, different, to another relationship.

    Different. Not unequal.


  • Options
    #103
    Petey89
    Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭Petey89


    Aspiring wrote: »
    Fair play to Matt this evening actually as the guy who was against it was making his point about it not being a real marriage because there was no possibility of a child Matt pointed out that this also gives marriages where it's impossible to have a child where there's fertility issues/age/they simply decide they don't want a child less value also. I don't listen to him much but he took the words out of my mouth.

    I have said that also I numerous occassions when some people have tried to make that argument and they still try to argue that its different, I think some people will just never learn.


  • Options
    #104
    wonderfulname
    Registered Users Posts: 3,943 ✭✭✭wonderfulname


    joe swanson wrote: »
    Just my opinion. I belueve that 'marriage' is between a man and a woman . Now it doesn't mean gay people shouldnt have rights. They should.

    I read this in the voice of Ron Swanson from Parks and Recreation...

    Define marriage for me, would you? People like diving into this topic without considering what exactly they're harping on about.


  • Options
    #105
    shopaholic01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,916 ✭✭✭shopaholic01


    joe swanson wrote: »
    If thats how you want to see my opinion thats fine.

    On a related note,playying devils advocate, marriage is intrinsicallly linked to religion, most of which are not very tolerant, so why want a 'marriage' anyway?
    Do you think all married heterosexuals are religious? It's the legal, not religious recognition that's sought.


  • Options
    #106
    rainbow kirby
    Moderators, Regional Abroad Moderators Posts: 26,928 Mod ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    joe swanson wrote: »
    marriage is intrinsicallly linked to religion, most of which are not very tolerant, so why want a 'marriage' anyway?

    Marriage was a legal contract before religion was ever a factor. There's no religion involved in civil marriage anyway.

    I am totally in favour of same-sex marriage - why should the gender of my partner have any bearing on what rights to marry are granted?


  • Options
    #107
    nervous_twitch
    Registered Users Posts: 849 ✭✭✭nervous_twitch


    Madam_X wrote: »
    I don't care if gay marriage becomes a reality - it's not even something I passionately support, I just... don't care, it makes no impact on me personally.
    Canis Lupus wrote: »
    Having said that, I'd 'like' it on Facebook but I'd never be arsed to actually go out and vote on it.
    Lone Stone wrote: »
    i have a few gay friends and i think it would be great for them, but im not really to bothered about it.

    I think those are really sh1tty attitudes to have.

    No, it mightn't affect you personally - although I don't even buy that, seeing as politics of equality affect everybody - but there is a large demographic of people in this country being denied the rights that their heterosexual counterparts are afforded. Where's the solidarity? Would you have been arsed supporting the Civil Rights movement? I mean, you're not black after all.

    Any individual bearing witness to injustice in our society has a civil obligation to address it, and all it takes for you to make a whole wealth of people really happy, is to get off your backside and cast a vote. One day, it might be your child/brother/friend being forced to live out there in the margins.


  • Options
    #108
    Dimithy
    Registered Users Posts: 351 ✭✭Dimithy


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    You're telling me I feel it's wrong. Thats not correct. Again you're telling me some story about marriage making peoples rights equal which again is not correct.

    You may have strong feelings about the subject. So do I. And so what?

    You've missed the part that describes marriage in your relationship. You've missed the point that says your relationship is different not unequal, different, to another relationship.

    Different. Not unequal.

    So would you support gay people having the right to participate in something that was exactly the same as marriage, with all rights etc that go along with it, but called something else?

    Is it just the calling it marriage part that you disagree with?


  • Options
    #109
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    You're telling me I feel it's wrong. Thats not correct. Again you're telling me some story about marriage making peoples rights equal which again is not correct.

    I told you nothing. If you have a reason, an actual reason, beyond "it's my opinion", or "according to [insert authority figure/book here]..." then by all means let's hear it.
    You may have strong feelings about the subject. So do I. And so what?

    Strong feelings are also a poor basis for taking a position. I'm basing mine on the assumption that everyone's equal. Everyone being equal, they deserve the same rights in the eyes of the law. Gay couples don't get the same rights as straight couples in this country. Therefore they are being treated unequally, and this should be changed.

    You don't seem to be basing your position on anything solid at all. I could be wrong, and I'm happy for you to show that I am, but so far, nothing.
    You've missed the part that describes marriage in your relationship. You've missed the point that says your relationship is different not unequal, different, to another relationship.

    Different. Not unequal.

    Not having the same entitlements under law is both different and unequal. Nobody's suggesting that any religion redefine whatever they consider marriage to be. Only the legal one. Catholic priests don't have to, and will never have to marry gay couples. The same way they don't have to marry Muslim or Hindu or Protestant or humanist couples. Those couples are still married in the eyes of the law, regardless of what any Catholic wants to think. Giving same-sex couples the same rights will change absolutely nothing for people who want to think they're not married.

    Your 'different, not unequal' line rang hollow for the organisations that used it as an excuse to marginalise people in the eyes of the law. It rings equally hollow for you.


  • Options
    #110
    joe swanson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,124 ✭✭✭joe swanson


    wonderfulname wrote: »
    I read this in the voice of Ron Swanson from Parks and Recreation...

    Define marriage for me, would you? People like diving into this topic without considering what exactly they're harping on about.

    * 1the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife
    from the oxford dictionary. I have no objections to gay people having full legal rights. But i do not agree with gay marriage in a traditional sense.
    *


  • Options
    #111
    1ZRed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,293 ✭✭✭1ZRed


    mariaalice wrote: »
    I know people mean the best when they post something like this however it this sort of thing that causes prejudice IMO

    It is not about gay parenting its parenting first and foremost the gay bit should be seen as a very minor secondary issue, people are raised by all sort of parents good and bad but first and foremost they are raised by parents.

    Exactly. Just because someone is gay doesn't mean they'll be a bad parent just as much as someone who is straight might not automatically make them a good one.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    pragmatic1
    Registered Users Posts: 5,573 ✭✭✭pragmatic1


    I'm in favour of Gay marriage. However, I don't like the idea of minority rights being decided upon by the majority. Tyranny of the masses and all that. Ireland's still a lot more backward than we'd like to believe.


  • Options
    #113
    shopaholic01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,916 ✭✭✭shopaholic01


    joe swanson wrote: »
    * 1the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife
    from the oxford dictionary. I have no objections to gay people having full legal rights. But i do not agree with gay marriage in a traditional sense.
    *
    Well if it's in a dictionary ........ :rolleyes:

    The meaning of words change over time as language progresses. If gays were allowed to marry the definition of marriage would change in newer additions.

    There was a time when gay simply meant happy.


  • Options
    #114
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    ffs it's marriage equality.
    It's not 'Gay' marriage or lesbian marriage or bisexual marriage, it's just civil legal marriage.
    Totally utterly separate from any religious sacrament.


  • Options
    #115
    1ZRed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,293 ✭✭✭1ZRed


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    After reading that I'm now completely sure that what you want is indeed mostly window dressing.

    How so? There are over 160 differences which make civil partnerships inferior. How is that window dressing exactly?

    I'm ranked below you currently in this country, you have every available door open to you, I do not. How is me seeking to be treated and seen the same as you to be window dressing either?

    Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for, to be honest.


  • Options
    #116
    Dimithy
    Registered Users Posts: 351 ✭✭Dimithy


    shopaholic01 wrote: »
    Well if it's in a dictionary ........ :rolleyes:

    The meaning of words change over time as language progresses. If gays were allowed to marry the definition of marriage would change in newer additions.

    So you want to force people to buy new dictionaries?


  • Options
    #117
    joe swanson
    Registered Users Posts: 1,124 ✭✭✭joe swanson


    shopaholic01 wrote: »
    Well if it's in a dictionary ........ :rolleyes:

    The meaning of words change over time as language progresses. If gays were allowed to marry the definition of marriage would change in newer additions.

    There was a time when gay simply meant happy.

    i was asked to define marriage so i did.


  • Options
    #118
    coolhull
    Registered Users Posts: 49,731 ✭✭✭✭coolhull


    joe swanson wrote: »
    * 1the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife
    from the oxford dictionary. I have no objections to gay people having full legal rights. But i do not agree with gay marriage in a traditional sense.
    *
    Are we to have the Oxford Dictionary tell us what is or is not marriage?


  • Options
    #119
    Meangadh
    Registered Users Posts: 3,963 ✭✭✭Meangadh


    nervous_twitch wrote: »
    I think those are really sh1tty attitudes to have.

    No, it mightn't affect you personally - although I don't even buy that, seeing as politics of equality affect everybody - but there is a large demographic of people in this country being denied the rights that their heterosexual counterparts are afforded. Where's the solidarity? Would you have been arsed supporting the Civil Rights movement? I mean, you're not black after all.

    Any individual bearing witness to injustice in our society has a civil obligation to address it, and all it takes for you to make a whole wealth of people really happy, is to get off your backside and cast a vote. One day, it might be your child/brother/friend being forced to live out there in the margins.

    I know where those other posters are coming from in that I also couldn't give a flying feck who marries who so long as they are two consenting adults. I genuinely have no interest whatsoever in who someone else wants to marry, how the hell is it even my business? Besides, there are way too many other problems in the world- how the hell is two people who love each other wanting to get married a bad thing? What a bizzare view of the world.

    On the other hand I see where nervous_twitch is coming from in that if we are totally apathetic towards it, things will never change. Put simply, I know that I'll have to stand up and vote in favour of same sex marriage, and speak out in support of those who for so long have felt marginalised and forgotten. Then hopefully things will change and I can happily go back to my state of blissful apathy :p


  • Options
    #120
    shopaholic01
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,916 ✭✭✭shopaholic01


    joe swanson wrote: »
    i was asked to define marriage so i did.
    Asked for your definition of marriage, not the Oxford dictionary definition.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Petey89
    Registered Users Posts: 198 ✭✭Petey89


    joe swanson wrote: »
    * 1the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife
    from the oxford dictionary. I have no objections to gay people having full legal rights. But i do not agree with gay marriage in a traditional sense.
    *

    that has probably been like that for the last 100 years, times change so do traditions.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement