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…6791112…16

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    I'm really disappointed that we won't have a referendum until later next year. Not that equal rights should be put up for a public vote of course. The appetite for this to pass and move on is there. We have the wrong party in Government for this and I hope Labour do put pressure on FG.


  • Options
    #243
    Lollipops23
    Registered Users Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    I was watching Prime Time a few weeks back and they had a discussion on it-if I was on the fence until now (I wasn't) it sure would have made a believer out of me.

    The woman they had on for the "against" side of the argument was the smuggest, most up herself, patronising bitch. One of her quotes "If you want to be together, fine, but why do you need to pinch the term used for my marriage?!"

    FFS, if she's really that insecure in her own relationship that she feels letting others marry would "cheapen" it, she has a whole other set of issues.

    It breaks my heart that we even have to discuss this tbh-there's so many other problems in the world that this should be a no-brainer.


  • Options
    #244
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,733 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Daith wrote: »
    I'm really disappointed that we won't have a referendum until later next year.
    I'm not.
    In case it passed you by, Ireland is still in pretty bad shape and I for one am glad the Government have not pandered to a minority and delayed other more important legislation to phaff around on what is hardly a major issue for the greater majority.
    Not that equal rights should be put up for a public vote of course.
    It involves a change to the constitution, all changes have to be approved by referendum.
    The appetite for this to pass and move on is there.
    Only amonst gays and lesbians, most people would prefer the Goverment concentrated on much more important issues.
    We have the wrong party in Government for this and I hope Labour do put pressure
    on FG.
    Who do you feel is the right party and what can they do differently to enact this under our present laws?


  • Options
    #245
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Equal rights in two different relationships. One involving different sexes and another involving same sexes? All for it. Everyone happy now?

    Even though we are all different in many aspects, in the eyes of the law, all citizens are equal. If one group of people are to be treated differently in law, the differing treatment needs to be justified.

    So far, your justification amounts to "Because they're different". That's not a valid reason, and beyond biology, you haven't even explained how the relationships are different.
    darced wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Grand. So gay couples can get married and heterosexual couples can have civil partnership. Everyone's happy, cake for all!
    Jezek wrote: »
    A semantic point: dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. This means that they record what a word means at a point in time in common usage, not what it should mean. So giving a dictionary definition is just giving the definition that most people would give at a specific point in time. This can be useful in reflecting societal usage of words, but cannot actually serve as a moral guide.

    I actually went to the OED online, and here is what I found:

    Marriage: The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex

    If we were to rely on dictionaries as some kind of guidance, we'd see that the definition of marriage has already changed. One of the earliest dictionaries defines marriage as "The act of uniting a man and woman for life."

    And even in practice marriage has changed. Traditionally, women were treated as property in a marriage, and once, husbands were even paid in livestock by the father of his future wife. I pity the fool that tries to do that in this day and age!


  • Options
    #246
    Canard
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 8,572 Mod ✭✭✭✭Canard


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    I'm not.
    In case it passed you by, Ireland is still in pretty bad shape and I for one am glad the Government have not pandered to a minority and delayed other more important legislation to phaff around on what is hardly a major issue for the greater majority.

    It involves a change to the constitution, all changes have to be approved by referendum.


    Only amonst gays and lesbians, most people would prefer the Goverment concentrated on much more important issues.
    Who do you feel is the right party and what can they do differently to enact this under our present laws?
    You know, you don't have to be gay or lesbian to support equal rights...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    I'm not.
    In case it passed you by, Ireland is still in pretty bad shape and I for one am glad the Government have not pandered to a minority and delayed other more important legislation to phaff around on what is hardly a major issue for the greater majority.

    Minority equal rights are never important issues for the greater majority. Also in case it passes you by the Government is made up of a number of departments and not all focus on rebuilding Ireland.

    Pandered to a minority indeed. Who fcking voted for your right to get married.
    padd b1975 wrote: »
    It involves a change to the constitution, all changes have to be approved by referendum.

    It involves no change to the constitution. It does not need a referendum. I only want a referendum so it will be protected from countless legal challenges.
    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Only amonst gays and lesbians, most people would prefer the Goverment concentrated on much more important issues.

    Again, the argument is that minority rights shouldn't be delayed because the majority who have those rights don't think it's important.
    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Who do you feel is the right party and what can they do differently to enact this under our present laws?

    Not delay an equal rights bill until late next year. Labour have already propsed the change (which is the removal of one line). FF, SF and Labour have all fully commited to this.


  • Options
    #248
    Lollipops23
    Registered Users Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    I'm not.



    Only amonst gays and lesbians, most people would prefer the Goverment concentrated on much more important issues.

    I'm neither gay nor lesbian but I am looking forward to the day this is signed into law.

    It's a civil rights issue, and one day we'll look back on this like we currently look back on the racial issues of the 1960s. It'll be fun to explain to our kids that we couldn't be arsed doing something about this human rights issue as we were too busy moaning about the property tax.


  • Options
    #249
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Only amonst gays and lesbians, most people would prefer the Goverment concentrated on much more important issues.

    I can't imagine what could be more important than addressing a severe deficit in people's civil rights, but I'm sure you'll be able to illuminate the possibilities.


  • Options
    #250
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    It involves a change to the constitution, all changes have to be approved by referendum.

    There is no explicit definition of marriage in the Constitution, and no court in Ireland has said that the Constitution bans same sex marriage. The most they have said is that the legislation bans same sex marriage, and that legislation has the presumption of constitutionality, until it is challenged or changed.

    It is open to the Oireachtas to change this by legislation. Or at least, it was. Now that it has been debated and decided upon by the Convention, the Government will probably stick with a referendum because to do otherwise could be see to disrespect the Convention, or the like.

    My preference is legislative change, as the rights of a minority shouldn't be decided by referendum unless absolutely necessary. Ireland has already managed social change through legislation, such as lifting the ban on contraception, decriminalising homosexuality, equal pay for working women, and so on. But a referendum is the path chosen, so that's what needs to be focused on.


  • Options
    #251
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,733 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    Daith wrote: »

    It involves no change to the constitution. It does not need a referendum. I only want a referendum so it will be protected from countless legal challenges.
    You're right. My mistake there.

    I agree with you regarding having the referendum. Its good politics and allows the people speak once and for all on this matter.


    Again, the argument is that minority rights shouldn't be delayed because the
    majority who have those rights don't think it's important.
    It's not that its unimportant, it's just that other legislation is much more important.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    padd b1975
    Registered Users Posts: 10,733 ✭✭✭✭padd b1975


    hooradiation wrote: »
    I can't imagine what could be more important than addressing a severe deficit in people's civil rights, but I'm sure you'll be able to illuminate the possibilities.
    Just off the top of my head.....

    >400,000 unemployed.

    Banks still in crisis.

    Still dancing to the IMF's tune.

    The health service.

    Public sector unrest.

    Personal insolvency legislation.

    Job creation.


    Jeez, I thought when the Greens were kicked out of office, we might have seen an end to politicians tripping over themselves to show how liberal they were while ignoring the bigger picture.


  • Options
    #253
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    It's not that its unimportant, it's just that other legislation is much more important.

    How so? At the moment same sex families only have one parent recognised by Irish law. If that parent dies their partner has no right to that child. I don't like seeing familes potentially ending up in a legal limbo.

    Apart from abortion I don't see what other legislation is more important?
    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Just off the top of my head.....

    >400,000 unemployed.

    Banks still in crisis.

    Still dancing to the IMF's tune.

    The health service.

    Public sector unrest.

    Personal insolvency legislation.

    Job creation.


    Jeez, I thought when the Greens were kicked out of office, we might have seen an end to politicians tripping over themselves to show how liberal they were while ignoring the bigger picture.

    I don't think anyone believes every government department will suddenly focus on equal marriage rights while ignoring everything else. It's a big government.

    I think you just view same sex marriage as two blokes getting married and that's it. There's far more to it than that mainly that same sex familes should have the same protection that other family units have. Which is in the constitution that the Government should be protecting the family but failing to do so for same sex familes.


  • Options
    #254
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Just off the top of my head.....

    >400,000 unemployed.

    Banks still in crisis.

    Still dancing to the IMF's tune.

    The health service.

    Public sector unrest.

    Personal insolvency legislation.

    Job creation.


    Jeez, I thought when the Greens were kicked out of office, we might have seen an end to politicians tripping over themselves to show how liberal they were while ignoring the bigger picture.

    I said more important.
    Those are "as important", barring one.
    Reading comprehension is a thing and you should do it more often.


  • Options
    #255
    stoneill
    Registered Users Posts: 3,610 ✭✭✭stoneill


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Just off the top of my head.....

    >400,000 unemployed.

    Banks still in crisis.

    Still dancing to the IMF's tune.

    The health service.

    Public sector unrest.

    Personal insolvency legislation.

    Job creation.


    Jeez, I thought when the Greens were kicked out of office, we might have seen an end to politicians tripping over themselves to show how liberal they were while ignoring the bigger picture.

    I'm pretty sure that a list of important things is different for everybody.


  • Options
    #256
    reprazant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭reprazant


    Edit: stoneill said it better than I did


  • Options
    #257
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    padd b1975 wrote: »
    Just off the top of my head.....

    >400,000 unemployed.

    Banks still in crisis.

    Still dancing to the IMF's tune.

    The health service.

    Public sector unrest.

    Personal insolvency legislation.

    Job creation.


    Jeez, I thought when the Greens were kicked out of office, we might have seen an end to politicians tripping over themselves to show how liberal they were while ignoring the bigger picture.

    These are important, and even urgent, matters, but it doesn't follow that everything else is excluded. We have a Government to deal with all aspects of society, not just economic matters.

    Look at how we dealt with the report into Magdelene Laundries. We had a couple of full days of discussion in the Dáil on that issue, even though it had nothing to do with our economic problems. But we did it because it was the right thing to do. It dealt with Ireland as a society and to try and correct the wrongs of the past. I'm not equating the suffering that those girls and women went through to the denial of marriage equality, but it does show that there is, and has to be, room for wider societal issues.


  • Options
    #258
    Legs.Eleven
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,987 ✭✭✭Legs.Eleven


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I'm against gay marriage. That of course makes me a big fat racist bigot. I'll have to live with that description because thats the way people are. Intolerant, self serving little buggers.

    The only consolation I have is being right, and not right on. Marriage is a different relationship. Some people can't understand that. Life goes on.

    So you're intolerant of other people's intolerance to your intolerance? Ah right.


    Personally just to live and let live. Support it completely.


  • Options
    #259
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Legs.Eleven wrote: »
    So you're intolerant of other people's intolerance to your intolerance? Ah right.


    Personally just to live and let live. Support it completely.

    Bullsheit. What some people want is a gold star and a pat on the head. The equality argument has been flushed away. Same sex couples are painting some rosy picture of marriage that will be a panacea for all their ills. Making conspiracies around themselves and this campaign. It's bullsheit.


  • Options
    #260
    1ZRed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,293 ✭✭✭1ZRed


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Bullsheit. What some people want is a gold star and a pat on the head. The equality argument has been flushed away. Same sex couples are painting some rosy picture of marriage that will be a panacea for all their ills. Making conspiracies around themselves and this campaign. It's bullsheit.

    Good luck with all that "bullsheit", chief


  • Options
    #261
    reprazant
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,417 ✭✭✭reprazant


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Bullsheit. What some people want is a gold star and a pat on the head. The equality argument has been flushed away. Same sex couples are painting some rosy picture of marriage that will be a panacea for all their ills. Making conspiracies around themselves and this campaign. It's bullsheit.

    You were asked a number of times in thread what your issue with allow gays to get married but you never actually stated what those issues are. Just that you are right and others are wrong. It is almost as if you don't actually have a reason.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    Duggy747
    Registered Users Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Same sex couples are painting some rosy picture of marriage that will be a panacea for all their ills. Making conspiracies around themselves and this campaign. It's bullsheit.

    So let them get married and find out for themselves, then :pac:


  • Options
    #263
    Lollipops23
    Registered Users Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Bullsheit. What some people want is a gold star and a pat on the head. The equality argument has been flushed away. Same sex couples are painting some rosy picture of marriage that will be a panacea for all their ills. Making conspiracies around themselves and this campaign. It's bullsheit.

    So what if they do? I don't care why they want to get married, just that they're able to. Gay people can marry the right or wrong person, just the same as I'd be able to.

    Who the hell are you to mistrust their judgement?


  • Options
    #264
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Bullsheit. What some people want is a gold star and a pat on the head. The equality argument has been flushed away. Same sex couples are painting some rosy picture of marriage that will be a panacea for all their ills. Making conspiracies around themselves and this campaign. It's bullsheit.

    How and when has the equality argument been flushed away? You want to introduce a form of apartheid into marriage, just so you don't feel uncomfortable sharing the word marriage with gay couples. Get over yourself and whatever hang ups you have. Gay and lesbian couples are every bit the equal of heterosexual couples, and we're as entitled to the rights and duties of marriage as anyone else.


  • Options
    #265
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Lollipops23 wrote: »

    Who the hell are you to mistrust their judgement?

    Welcome to the internet. This bit is called a discussion forum. Somone ask your opinion and you can choose to give it.

    It's my opinion that same sex partnerships are different from opposite sex marriage. Thats my opinion you may have your own or you may not have even considered the differences between the two relationships.

    I haven't so far shouted anyones views down. Nor have I implied mistrust or inequality.

    In short, stop painting me with your brush.


  • Options
    #266
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    reprazant wrote: »
    You were asked a number of times in thread what your issue with allow gays to get married but you never actually stated what those issues are. Just that you are right and others are wrong. It is almost as if you don't actually have a reason.

    As I said, I have yet to hear a truly legitimate reason why people of different sexual orientations should not be allowed get married. All I have ever heard of is "The bible blah blah blah" and "Not natural"


  • Options
    #267
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    How and when has the equality argument been flushed away? You want to introduce a form of apartheid into marriage, just so you don't feel uncomfortable sharing the word marriage with gay couples. Get over yourself and whatever hang ups you have. Gay and lesbian couples are every bit the equal of heterosexual couples, and we're as entitled to the rights and duties of marriage as anyone else.

    Again. This is you using these words. Not me. You.

    If you read back through the thread you'll see that.


  • Options
    #268
    Lollipops23
    Registered Users Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Welcome to the internet. This bit is called a discussion forum. Somone ask your opinion and you can choose to give it.

    It's my opinion that same sex partnerships are different from opposite sex marriage. Thats my opinion you may have your own or you may not have even considered the differences between the two relationships.

    I haven't so far shouted anyones views down. Nor have I implied mistrust or inequality.

    In short, stop painting me with your brush.

    And I'm asking you to defend your view on the matter. Welcome to a grown-up debate :rolleyes:

    All I'm doing is probing to find out where you get your argument from, as so far you've failed to outline why you think the way you do.


  • Options
    #269
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    There shouldn't have to be any justification why gay marriage should be legal.

    That there is no justification for it being illegal is reason enough for it to be legal.


  • Options
    #270
    Lollipops23
    Registered Users Posts: 5,420 ✭✭✭Lollipops23


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Again. This is you using these words. Not me. You.

    If you read back through the thread you'll see that.

    Probably because you've been painfully vague about your controversial views on a very heated topic. Maybe stop jumping down people's throats and defend your argument.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,912 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Welcome to the internet. This bit is called a discussion forum. Somone ask your opinion and you can choose to give it.

    It's my opinion that same sex partnerships are different from opposite sex marriage. Thats my opinion you may have your own or you may not have even considered the differences between the two relationships.

    I haven't so far shouted anyones views down. Nor have I implied mistrust or inequality.

    In short, stop painting me with your brush.

    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? This is also about rights though, currently they simply do not have the same rights as an opposite sex couple do and thats a big part of the issue


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement