Same Sex Marriage (Poll on The Journal)

RobertKK

I see people who are against it are being labeled for opposing something which is not a right.
We can all claim something is a right if we believe it to be one, it doesn't make it a right.
Marriage always had been between a man and a woman, it was nothing against homosexuals.
Then one is seen as [insert label] if they are against same sex marriage. You have idiots like Macklemore's same love song giving out about stereotypes while he stereotypes people he disagrees with.

I really wonder why anyone needs the state to recognise their love whether heterosexual or homosexual, the state could easily make it easy for couples to register for legal things like inheritance, access to children, the right to be the next of kin, tax benefits.

People say it is none of your business what one does in their own bedroom (once legal) but yet people of whatever persuasion feel they need the state to recognise their love publicly.

Maybe some people love the state, personally I hate the state, I love Ireland but I don't need the state to recognise whoever I love.
State marriage should be abolished for all, we need less of the state in our lives. We should be having a referendum to abolish state marriage, not to have more state sanctioned marriage.

FouxDaFaFa

golfball37 wrote: »

I see marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman. the spirit of the nuptial being the implied, but not legally binding, responsibility of raising a family and making that family unit a contributing good on society.

I've no problem with G&L couples entering civil partnerships but being born gay and having marriage precluded from you is just a bad break G&L couples should live with I'm afraid. Its not a violation of human rights as some are suggesting. In fact hyperbolic statements do the advocates of this no good whatsoever.

I know a lesbian couple who are expecting their first child next year. Their union will result in children and they definitely contribute "good" towards society (in terms of their jobs, which society views as highly important).

What about them?

Just a "bad break"? Do you think it's acceptable that the one who isn't the biological mother will pretty much be out in the cold legally regarding the care of the child?

ferretone

golfball37 wrote: »

I see marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman. the spirit of the nuptial being the implied, but not legally binding, responsibility of raising a family and making that family unit a contributing good on society.

I've no problem with G&L couples entering civil partnerships but being born gay and having marriage precluded from you is just a bad break G&L couples should live with I'm afraid. Its not a violation of human rights as some are suggesting. In fact hyperbolic statements do the advocates of this no good whatsoever.

So, let's get this straight: people should be denied marriage because it is your opinion that they should. The only argument you presents goes "I see....as...." Which is not an argument, and does not justify your case. Marriage is only precluded these groups because it's in the law, which can be changed if enough of us wish it.

It was commented earlier that the antis do not have to justify their case, as the law already stands in their favour. However, if, as stated by the government, it is coming up for referendum in the current term of office, it will be just as incumbent on the antis to defend the status quo as it is on the pros to campaign to see it changed.

old hippy

Czarcasm wrote: »

Here's a novel idea hippy -


Instead of berating and mocking him for his admittedly assinine views, how about you give him reason to SUPPORT marriage equality instead of asking him why he's against it? You've established that he's against it- now you need to ask yourself, which matters more to you - showing off your perceived intellectual superiority, or trying to foster understanding and support for marriage equality?

I know which one matters more to me, and it's not whether or not I'm more intellectual or can argue more eloquently than the guy whose views I wish to change.

Being full of one's own self-importance is never very smart.

That's good but I'll leave the clever stuff to you. I've tuckered myself out over the years (here and other sites trying to be eloquent).

Wilfully ignorant people remain wilfully ignorant no matter how many stats/facts you lob at them, sadly.

Daith

RobertKK wrote: »

Marriage always had been between a man and a woman, it was nothing against homosexuals.

No. Making gay "acts" illegal since before 1993 was. Things change.

FouxDaFaFa

RobertKK wrote: »

I really wonder why anyone needs the state to recognise their love whether heterosexual or homosexual, the state could easily make it easy for couples to register for legal things like inheritance, access to children, the right to be the next of kin, tax benefits.

Not recognising one "type" of love implies that another (in this case, hetero love) is superior. I would imagine it's very demoralising for gay people to experience.

OldNotWIse

RobertKK wrote: »

I see people who are against it are being labeled for opposing something which is not a right.
We can all claim something is a right if we believe it to be one, it doesn't make it a right.
Marriage always had been between a man and a woman, it was nothing against homosexuals.
Then one is seen as [insert label] if they are against same sex marriage. You have idiots like Macklemore's same love song giving out about stereotypes while he stereotypes people he disagrees with.

I really wonder why anyone needs the state to recognise their love whether heterosexual or homosexual, the state could easily make it easy for couples to register for legal things like inheritance, access to children, the right to be the next of kin, tax benefits.

People say it is none of your business what one does in their own bedroom (once legal) but yet people of whatever persuasion feel they need the state to recognise their love publicly.

Maybe some people love the state, personally I hate the state, I love Ireland but I don't need the state to recognise whoever I love.
State marriage should be abolished for all, we need less of the state in our lives. We should be having a referendum to abolish state marriage, not to have more state sanctioned marriage.

Wanting equal status is hardly the same as wanting the state to recognise what goes on in your bedroom. What a low, cheap shot.

If you dont agree with marriage thats fine, dont get married but it's hardly grounds for denying it to those who do believe in it.

AnonoBoy

RobertKK wrote: »

I really wonder why anyone needs the state to recognise their love whether heterosexual or homosexual

It's not that they care what the state thinks - it's that currently they're not being afforded the same rights as others.

the state could easily make it easy for couples to register for legal things like inheritance, access to children, the right to be the next of kin, tax benefits.

Yes..... and when all those things are in place, the same rights given to straight couples, then they will have marriage.

listermint

See the thing with the Journal Polls is that you have alot of looney groups who think that these polls are legally binding so they will actually go to the bother of logging in with different IPs and different devices to swing votes. They even send out SOS messages to their like minded looney organisations to swing votes in favour again logging in from several formats (its like bad xfactor).


Meanwhile the general populous has voted once.


I always take Journal Polls with a large table spoon of salt.

snowstorm2013

Ok well Im a gay man and I live happily with my partner. Both our families and social circles are completely in the know about us so we have nothing to hide, nor should we. Do I think we should have gay marriage? I dont. Civil partnerships, Yes. Equal taxation and inheritance rights, Yes. But marriage doesnt sit comfortably with me. In my opinion marriage is a special union between a man and a woman with the aim of producing children, if thats what the husband and wife desire. You would be very surprised at how many gay people are not really bothered about whether gay marriage is legalised in Ireland.

Annasopra

Daith wrote: »

Gay men and straight men can both marry women. Though I'm not sure how relevant this is...

It's not.

AnonoBoy

snowstorm2013 wrote: »

Do I think we should have gay marriage? I dont. Civil partnerships, Yes. Equal taxation and inheritance rights, Yes.

Civil Partnership with equal rights....... that's pretty much gay marriage right there is it not?

golfball37

AnonoBoy wrote: »

You see it as that. Many many others do not.



I know plenty of straight married couples who were fertile but chose not to have children. Are they in violation of this implied responsibility you speak of? And if it's implied and not legal then surely it'd follow that there shouldn't be a legal barrier to gay marriage, just an implied one.

Why should exceptions be made for straight people who are infertile? Surely them not being allowed get married would also fall under the same "bad break" that you attribute to G&L couples?

No- Because they are still not same sex unions. This is the kernal point of my arguement. Any man and woman can enter that arrangment of marriage should they so wish without having KPI's forced upon them. Gay and Lesbian couples are different so should be subjected to different rules.

If a member of a gay couple already has a child can they then be married? What about gay adoption or surrogacy? All valid methods for gay couples to have a family.

I am against gay adoption also, I have no issue with surrogacy should any couple wish to pursue it, I might be uncomfortable with two women or two men bringing up a kid but the standard of care for many kids in Ireland in a "normal" family isn't up to much lately in a lot of cases either. They should not be allowed to marry though in my opinion, for the same reason above.

Your thinking doesn't really stand up when looked at from different angles to me.

I am not going to change your mind on this nor are you going to change mine so we can agree to disagree.

RobertKK

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Wanting equal status is hardly the same as wanting the state to recognise what goes on in your bedroom. What a low, cheap shot.

If you dont agree with marriage thats fine, dont get married but it's hardly grounds for denying it to those who do believe in it.

My proposal is equal status for all.

I do find it strange anyone needs the state to make them feel equal when it comes to love.

I think state/civil marriage is just a means for certain benefits and has no place when it comes to love. I think this could all be changed to make it easier for couples whether heterosexual or homosexual to get what they want in terms of their partner when it comes to inheritance, tax benefits, next of kin and so on.

One doesn't need the state when it comes to love, they just need it to recognise who their next of kin is and that can be done for heterosexual and homosexual couples without marriage.
Civil marriage is not a recognition of love as you don't need the state to justify or sanction via marriage who you love once it is legal in terms of age.

Annasopra

golfball37 wrote: »

Procreation is not essential for a valid marriage

well then why are you arguing that it is?

Daith

snowstorm2013 wrote: »

Ok well Im a gay man and I live happily with my partner. Both our families and social circles are completely in the know about us so we have nothing to hide, nor should we. Do I think we should have gay marriage? I dont. Civil partnerships, Yes. Equal taxation and inheritance rights, Yes. But marriage doesnt sit comfortably with me. In my opinion marriage is a special union between a man and a woman with the aim of producing children, if thats what the husband and wife desire. You would be very surprised at how many gay people are not really bothered about whether gay marriage is legalised in Ireland.

Well having equal taxation and inheritance rights for couples is called marriage. I don't see the point of having to create something new just for gay people.

Also you don't have children. You may think differently if you did.

Absoluvely

mango salsa wrote: »

The difference being that they [straight men] are legally eligible to marry women.

So are gay men

Czarcasm wrote: »

The disparity in their right to marriage equality is BECAUSE of their orientation, that's far from just "incidental".

Your gender neutral laws across the board are completely impractical - men cannot get pregnant is just one example why there is a difference between maternity and paternity employment law.

Men cannot have abortions either, so your gender neutral laws would fall down there too... I could go on and on but I'd sooner we just stick to the topic at hand than go off on some wild tangent.

I'm not arguing that the motivations for enacting the law as it currently stands weren't based on orientation-discrimination.

The disparity in marriage equality is because the law takes sex into account when deciding who people are eligible to marry. The law does not find out what orientation a person is and then if they're LGBT decide to give them the wrong eligibility. That would be orientation-discrimination and that's not how it works. The law finds out what sex a person is and then determines who they're eligible to marry based on that.

People who are officially male can get pregnant. It happens.

Wikipedia wrote:

Some female-to-male transgender people can become pregnant, while still identifying as men. This is possible for individuals who still have functioning ovaries and a uterus... The Washington Post further broadened the story on March 25 when blogger Emil Steiner called [Thomas] Beatie the first "legally" pregnant man on record, in reference to certain states' and federal legal recognition of Beatie as a man

I have no idea why you would want to specify in law why abortion law would apply to "a woman who is pregnant" rather than to "a person who is pregnant". If you legislate for men and legislate for women, then there will always be exceptions that will also need to be legislated for.

My ideal scenario absolutely does not fall down under maternity and paternity law. The current scenario falls down in LGBT cases.

The only thing you can tell about someone from their official sex is what their genitals looked like when they were born. My views are a conclusion of the notion that your legal rights should not be affected by what your genitals looked like when you were born.

mango salsa wrote: »

Daith wrote: »

Gay men and straight men can both marry women. Though I'm not sure how relevant this is...

It's not.

It means that they have the same legal rights.

AnonoBoy

golfball37 wrote: »

I am not going to change your mind on this nor are you going to change mine so we can agree to disagree.

So when I stated early that you just didn't want to give gay people the same rights because they were gay you got all annoyed at me and accused me of "labelling you" but from what you've just stated above that is exactly what you believe?

So I was right about your reasons from the start, you got all uppity, danced about the argument a bit, threw a few other pseudo-reasons into the mix, I batted those away and you've come back to admitting that yes, it's just you don't think gay people should be allowed get married because they are gay.

You could have saved yourself a lot of time and effort by just saying that at the start, couldn't you?

AnonoBoy

RobertKK wrote: »

Civil marriage is not a recognition of love as you don't need the state to justify or sanction via marriage who you love once it is legal in terms of age.

I know loads of couples who would feel very differently about that.

Annasopra

RobertKK wrote: »

Marriage always had been between a man and a woman

Ah the old circuitous - it is what it is and it shouldnt change just because it is what it is.

The problem is this is not true

* Polygamous marriage has existed
* In 1937 when Bunreact na Heireann was introduced 12 year old girls could marry
* There is also evidence of many forms of historic same sex unions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-Sex_Unions_in_Pre-Modern_Europe

old hippy

snowstorm2013 wrote: »

In my opinion marriage is a special union between a man and a woman with the aim of producing children, if thats what the husband and wife desire. You would be very surprised at how many gay people are not really bothered about whether gay marriage is legalised in Ireland.

And why can't marriage be the special union between two gay people with the aim of producing children, if thats what they desire?

Anyway, does the aim have to be to have kids? My wife and I have no desire to and are too old... is our marriage less "special"?

RobertKK

Daith wrote: »

No. Making gay "acts" illegal since before 1993 was. Things change.

But there was not same sex marriage before in this country. We don't have to change for the sake of change. Though we could abolish the state's role in marriage.

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

Not recognising one "type" of love implies that another (in this case, hetero love) is superior. I would imagine it's very demoralising for gay people to experience.

It is only demoralising if one feels they need the state to recognise their love via marriage.
Maybe people are mentally fragile and worry what the state thinks of marriage.

AnonoBoy wrote: »

It's not that they care what the state thinks - it's that currently they're not being afforded the same rights as others.



Yes..... and when all those things are in place, the same rights given to straight couples, then they will have marriage.

But what right has the state to offer marriage to anyone? Is it because the state got involved in it long time ago so we mustn't change now?
Because all other countries need their state to sanction it.
The state has no role in what is a matter of love once it is of a legal age, as we don't want young vunerable people being exploited.

Czarcasm

old hippy wrote: »

That's good but I'll leave the clever stuff to you. I've tuckered myself out over the years (here and other sites trying to be eloquent).

Wilfully ignorant people remain wilfully ignorant no matter how many stats/facts you lob at them, sadly.

Heaven forbid you might actually have to put your statistics and facts to one side and actually engage with people on their level.

There's no such thing as a wilfully ignorant person, only a person who you have to learn how to talk to them on their level if you want them to listen to your message.


You presume yourself to be an enlightened individual, yet you haven't still learned that most human beings don't give a fiddler's fcuk about statistics and facts.

RobertKK

mango salsa wrote: »

Ah the old circuitous - it is what it is and it shouldnt change just because it is what it is.

The problem is this is not true

* Polygamous marriage has existed
* In 1937 when Bunreact na Heireann was introduced 12 year old girls could marry
* There is also evidence of many forms of historic same sex unions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-Sex_Unions_in_Pre-Modern_Europe

I thought a union was not marriage...

Grayson

Czarcasm wrote: »

Grayson he's not denying anyone their rights, it's the Irish Government is doing that (and making a damn good job of using every delay tactic in the book to prevent changing it too!). It's the Irish Government have no good reason to continue to deny marriage equality to LGBT people. It is the Irish Government who continue to defy their own anti-discrimination legislation.





It absolutely should be necessary to argue why someone should have a right, it should be necessary for them to explain why they should have that right. If you want to gain support for the reason why you feel you are entitled to that right, then you need to come up with reasons why you feel you are entitled to that right.





But here's the mistake you and many others are making - he doesn't have to argue anything! He's perfectly happy with the way things are as they are now. You want to change the way things are now, so the onus is actually upon YOU, to change HIS mind, not the other way around.

In order to do that, you need to find a way to talk to him on his level in a way that he understands, he doesn't have to do anything. He can just go to the booth and vote no, and ridiculing him isn't going to do you any favors. If you want to change people's minds, you need to start taking THEIR point of view seriously. That way at least you'll have some chance that they'll take you seriously instead of just having learned nothing and continuing to vote no!

No you don't. The definition of a right is something that people have. It doesn't matter if the govenment recognises or or not. hell, even you're refering to it as a right.

And you're saying someone has to argue why the government should stop persecuting people and denying them freedoms that everyone has, but not say that the people who are in favor of denying rights and persecuting people are in favor or why they think it's right? That's really messed up.

As long as we follow your tactic then we are the people who are trying to defend our position. We shouldn't need to or have to. It's a human right, that's all there is to it. If you want to select a group of people and deny them that right you'd better be prepared to justify your position and have a better reason that "That's the way it is"

old hippy

Czarcasm wrote: »

Heaven forbid you might actually have to put your statistics and facts to one side and actually engage with people on their level.

There's no such thing as a wilfully ignorant person, only a person who you have to learn how to talk to them on their level if you want them to listen to your message.


You presume yourself to be an enlightened individual, yet you haven't still learned that most human beings don't give a fiddler's fcuk about statistics and facts.

The above makes no sense, whatsoever. Now you want me not to use facts, you want me to talk to them on their level, instead?

Get into their minds, is it? I'm sorry but never on a first date. I wouldn't respect myself in the morning.

Lyaiera

Let's do a cost benefit analysis of what happens if same sex marriage is legalised.

The cost?
Some say marriage will be devalued, there's research showing that more straight marriages occurred after same sex marriage was introduced. So marriage actually goes up in value.

Benefit
More people are happy.

Seems pretty simple, really.

AnonoBoy

RobertKK wrote: »

But what right has the state to offer marriage to anyone? Is it because the state got involved in it long time ago so we mustn't change now?
Because all other countries need their state to sanction it.
The state has no role in what is a matter of love once it is of a legal age, as we don't want young vunerable people being exploited.

Are you just against marriage for everyone?

I'm not actually sure what your point is at all to be honest.

RobertKK

AnonoBoy wrote: »

I know loads of couples who would feel very differently about that.

Civil mariage is a state's benefit package and it should be abolished for a register of partnerships where they can get the same beenefits whether hetero or homo.
Marriage should be offered by religious and non religious organisations, not the state.

Lyaiera

RobertKK wrote: »

Civil mariage is a state's benefit package and it should be abolished for a register of partnerships where they can get the same beenefits whether hetero or homo.
Marriage should be offered by religious and non religious organisations, not the state.

"By the power invested in me by a lack of sleep and coffee, I now pronounce you married."