Same Sex Marriage (Poll on The Journal)

Czarcasm

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

The thing is though, people who claim they're being shouted down and unfairly received are often simply referring to their views, which they can't back up and which they often present in an aggressive hostile fashion, being contested.

I think it's only fair that we look at the extremists on both sides of the argument, I know you mentioned David Quinn earlier, but for every David Quinn, there's an equal but opposite extremist that says there should be marriage equality because I say so and I'm entitled to it and denying me that right is ignorant and wrong and anyone who disagrees with me is ignorant and wrong.

Not everyone has the articulate ability to explain WHY they are opposed to marriage equality for LGBT people, but if you engage with them you can quickly understand where they're coming from, and you can work with that to help them understand where you're coming from.

They cling on to the auld "free speech" nugget then (becoming increasingly fashionable - and there are some very naive attitudes towards free speech, sometimes from people who really should know better; it's kinda a reverse political correctness) whereas the problem isn't with them airing their view, it's the view itself and the way in which they have aired it.

Well FC there telling people who oppose marriage equality that it's their "tough shìt, frankly" that they can't handle their opinion being challenged, isn't exactly how to make friends and influence people.

If someone posted "I am opposed to gay marriage and here's why" and put forth their view in a thoughtful, restrained manner, I wouldn't like to see them being cluster****ed, but that rarely happens.

It'll never happen on the Internet, because the popular opinion is the one that holds sway, and nobody is going to be stupid enough (OK, there's a few every so often that ARE stupid enough) to stick their head above the parapet to have it chopped off. Most people will just prefer to stay out of the discussion.


(Just look at the poll, less than 400 votes on a site with 600,000 members, and yet even with 600,000 members, it's very rare I meet people who have ever even heard of Boards!)

Friend Computer

It's just as well I'm not looking to make friends then, isn't it? I've tried being nice and civil and listening to people and it got me nowhere; some people just don't want to have to think about why they feel the way they do. As someone effected by this my patience for such tripe has long since run out, it's hard to care any more.

Agonist

I have issues with gay marriage. Now, I don't have any good argument against it being legally available - I don't think there is one, but I don't understand why people are campaigning for it.

Gay people historically haven't been able to marry. What did they lose out on? A range of legal rights (adoption, next of kin and the rest) and a chance to make a public commitment to each other. Ok, it's essential that gay people aren't discriminated against by law and the remaining anomalies need to be addressed as a matter of urgency. The public commitment, the wedding and the subsequent marriage, however, are all very flexible concepts.

If gay people want to make a public commitment why do they feel the need to ape the system that heterosexuals have been using exclusively for centuries? Heterosexual marriage is a very damaged institution - violence, drug abuse, alcoholism, infidelity, child sexual abuse, the list goes on. There's nothing idyllic about it. Why not develop a new specialised lgbt family unit system that is untainted by association with the historical oppressor?

When I name my child I'll have a naming ceremony to welcome him/her to the community. I'll take the best bits from religious ceremonies, other ceremonies and tips from friends. Therefore, my child will go through his/her life not 'christened' but 'named'. I think that's preferable and represents progress. I will not engage in a fight to have my child recognised as 'christened'. While there's no religious implication in marriage equality I think it's a valid analogy.

Also, a single person has the right to bear children, adopt children, has certain specific tax arrangements and more. If they were to package them together into a ceremony they could request that it be called 'marriage'. Again, I wouldn't oppose that, why should I? but I'd think it a bit silly.

Ultimately, I don't understand why marriage is seen as a right. I don't see what it adds to a relationship that couldn't be added in any number of different ways. Marriage is just one system that has been hijacked by heterosexuals. What do gay people have to gain by wresting it from them?

Czarcasm

Friend Computer wrote: »

It's just as well I'm not looking to make friends then, isn't it? I've tried being nice and civil and listening to people and it got me nowhere; some people just don't want to have to think about why they feel the way they do. As someone effected by this my patience for such tripe has long since run out, it's hard to care any more.

FC the thing is - EVERYONE is affected by it, not just those people who identify as LGBT. That's why if you want something to change, you need support for your ideas, which means you don't have the luxury of not caring what other people think.

If YOU don't care, how can you expect anyone else to care? It's all well and good coming on to a thread where you know well the majority support marriage equality, but that's online, a badly skewered representation of public opinion. There's nothing to be gained from people who already agree with you, so as much a pain in the face as it might be, there's a hell of a lot more to be gained from engaging with people who don't agree with you.

Instead of dismissing those who disagree with you with "Oh some people are so 18th century backward", "Oh they're so ignorant", etc, showing them the same tolerance and respect you would like them to show you, will get you a lot further than "They dismiss me, so I shall dismiss them". You could do that of course, but you're forgetting that right now they're quite happy with the law as it stands. You're the person who wants it changed, so you have to effect change, because it sure as hell won't happen in a stand-off!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Agonist wrote: »

I have issues with gay marriage. Now, I don't have any good argument against it being legally available - I don't think there is one, but I don't understand why people are campaigning for it.

Gay people historically haven't been able to marry. What did they lose out on? A range of legal rights (adoption, next of kin and the rest) and a chance to make a public commitment to each other. Ok, it's essential that gay people aren't discriminated against by law and the remaining anomalies need to be addressed as a matter of urgency. The public commitment, the wedding and the subsequent marriage, however, are all very flexible concepts.

If gay people want to make a public commitment why do they feel the need to ape the system that heterosexuals have been using exclusively for centuries? Heterosexual marriage is a very damaged institution - violence, drug abuse, alcoholism, infidelity, child sexual abuse, the list goes on. There's nothing idyllic about it. Why not develop a new specialised lgbt family unit system that is untainted by association with the historical oppressor?

When I name my child I'll have a naming ceremony to welcome him/her to the community. I'll take the best bits from religious ceremonies, other ceremonies and tips from friends. Therefore, my child will go through his/her life not 'christened' but 'named'. I think that's preferable and represents progress. I will not engage in a fight to have my child recognised as 'christened'. While there's no religious implication in marriage equality I think it's a valid analogy.

Also, a single person has the right to bear children, adopt children, has certain specific tax arrangements and more. If they were to package them together into a ceremony they could request that it be called 'marriage'. Again, I wouldn't oppose that, why should I? but I'd think it a bit silly.

Ultimately, I don't understand why marriage is seen as a right. I don't see what it adds to a relationship that couldn't be added in any number of different ways. Marriage is just one system that has been hijacked by heterosexuals. What do gay people have to gain by wresting it from them?

It's conidered a right by the UN.

It sounde like you're anti-marriage full stop. (Nothing wrong with that, I hasten to add!)

The main practical argument in favour of marraige is that if one party is the sole bread-winner, the other party (and kids) won't suffer financially in the event of suddent death.

For gay marraige, I don't see why it should be different from a straight married couple with no kids. It is, when you get down to it, discrimination, something the State has pledged not to uphold.

The only alternative would be to scrap all rights, tax and inheritance breaks for every married couple to make it even.

old hippy

hansfrei wrote: »

Can bi people marry one of each?

:rolleyes:

Czarcasm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

For gay marraige, I don't see why it should be different from a straight married couple with no kids. It is, when you get down to it, discrimination, something the State has pledged not to uphold.

Interesting Princess that you should mention the absence of children with regard to marriage equality, especially as I'm just reading this piece here in the Independent (found the corresponding article online), the general gist being that legislation to allow the adoption of children by gay parents (article doesn't make specific mention of trans people) must be in place before a referendum on marriage equality (which, according to the article they can push out to October 2015!).

If it is TRULY to be marriage EQUALITY, then issues such as adoption and guardianship are an integral part of that discussion, as LGBT people should indeed be entitled and afforded the same rights as heterosexual people when it comes to children.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who knows of an LGB couple who have children from previous relationships so it's not as if they aren't raising children already. It just needs to be formally and legally recognised by The State.

Many people here who support marriage equality seem to baulk at the idea of LGBT adoption, so I'm wondering what they'll make of this latest turn of events.

pharmaton

Czarcasm wrote: »

If it is TRULY to be marriage EQUALITY, then issues such as adoption and guardianship are an integral part of that discussion, as LGBT people should indeed be entitled and afforded the same rights as heterosexual people when it comes to children.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who knows of an LGB couple who have children from previous relationships so it's not as if they aren't raising children already. It just needs to be formally and legally recognised by The State.

I'd hazard a guess that roughly 60% of lgbt folk I know have kids from previous relationships

Daith

Czarcasm wrote: »

Interesting Princess that you should mention the absence of children with regard to marriage equality, especially as I'm just reading this piece here in the Independent (found the corresponding article online), the general gist being that legislation to allow the adoption of children by gay parents (article doesn't make specific mention of trans people) must be in place before a referendum on marriage equality (which, according to the article they can push out to October 2015!).

If it is TRULY to be marriage EQUALITY, then issues such as adoption and guardianship are an integral part of that discussion, as LGBT people should indeed be entitled and afforded the same rights as heterosexual people when it comes to children.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who knows of an LGB couple who have children from previous relationships so it's not as if they aren't raising children already. It just needs to be formally and legally recognised by The State.

Many people here who support marriage equality seem to baulk at the idea of LGBT adoption, so I'm wondering what they'll make of this latest turn of events.

Well it makes absolute sense. Every debate around gay marriage turns more into a debate about gay people raising children. By putting gay adoption and parental rights in legislation there's very little for anti-same sex marriage groups to actually argue against.

While I have zero faith in FG wanting to progress this, I do think it's the right think to do.

Czarcasm

Daith wrote: »

Well it makes absolute sense. Every debate around gay marriage turns more into a debate about gay people raising children. By putting gay adoption and parental rights in legislation there's very little for anti-same sex marriage groups to actually argue against.

While I have zero faith in FG wanting to progress this, I do think it's the right think to do.

I'm with you on this one Daith, it makes sense alright, but it throws a spanner in the works in the form of a moral dilema for those who support marriage equality but are still on the fence about adoption and guardianship rights for LGBT people.

The last bit in bold there, I wouldn't just say it was FG either I have no faith in, Labour too have their own reservations of individual TDs, so Gilmore can continue to lead the popular charge safe in the knowledge that while he LOOKS like he's making all the right moves, he really hasn't made any!

Truth be told if I were to put my cards on the table, even with the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention, I'd say we won't see anything like adoption and guardianship rights, let alone marriage equality rights for LGBT people for another decade at least (FG/LAB out at the next election, FF/independents back in, then out, FG/LAB back in), and THEN they'll say "Look what we did, we finally have a referendum on marriage equality, aren't we great?"...

Ten years too late of course.

Drakares

keeponhurling wrote: »

I know, amazing right? People with differing views to yourself. Unbelievable.

It will blow your mind when I tell you that gay marriage is still illegal in over 90% of the countries in the world.

And how long ago was it that this statistic represented a womans right to vote? Just because it is so doesn't make it right.

Daith

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm with you on this one Daith, it makes sense alright, but it throws a spanner in the works in the form of a moral dilema for those who support marriage equality but are still on the fence about adoption and guardianship rights for LGBT people.
.

You can't be on the fence though. As the article already points out...gay people can already adopt. All this would do would be to allow two gay people to adopt jointly and have both equal rights.

Essentially the people who disagree with gay adoption would be saying that they disagree with two gay people adopting which I find odd.

Czarcasm

Daith wrote: »

You can't be on the fence though. As the article already points out...gay people can already adopt. All this would do would be to allow two gay people to adopt jointly and have both equal rights.

Essentially the people who disagree with gay adoption would be saying that they disagree with two gay people adopting which I find odd.

That's the beauty of the conundrum presented for proponents of marriage equality who say that they support marriage equality for LGBT couples, but hum and haw about the issue of adoption and guardianship rights for said couples.

If you don't believe me Daith that there are many fence sitters on the issue, somebody linked to a thread from three months ago that discussed this very issue (I'm on the touch site at the moment and the search function is dire), but it'll give you a tiny sample of the representative opinion of fence sitters - those who say they support LGBT marriage equality, as long as equality doesn't actually mean equality, ie - no children involved.


Hey, I find their position odd, but I just put it down to people not having given all the issues involved much real thought.

Daith

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's the beauty of the conundrum presented for proponents of marriage equality who say that they support marriage equality for LGBT couples, but hum and haw about the issue of adoption and guardianship rights for said couples.

If you don't believe me Daith that there are many fence sitters on the issue, somebody linked to a thread from three months ago that discussed this very issue (I'm on the touch site at the moment and the search function is dire), but it'll give you a tiny sample of the representative opinion of fence sitters - those who say they support LGBT marriage equality, as long as equality doesn't actually mean equality, ie - no children involved.


Hey, I find their position odd, but I just put it down to people not having given all the issues involved much real thought.

I think it boils down to people not realizing that gay people can adopt and that same sex families do exist in Ireland.

wexie

Daith wrote: »

You can't be on the fence though. As the article already points out...gay people can already adopt. All this would do would be to allow two gay people to adopt jointly and have both equal rights.

Essentially the people who disagree with gay adoption would be saying that they disagree with two gay people adopting which I find odd.

Hang on there buster, are you saying that 1 gay person can adopt but 2 gay people can't?

That's preposterous!!

Really?

Czarcasm

wexie wrote: »

Hang on there buster, are you saying that 1 gay person can adopt but 2 gay people can't?

That's preposterous!!

Really?

Yep, a single person who is LGB can adopt (I'm not sure about a trans person, trans people are often lumped in with LGB even though transgender isn't a sexual orientation), but an LGB couple or an unmarried couple cannot adopt a child, but they can make a joint application to foster children.


Clear as mud then!

Annasopra

wexie wrote: »

Hang on there buster, are you saying that 1 gay person can adopt but 2 gay people can't?

That's preposterous!!

Really?

Yes - a single person or a married couple can adopt

Annasopra

Czarcasm wrote: »

Truth be told if I were to put my cards on the table, even with the recommendation of the Constitutional Convention, I'd say we won't see anything like adoption and guardianship rights, let alone marriage equality rights for LGBT people for another decade at least (FG/LAB out at the next election, FF/independents back in, then out, FG/LAB back in), and THEN they'll say "Look what we did, we finally have a referendum on marriage equality, aren't we great?"...

Ten years too late of course.

I think you are FAR too pessimistic;

With regard to marriage equality;

Very few TDs/Senators oppose it
FF support marriage equality and will table a private members bill - as well as that it is very likely they will run an LGBT activist in the European elections in Dublin
FG - the liberal side of FG supports it and FG now have an LGBT group as well chaired by Jerry Buttimer that has strong support from a number of other TDs
SF - support it
Lab - support it

15 Councils have supported motions calling for it; Cork City Council, South Dublin County Council, Ardee Town Council, Dublin City Council, Fingal County Council, Castlebar Town Council, Waterford City Council, Louth County Council
Mullingar Town Council, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, Wexford County Council, Clonmel Borough Council, Arklow Town Council, Kilkenny County Council, Kerry County Council (even one of the Healy Raes voted in favour in Kerry)

With regard to adoption;

There are growing calls for it and it makes sense from a Labour viewpoint to insist on it. Labour are badly struggling to deliver on economic issues in government but they can try and define their position by demanding progress on social issues - as well as that Shatter and Fitzgerald are both VERY VERY supportive of LGBT rights and to be honest most of the likely opponents from FG are in the reform alliance

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/former-judge-in-call-to-address-legal-position-of-children-of-same-sex-couples-1.1574928

http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Pages/SP12000321

http://www.belongto.org/pro/page.aspx?contentid=8341

http://www.amachlgbt.com/latest-news/recent-meeting-with-minister-for-children-and-youth-affairs-frances-fitzgerald/

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Czarcasm wrote: »

Interesting Princess that you should mention the absence of children with regard to marriage equality, especially as I'm just reading this piece here in the Independent (found the corresponding article online), the general gist being that legislation to allow the adoption of children by gay parents (article doesn't make specific mention of trans people) must be in place before a referendum on marriage equality (which, according to the article they can push out to October 2015!).

If it is TRULY to be marriage EQUALITY, then issues such as adoption and guardianship are an integral part of that discussion, as LGBT people should indeed be entitled and afforded the same rights as heterosexual people when it comes to children.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who knows of an LGB couple who have children from previous relationships so it's not as if they aren't raising children already. It just needs to be formally and legally recognised by The State.

Many people here who support marriage equality seem to baulk at the idea of LGBT adoption, so I'm wondering what they'll make of this latest turn of events.

My point being: why should a straight marriage with no kids result in benefits that a gay marriage with no kids doesn't?

Plus, gay single poeple can also adopt, which makes no sense if you want to ban gay parents from adopting.

Czarcasm

mango salsa wrote: »

I think you are FAR too pessimistic

Support mango is all well and good, but I'd like to see something more concrete tbh. You'll have to forgive me for being cynical but politicians regardless of their political affiliations don't have a great track record when it comes to following up their manifesto promises with actions.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

My point being: why should a straight marriage with no kids result in benefits that a gay marriage with no kids doesn't?

Plus, gay single poeple can also adopt, which makes no sense if you want to ban gay parents from adopting.

Aye, like I said earlier Princess -

Czarcasm wrote: »

Clear as mud then!

Annasopra

Czarcasm wrote: »

Support mango is all well and good, but I'd like to see something more concrete tbh. You'll have to forgive me for being cynical but politicians regardless of their political affiliations don't have a great track record when it comes to following up their manifesto promises with actions.

Support has been damn hard fought for and is not irrelevant at all. There is mass grassroots support for marriage equality that simply wasn't there 6 years ago. Every party also has very active LGBT members who will in the next few years become office holders.

Czarcasm

mango salsa wrote: »

Support has been damn hard fought for and is not irrelevant at all. There is mass grassroots support for marriage equality that simply wasn't there 6 years ago. Every party also has very active LGBT members who will in the next few years become office holders.

So in or around a decade from now then?

I didn't say support was irrelevant either, I said it was all well and good, because without concrete action it really doesn't amount to much.

May I ask, how would you think (can we assume just for the sake of argument that adoption legislation is already changed, merely hypothetical obviously) the Irish Electorate would vote if there were a Referendum on the issue of marriage equality in the morning?

The reason I ask is because I wonder are the various political parties afraid to call a Referendum for fear it might be defeated and they end up with egg on their faces?

By deferring for another couple of years it gives them a better chance to have all their ducks in a row so to speak, therefore a better chance at having the Referendum pass as a YES vote on the necessary changes to be made to the Constitution?

Annasopra

Czarcasm wrote: »

So in or around a decade from now then?

I didn't say support was irrelevant either, I said it was all well and good, because without concrete action it really doesn't amount to much.

May I ask, how would you think (can we assume just for the sake of argument that adoption legislation is already changed, merely hypothetical obviously) the Irish Electorate would vote if there were a Referendum on the issue of marriage equality in the morning?

The reason I ask is because I wonder are the various political parties afraid to call a Referendum for fear it might be defeated and they end up with egg on their faces?

By deferring for another couple of years it gives them a better chance to have all their ducks in a row so to speak, therefore a better chance at having the Referendum pass as a YES vote on the necessary changes to be made to the Constitution?

No

Not a decade. I think that that LGBT people are not prepared to wait.

I think its hard to say - some polls have said 75% in favour but opposition could solidify and also a lot of potential younger yes voters have left the country. If I was to call it I would say it would be similar to the childrens rights referendum YES 58 NO 42

The thing is - gay rights campaigners supported that referendum too.

I think a lot of the cabinet still remember the horrible 80s and 90s referenda on divorce and abortion and they may be reluctant until they are fairly sure of support. Thats why I think Gilmore wants to get issues with children out of the way. I think the plan is; Mid - Late 2014 - legilsation on children being parented by same sex couples - Mid 2015 - Referendum. However 6 years ago they were MUCH MUCH MUCH more reluctant to support marriage equality.

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

Why does other people's life decisions/feelings/sexual preferences bother others? Jaysus, concentrate on your own life and let other people marry whoever it is they love.

joe swanson

I voted no and will do so in any referendum. Having read the thread, thats the end of my input as i believe its a topic that cannot be debated on boards without descending into abuse, and the shouting down of people with differing view points eg retarded which i find offensive.

poundapunnet

joe swanson wrote: »

I voted no and will do so in any referendum. Having read the thread, thats the end of my input as i believe its a topic that cannot be debated on boards without descending into abuse, and the shouting down of people with differing view points eg retarded which i find offensive.

I'll talk about it with you over PM if you like? I'm genuinely curious about what reasons people could possibly have other than religious, and I still think I don't really understand the religious ones, I'd like someone to make them make sense for me

old hippy

poundapunnet wrote: »

I'll talk about it with you over PM if you like? I'm genuinely curious about what reasons people could possibly have other than religious, and I still think I don't really understand the religious ones, I'd like someone to make them make sense for me

Other reasons than religious ones? How about fear, hatred and ignorance. That's pretty much it.

Annasopra

joe swanson wrote: »

I voted no and will do so in any referendum. Having read the thread, thats the end of my input as i believe its a topic that cannot be debated on boards without descending into abuse, and the shouting down of people with differing view points eg retarded which i find offensive.

Do you just not want to debate the issue?

joe swanson

old hippy wrote: »

Other reasons than religious ones? How about fear, hatred and ignorance. That's pretty much it.

Proof of my point. Im out.

poundapunnet

old hippy wrote: »

Other reasons than religious ones? How about fear, hatred and ignorance. That's pretty much it.

Yeah but they always say its not that, I'd like to hear their side of it like. Plus I think there's a better chance of convincing people if you don't immediately dismiss their views and try to reason it out with them instead, and I think convincing people is important