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

Same Sex Marriage (Poll on The Journal)

Options
1…6791112…43

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    Absoluvely
    Registered Users Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭Absoluvely


    mango salsa wrote: »
    I don't really agree with that

    If you have a right to marry (which there is)

    And heterosexual and women are allowed under law to marry

    Then I don't see how you can claim that all men and women are being discriminated against. In fact they are not in this particular case.

    Heterosexual men and women are not because the law allows them to uphold their right.

    So no - the ones being discriminated against are not all men and all women but gay men, lesbian women, bisexual men in same sex relationships, bisexual women in same sex
    relationships and trans people.

    I'm glad you're engaging with my view, but I disagree.

    Heterosexual men and homosexual men have exactly the same legal rights regarding marriage.
    They're both legally eligible to marry only women.

    The fact that only the law only caters for heterosexuals is incidental.
    The disparity in rights is between sexes - not between orientations.

    In my ideal world, rather than just adding legislation for same-sex marriage, you would legislate for gender-indifferent marriage. All laws would be gender-indifferent. The government wouldn't even need to keep a record of individuals' sexes. This would also incidentally accommodate trans people.


  • Options
    #243
    brokenarms
    Registered Users Posts: 1,387 ✭✭✭brokenarms


    What difference does it make to anyone's life if gay people get married.

    NONE.

    So why upset them by not letting them marry.

    Who cares..

    Let them at it FFS.


  • Options
    #244
    golfball37
    Registered Users Posts: 4,604 ✭✭✭golfball37


    AnonoBoy wrote: »
    You do realise that gay people live together in relationships now and them being married or being in a civil partnership won't change that?

    So kids are going to be growing up seeing the gay couple next door regardless of whether gay marriage comes in or not.

    So is it really just a question of voting no because you don't want gay people having the same rights as straight people?


    But by definition they can't have the same status as they cannot procreate. In my opinion if you cannot do this you don't deserve an equal footing legally. Of course in the few cases of infertility or menopause an exception should be made but not in a Gay/Lesbian arrangement.

    Your last point is nonsense btw. You can't for a second know my motivations for thinking anything. Proponents of this would do well not to label opponents as it makes them look like the narrow minded ones.


  • Options
    #245
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,310 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    I agree, ban old people marrying

    ps gay doesn't mean infertile


  • Options
    #246
    NTMK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,575 ✭✭✭NTMK


    golfball37 wrote: »
    But by definition they can't have the same status as they cannot procreate. In my opinion if you cannot do this you don't deserve an equal footing legally. Of course in the few cases of infertility or menopause an exception should be made but not in a Gay/Lesbian arrangement.

    Your last point is nonsense btw. You can't for a second know my motivations for thinking anything. Proponents of this would do well not to label opponents as it makes them look like the narrow minded ones.

    why


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    golfball37
    Registered Users Posts: 4,604 ✭✭✭golfball37


    loveisdivine wrote: »
    Sorry but you are incredibly homophobic. If you are concerned about children thinking homosexuals are "normal" then yes, you are most certainly homophobic.

    If thats the definition of homophobic then guilty as charged. It must be great to see things in such a black and white fashion.


  • Options
    #248
    FouxDaFaFa
    Registered Users Posts: 6,850 ✭✭✭FouxDaFaFa


    golfball37 wrote: »
    But by definition they can't have the same status as they cannot procreate. In my opinion if you cannot do this you don't deserve an equal footing legally. Of course in the few cases of infertility or menopause an exception should be made but not in a Gay/Lesbian arrangement.
    What about a straight couple that could have children but chooses not to? Goes into the marriage knowing this? Should they be afforded the same rights?


  • Options
    #249
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,054 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Absoluvely wrote: »
    Heterosexual men and homosexual men have exactly the same legal rights regarding marriage.
    They're both legally eligible to marry only women.

    They don't.

    Gay men are not legally eligible to marry other men.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #250
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    golfball37 wrote: »
    But by definition they can't have the same status as they cannot procreate. In my opinion if you cannot do this you don't deserve an equal footing legally. Of course in the few cases of infertility or menopause an exception should be made but not in a Gay/Lesbian arrangement.

    Your last point is nonsense btw. You can't for a second know my motivations for thinking anything. Proponents of this would do well not to label opponents as it makes them look like the narrow minded ones.


    That's weird, cause I'm crippled with period pain at the moment.

    Must be gas...


  • Options
    #251
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    NTMK wrote: »
    why

    Because they are not gay. The procreation argument needs a clause that covers infertile straight people you see, otherwise it crumbles :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Absoluvely
    Registered Users Posts: 1,318 ✭✭✭Absoluvely


    mango salsa wrote: »
    They don't.

    Gay men are not legally eligible to marry other men.

    Neither are straight men.


  • Options
    #253
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,054 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    golfball37 wrote: »
    But by definition they can't have the same status as they cannot procreate. In my opinion if you cannot do this you don't deserve an equal footing legally. Of course in the few cases of infertility or menopause an exception should be made but not in a Gay/Lesbian arrangement.

    The state did not even suggest that procreation is essential for a valid marriage in Zappone and Gilligan v Revenue so I'm afraid that view is just..... well irrelevant really given that many heterosexual marriages happen without procreation

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #254
    ferretone
    Registered Users Posts: 638 ✭✭✭ferretone


    OldNotWIse wrote: »
    Because they are not gay. The procreation argument needs a clause that covers infertile straight people you see, otherwise it crumbles :rolleyes:

    Well, they could just sign in a law whereby heterosexual marriages are annulled if they fail to produce issus within a certain timeframe :p


  • Options
    #255
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,054 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    Absoluvely wrote: »
    Neither are straight men.

    The difference being that they are legally eligible to marry women.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #256
    Annasopra
    Registered Users Posts: 41,054 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    ferretone wrote: »
    Well, they could just sign in a law whereby heterosexual marriages are annulled if they fail to produce issus within a certain timeframe :p

    and ban older people from getting married
    and have mandatory fertility testing before a marriage licence can be granted
    and ban condoms and the pill....

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • Options
    #257
    ferretone
    Registered Users Posts: 638 ✭✭✭ferretone


    mango salsa wrote: »
    and ban older people from getting married
    and have mandatory fertility testing before a marriage licence can be granted
    and ban condoms and the pill....

    That's the general sort of area we're talking about with the fertility argument, yup :D


  • Options
    #258
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Absoluvely wrote: »
    I'm glad you're engaging with my view, but I disagree.

    Heterosexual men and homosexual men have exactly the same legal rights regarding marriage.

    They're both legally eligible to marry only women.

    The fact that only the law only caters for heterosexuals is incidental.

    The disparity in rights is between sexes - not between orientations.

    In my ideal world, rather than just adding legislation for same-sex marriage, you would legislate for gender-indifferent marriage. All laws would be gender-indifferent. The government wouldn't even need to keep a record of individuals' sexes. This would also incidentally accommodate trans people.


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

    I really don't know why you're going to such lengths to be pedantic.

    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.


  • Options
    #259
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    mango salsa wrote: »
    The difference being that they are legally eligible to marry women.

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


  • Options
    #260
    OldNotWIse
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,468 ✭✭✭✭OldNotWIse


    brokenarms wrote: »
    What difference does it make to anyone's life if gay people get married.

    NONE.

    So why upset them by not letting them marry.

    Who cares..

    Let them at it FFS.


    Indeed. I actually get creeped out at the thought of someone concerning themselves with what I do in the privacy of my own bedroom...it's just weird...Stop weirdos!

    I guess you could call me homophobic-phobic :P


  • Options
    #261
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    golfball37 wrote: »
    In my opinion if you cannot do this you don't deserve an equal footing legally. Of course in the few cases of infertility or menopause an exception should be made but not in a Gay/Lesbian arrangement.

    Why in your opinion do they not deserve the same legal footing?

    You've stated your opinion but you haven't given the reasons behind it.
    Your last point is nonsense btw. You can't for a second know my motivations for thinking anything. Proponents of this would do well not to label opponents as it makes them look like the narrow minded ones.

    I haven't labelled you as anything. You yourself stated that you don't think gays and lesbians should have the same rights in this respect. Other than the fact that they are gay you haven't given any reasons as to why they shouldn't have those rights.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    golfball37
    Registered Users Posts: 4,604 ✭✭✭golfball37


    mango salsa wrote: »
    The state did not even suggest that procreation is essential for a valid marriage in Zappone and Gilligan v Revenue so I'm afraid that view is just..... well irrelevant really given that many heterosexual marriages happen without procreation

    Procreation is not essential for a valid marriage because valid marriages are currently between people of the opposite sex. Should that change then procreation will be an issue.


  • Options
    #263
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,523 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    golfball37 wrote: »
    If thats the definition of homophobic then guilty as charged. It must be great to see things in such a black and white fashion.

    It's not that difficult. Just realise that you shouldn't be interfering in people's personal lives when they're doing nothing to negatively affect your lives. That's extremely black and white. Just don't think you should have the right to suppress people's rights for no decent reason.


  • Options
    #264
    ferretone
    Registered Users Posts: 638 ✭✭✭ferretone


    golfball37 wrote: »
    Procreation is not essential for a valid marriage because valid marriages are currently between people of the opposite sex. Should that change then procreation will be an issue.

    Care to explain why? I just cannot see any logic behind what you are saying at all :confused:


  • Options
    #265
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    NiallSparky wrote: »
    That's extremely black and white. Just don't think you should have the right to suppress people's rights for no decent reason.

    In his opinion they don't deserve to have the right to marry so in his mind that's a decent reason it seems.


  • Options
    #266
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    NiallSparky wrote: »
    It's not that difficult. Just realise that you shouldn't be interfering in people's personal lives when they're doing nothing to negatively affect your lives. That's extremely black and white. Just don't think you should have the right to suppress people's rights for no decent reason.

    Especially when his "argument" is

    "gay people can't procreate so aren't equal"

    "straight infertile couples can't procreate but we will make an exception for them"


  • Options
    #267
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


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


    Absoluvly is trying to assert that the current legislation is gender biased, and not biased because of a person's sexual orientation.

    What they fail to acknowledge, is that current legislation affords heterosexual people certain rights by marriage, whereas LGBT people are denied those rights, purely based on their sexual orientation, and NOT on their gender.


  • Options
    #268
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    ferretone wrote: »
    Care to explain why? I just cannot see any logic behind what you are saying at all :confused:

    You'll be a long time looking for logic in these sort of arguments.

    You might as well try and understand how a Freeman thinks the law works as understand the people who dance around the gay marriage argument claiming that they've nothing against gay people they just don't want them having equal rights for some unspecified reason which are "definitely not homophobic"


  • Options
    #269
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,751 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    ferretone wrote: »
    Care to explain why? I just cannot see any logic behind what you are saying at all :confused:

    To move the goalposts so that same-sex couples can still be excluded from civil marriage.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #270
    golfball37
    Registered Users Posts: 4,604 ✭✭✭golfball37


    AnonoBoy wrote: »
    Why in your opinion do they not deserve the same legal footing?

    You've stated your opinion but you haven't given the reasons behind it.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    AnonoBoy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,559 ✭✭✭✭AnonoBoy


    golfball37 wrote: »
    I see marriage exclusively as a union between a man and a woman.

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

    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.

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


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement