nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Gay marriage

taibhse

So they banned gay marriage in California again so no more mano on mano married action.

So what do people think, should it be legalised in Ireland? I'm straight but I think all people should have the same rights. Why should people be able to tell others you dont have the same rights as me?

Is this not the same as black people being second class citizens or women not being able to vote.

What do people think

Find more posts tagged with

guy love between two guys

Comments

jill_valentine

I'm all for gay marriage. I mean, there's no logical reason to oppose it.

Gummy Panda

LGB forum that way ==>

Clare Bear

I think it should be legalised here but I don't see it happening anytime soon.

philologos

I'm opposed to changing anything about marriage and it's definition, however I do encourage the proposed civil partnership legislation.

Randi

taibhse wrote: »

So they banned gay marriage in California again so no more mano on mano married action.

So what do people think, should it be legalised in Ireland? I'm straight but I think all people should have the same rights. Why should people be able to tell others you dont have the same rights as me?

Is this not the same as black people being second class citizens or women not being able to vote.

What do people think

Yeah I totally agree, it should be legalised over here. What difference does it make if gay people get married??? Its not like gay people can have kids together beside adopt. Its a pity not everyone sees it in the same way as you mentioned above, maybe one day it'll come about.......

SoupyNorman

Gummy Panda wrote: »

LGB forum that way ==>

Is it not ==><== That way?

jill_valentine

A hundred bazillion euro says that at some point in this thread, somebody will say "Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN!" as if that settles it.

philologos

Well I do believe that jill_valentine, and that's what I meant by my last point. I don't see why we need to change what marriage currently is to make a point. Civil partnerships are a perfect alternative. Infact if they wish LGBT couples can define their partnerships as marriage, I don't know why we need a legislative decision to make this the case.

4Xcut

taibhse wrote: »

So they banned gay marriage in California again so no more mano on mano married action.

So what do people think, should it be legalised in Ireland? I'm straight but I think all people should have the same rights. Why should people be able to tell others you dont have the same rights as me?

Is this not the same as black people being second class citizens or women not being able to vote.

What do people think

Just out of curiosity, was this a retro active law which nullified previous ga marraiges.

Randi

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm opposed to changing anything about marriage and it's definition, however I do encourage the proposed civil partnership legislation.

Get with the times. Its all heading that way anyways. And the definition of marriage in most cases states that its a "couple" and "Individual" not man and woman.

JBoyle4eva

I'm gay, so you should all know my opinion........

For those still wanting to know, I'd support it :P

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm opposed to changing anything about marriage and it's definition

There is no rational reason for you to say this, so I'm going to assume it has something to do with the Bible?

jill_valentine

4Xcut wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, was this a retro active law which nullified previous ga marraiges.

There's some dispute over whether gay marriages that have already taken place still stand, but yes, the ban rolled back on something that was already in place. The exact wording was:

"Changes California Constitution to eliminate right of same-sex couples to marry."

Imagine being presented with a situation where you're being asked to "eliminate" a "right", and clicking "Yes."

I don't understand people sometimes.

taibhse

4Xcut wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, was this a retro active law which nullified previous ga marraiges.

yeah afaik the people who got married will no longer be seen as such in the eyes of the law

Gauge

jill_valentine wrote: »

Imagine being presented with a situation where you're being asked to "eliminate" a "right", and clicking "Yes."

I don't understand people sometimes.

This. Human rights shouldn't be put to a vote.

taibhse

Gauge wrote: »

This. Human rights shouldn't be put to a vote.

yeah of course they shouldn't be at the moment there is nothing in Irish law to legalise a couple so that is what the question is. IMO it should be legal as even civil partnerships don't confer all the same advantages of marriage so its still discriminating against people

Prof.Badass

I think all state recognition of marraige should be abolished.

Marraige is a religious thing, nothing to do with the state.

However i do think a child is best off living with non-changing parental figures of both sexes (where possible), and the state should encourage this.

2 things need to happen.

1. men need to be given equal rights to women when it comes to child rearing.

2. The state should give the same amount of money to all people raising children.

Marraige really is between a man and a woman, that's the way it's always been.
You can raise children and recieve benifits all you want, just please don't say you're "married".

btw, i'm not religious at all, i just think state recognition of something religious is kinda dumb.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

vinylmesh wrote: »

Marraige really is between a man and a woman, that's the way it's always been.
You can raise children and recieve benifits all you want, just please don't say you're "married".

And there we go...narrow minded illogical bigotry dressed up as reasonable debate.

[Deleted User]

This post has been deleted.

philologos

jill_valentine wrote: »

Imagine being presented with a situation where you're being asked to "eliminate" a "right", and clicking "Yes."

It's not about eliminating a right. It's about society determining the terms of a marriage when it is coming under a challenge. The question is as stands, is a LGBT relationship the same as a heterosexual one. I personally would disagree as a child can never come through the purposes of LGBT biologically, whereas it can in a straight relationship. It also raises other questions such as are we willing to change the family unit, and if we do will there be difficulties to be seen in the future with how children feel about their identity not knowing their parents etc. Mind you the same could be argued for adoption. I just don't think it's as simplex as people make out. A decision like this does have the capacity to affect society as a whole.

Carturo

taibhse wrote: »

So they banned gay marriage in California again so no more mano on mano married action.

So what do people think, should it be legalised in Ireland? I'm straight but I think all people should have the same rights. Why should people be able to tell others you dont have the same rights as me?

Is this not the same as black people being second class citizens or women not being able to vote.

What do people think

There may not be a reason to oppose it but there's also no need for it imo.

Oh and it's mano e mano.

Ass

It shouldn't be decided by our government. It should be decided by what ever religious body the marriage is taking part under if it is a religious marriage.

Homo's should be allowed to marry each other in a civil marriage.

Steve

I think civil partnership is OK.

Don't know about gay marriage though, wouldn't it just cause lots of fights over who gets to wear the dress?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

SteveC wrote: »

I think civil partnership is OK.

Don't know about gay marriage though, wouldn't it just cause lots of fights over who gets to wear the dress?

I did always wonder what would happen if two lipstick lesbians showed up in the same thing. Would someone have to go home and change or would they just avoid each other for the day?

Davidius

Give it all the same benefits as marriage but don't call it marriage?

Zillah

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally would disagree as a child can never come through the purposes of LGBT biologically, whereas it can in a straight relationship.

Exactly! We do not allow old people or sterile couples to marry for the very same reason.

Randi

vinylmesh wrote: »

Marraige really is between a man and a woman, that's the way it's always been.
You can raise children and recieve benifits all you want, just please don't say you're "married".

The same could be said for the new US president, all the presidents before him were white, "thats the way it always had been" so you were on of these people who didnt want a black president. so thats what your saying, thats bull. If I want to be able to get married I should be able to, bet you wouldn't like it if you couldn't call your relationship Married.

Think it's time something was done about this in Ireland, maybe all the people For gay marriage should get together and organize something.

jill_valentine

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not about eliminating a right. It's about society determining the terms of a marriage when it is coming under a challenge. The question is as stands, is a LGBT relationship the same as a heterosexual one. I personally would disagree as a child can never come through the purposes of LGBT biologically, whereas it can in a straight relationship. It also raises other questions such as are we willing to change the family unit, and if we do will there be difficulties to be seen in the future with how children feel about their identity not knowing their parents etc. Mind you the same could be argued for adoption. I just don't think it's as simplex as people make out. A decision like this does have the capacity to affect society as a whole.

In California, it was already recognised as a right. Which is what I was referring to. It was a right, and it has been eliminated.

I'm not saying religious groups should have to recognise gay marriages, they can fail to recognise gravity if they want, that's up to them. But they are actively imposing their own religious mores on the rest of their community. In California, they actually had the front to claim that their rights were being impinged by gay weddings, which blows my f**king mind.

But ethically and governmentally, there is no good reason why a straight marriage and a gay marriage shouldn't look exactly the same in the eyes of the law. Marriage, big M.

Anything else, anything less is an attempt to fob the gay community off so they won't keep trying for "real" marriage. Although how somebody else's marriage is supposed to have a blind bit of influence on mine is beyond me. Civil Partnership isn't the same damn thing as a marriage.

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

Well I do believe that jill_valentine, and that's what I meant by my last point. I don't see why we need to change what marriage currently is to make a point.

Christian marriage is indeed between a man and a woman, and no-one is trying to change that. However there is no reason to impose the Christian interpretation of marriage on state recognised marriages in a secular country such as Ireland.

Christianity did not invent marriage and through history there have been numerous societies which have permitted same-sex unions, such as ancient Greence and Rome. It is not as if marriage has always been between man and woman and that the idea of gay marriage is a modern phenonenon which is desecrating this age old institution.

If anything Christianity has desecrated the act of marriage by imposing its narrow minded beliefs on an act which originally permitted gay unions.

jaffa20

I see Catholic Ireland is still alive and well.:rolleyes: Marriage or civil partnership, who cares

As long we have the same rights, the former is only a name for a couple that have vowed to stay together.