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; } } }

Child Item

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

Quick Links

Comments

I say no to gay marriage.

however, I don't hate myself..so your poll is kinda ****.

Dudess

ClioV6 wrote: »

I say no to gay marriage.

Why?

dr.bollocko

I think that straight marriage is just as ridiculous a prospect as gay marriage TBH.
If people want to put forward a law saying it's legal to cornhole a cottage cheese and call it your wife I'll vote for it. I think it's bloody ridiculous that they took away the right to gay marriage. Makes me pretty sick to my stomach to be honest. Vote for change and a big step forward with Obama and then screw over the gay population. They should never, ever have piggy backed that on the back of the election.

Dudess wrote: »

Why?

I don't think it's right

or, dr bollockos answer.

arybvtcw0eolkf

I'll say one more thing, although its something I'm not entirely in agreement with, I do think that it will be legal sometime in the future.

So getting it sorted, and legalised today will be a huge step forward for the Irish people.

Cunny-Funt

Anyone against this is a neo nazi tbh

Zillah

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I'm against gay marriage.

Mainly because it will probably cost the taxpayer money, one way or another.

Don't widows/widowers get extra tax reliefs and/or pension payments ?
So if we allow gay marriage, then it'll cost us all more money.

The reason the state recognises marriage is primarily to protect and subsidise the family unit, women and children.

It is not there to protect and subsidise "alternative lifestyles".

If someone could prove it won't cost us a cent, then maybe.

You do realise that gay people pay taxes too, right? This is such an incredibly unfair comment I almost doubt you're serious.

CreepingDeath

Mairt wrote: »

So getting it sorted, and legalised today will be a huge step forward for the Irish people.

No... it will be a huge step forward for a very small subset of Irish people who want the benefits attached to marriage.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Cunny-Funt wrote: »

Anyone against this is a neo nazi tbh

I used to be one of those, I still have a stupid swastika tattoo on my wrist. Now how ghey is that?.

(I did, and I do).

jill_valentine

CreepingDeath wrote: »

The reason the state recognises marriage is primarily to protect and subsidise the family unit, women and children.

First off, your money argument doesn't wash, quite frankly, and I don't think even you really believe it. The issue is one of human rights. It costs money to let all sorts of groups get married, money isn't an issue then. Only for gay marriage.

Second of all, no, if marriage benefits etc really are there to "protect" what you call "the family unit", then they should be abolished altogether.

Leaving aside for a second your rather narrow definition of that term, the idea that the government is actively subsidising straight couples to marry for the purpose of promoting oldey-fashioned marriage is bizarre.

I love the idea of a marriage on the verge of breakdown being saved by a tax break.

arybvtcw0eolkf

CreepingDeath wrote: »

No... it will be a huge step forward for a very small subset of Irish people who want the benefits attached to marriage.

And if their married, why shouldn't they be afforded those rights?.

If two people, man and man/woman & woman or straights (like me, and presumably you) share a life together and everything that goes with it, why discriminate against the gay couple just because of they're different?.

CreepingDeath

Zillah wrote: »

You do realise that gay people pay taxes too, right? This is such an incredibly unfair comment I almost doubt you're serious.

Yes, and so do single people.

Marital benefits are there to protect the family unit, not an alternative lifestyle. If someone put in a clause stating they wouldn't get a cent more from the government than two single people, I wouldn't be against it.

MagicMarker

I for one endorse gay marriage and everything that's a bit of teh ghey.

Dudess

CreepingDeath wrote: »

I'm against gay marriage.

Mainly because it will probably cost the taxpayer money, one way or another.

Don't widows/widowers get extra tax reliefs and/or pension payments ?
So if we allow gay marriage, then it'll cost us all more money.

The reason the state recognises marriage is primarily to protect and subsidise the family unit, women and children.

It is not there to protect and subsidise "alternative lifestyles".

If someone could prove it won't cost us a cent, then maybe.

Well why don't you have a problem with all the other stuff that costs the taxpayer?

ClioV6 wrote: »

I don't think it's right

Why?

or, dr bollockos answer.

He doesn't disagree with gay marriage.

Mairt wrote: »

I used to be one of those, I still have a stupid swastika tattoo on my wrist. Now how ghey is that?.

(I did, and I do).

Fair play for owning up to it.

arybvtcw0eolkf

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Marital benefits are there to protect the family unit, not an alternative lifestyle.

You make it sound like you believe being gay is a life style choice?.

Caoimhín

MagicMarker wrote: »

I for one endorse gay marriage and everything that's a bit of teh ghey.

You do know that real lesbians dont look like the girls in the adult movies?

Quackles

I really can't see why gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Marriage in the eyes of the state is NOT a religious thing, so the church opinion should be null and void. If some bright spark decided to make a new law saying that registry office marriages were no longer recognised, everyone would be up in arms. In fact, next time I marry, I'm gonna get me an Angelina Jolie lookalike. She'd love me, I have kids, she could increase her collection.

Prof.Badass

what about single people?

deep down everyone knows it's unfair to give a childless couple tax breaks purely because they are a couple.

Abolish marraige, and instead give benefits to those with children (for this to work, men would need to have equal rights though).

If someone wants to have a nice little ceremony, then good for them. It shouldn't have anything to do with the state.

jill_valentine

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Marital benefits are there to protect the family unit, not an alternative lifestyle.

I'd love for you to find me where that's stated so I can start lobbying against it.

Dudess wrote: »

Why?

He doesn't disagree with gay marriage.

his first comment.

and by the way, why keep on asking anyway? even if I absolutely hated gay people and was a complete homophobe..why would it matter to ya?*

*not btw.

Zillah

CreepingDeath wrote: »

Marital benefits are there to protect the family unit, not an alternative lifestyle. If someone put in a clause stating they wouldn't get a cent more from the government than two single people, I wouldn't be against it.

Ok, first of all, what exactly are these benefits that the tax payer is funding, and on what basis do you assert that they exist to protect "The Family Unit"?

I assume you believe that infertile couples should not be allowed to marry then? They can no more produce a family than gay couples can. Old people too. We should forbid them from getting married.

Also, it'd be a real shame to have beds in all those orphanages and not have orphans sleeping in them. God forbid we have a pair of responsible married mothers or fathers look after them instead.

jill_valentine

I get it, gay marriage is okay once they've paid their special gay tax. Gayness is a privilege and not a right, people.

Caoimhín wrote: »

You do know that real lesbians dont look like the girls in the adult movies?

Dude, two and a half words and they're Portia De Rossi.

Dudess

ClioV6 wrote: »

his first comment.

So why do you think gay marriage is wrong? People are supposed to explain the reason for their stances on message boards.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Dudess wrote: »

Fair play for owning up to it.

Its from a past life, and tbh at the time I didn't even understand the whole thing fully.

It ain't no big deal.

Dudess wrote: »

So why do you think gay marriage is wrong? People are supposed to explain the reason for their stances on message boards.

I think all marriage is wrong. christ almighty.

get down ffs.

Nodin

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..

Not if they're either sterile or just don't want childer.

Jakkass wrote: »

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..

You seem to have the wrong topic for that one.

Gaybies is a myth, btw.

CreepingDeath

jill_valentine wrote: »

First off, your money argument doesn't wash, quite frankly, and I don't think even you really believe it.
The issue is one of human rights. It costs money to let all sorts of groups get married, money isn't an issue then. Only for gay marriage.

Just dismissing my argument doesn't really make it disappear.
I don't want my tax money being wasted.
Normal marriages are worth investing by the state to keep the population going and bring children up in healthy normal balanced environments.

jiil_valentine wrote:

Second of all, no, if marriage benefits etc really are there to "protect" what you call "the family unit", then they should be abolished altogether.

Yeah, would you like to explain that one ?
You don't seem to be able to form a coherent argument.

Ultimately, if it costs NOTHING to the taxpayer, and there's a clause in there for future legislation on marriages saying it will cost nothing... then go for it, allow gay marriages.

I'm not paying for a lifestyle choice which has absolutely no benefit to Irish society other than the needs of those two people. It's worthless to Irish society in general.

Dudess

Of course all the children of gay couples will grow up to be gay? Aren't all the children of straight couples straight?

Oh wait...

arybvtcw0eolkf

ClioV6 wrote: »

I think all marriage is wrong. christ almighty.

get down ffs.

Oh, your fvcked. Once she gets her claws into someone she'll try her best to beat you into submission.

GirlInterrupted

I fully support marraige for all people who wish to avail of it. To discount gay marraige is to declare that gay love and commitment is somehow less worthy than that of a straight couple.

To deprive people of rights because of their sexuality is as heinous to me as depriving people of rights because of their race.