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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
Gay marriage
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
CreepingDeath wrote: »Because those benefits are from the Irish taxpayers.
It's up to them to decide what happens their money.
I'm sorry . . . do members of the LGBT community not pay taxes? Looks like I picked the wrong side on "sexual selection day" at school . . .CreepingDeath wrote: »Adoption is completely different, and the state has a duty to put children in the best homes available, based on a strict selection process I believe.
That would be based on the opinion of experts, psychologists, social welfare officers, health boards etc I imagine. . . . The point is, if there's one orphan and two couples, one heterosexual, the other homosexual, then you know full well yourself but are too chicken to admit it, then the natural choice which is tried and tested over thousands of generations is the heterosexual couple.
Yes, the state has a duty to put children in the best homes available. However, in most situations, the choices aren't between two couples who are exactly alike and well off and wonderful in all respects except their sexual orientation. You're right, it is indeed a strict process . . . Have you ever talked to a case worker and heard what they come across every day and the process through which foster/adoptive parents have to go through? Or the difficulty they have in placing children within new environments? You are certainly entitled to your opinion on the home in which you would prefer to place a child, given those two options. And that's 100% fine. All I'm saying is that it's a bit high and mighty (that's the first thing that comes to my mind, sorry!) to base that opinion on circumstances which are often different from reality. Regardless of who they love sexually, if a couple - or a single person! Imagine! - fits the criteria to become an adoptive parent, bless 'em . . . With a child who needs a home.
And more people should donate blood, too.
0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
So - and I'm not harping on you here, just trying to understand - you're not for gay marriage because you think it's a slippery slope? That once gay people can marry, then come the polygamists (there's another thread on this, too, by the way!), the incestuous groups, the . . . priests? (Ha, I know you're not religious, I'm kidding.)
I think that equality for both homosexuals and heterosexuals would be good for humanity as a whole. I do think you used interesting language though -- "promoting" homosexuality to be equal to that of heterosexuality. I mean . . . if you are okay with it on a small scale, you must be okay with a homosexual and heterosexual being equal in "normal" life, right? (Not that marriage isn't "normal" life, of course it is, but you know what I mean. I hope.)
Hey I'm just glad you haven't labelled me a bigot right off the cuff
(I'm heading to San Francisco this Christmas actually).
I think discussions on these things are important - since it allows people to see each others views and ultimately people can change if they find that their viewpoint isn't able to justify itself in all circumstances.
To answer your points, the point I brought up was just one small thing I've heard in the debate over prop 8 (I'm living in the US right now). And certainly it does have a slippery slope tinge to its reasoning - I suppose the endpoint of that argument is that the word marriage becomes devoid of any special meaning as anyone and anything can get "married". Whereas I see marriage as a state sponsored sociological institution that furthers our species (so procreation and not bible/morals/love - though many of those elements are present and desirable). So perhaps my interpretation is not the same as the religious folk and the people supporting homosexual marriage.
What about you? Do you think we can legally discriminate against polygamous groups or those who want to practise incest? Just on quick reflection I can't see many legal reasons to prevent that once we write off sociological grounds and move towards just a basis of love (can 3, 4, 5 people not love each other as deeply as 2? I don't think I can argue that but I feel that most of society would agree with me in saying we are justified in discriminating against those groups). I'm not purporting to be a legal expert here but our equality protection statutes allow discrimination, where adequate justification can be given.
One rebuttal I've often seen to the procreation and family argument is the sterile heterosexual couple scenario. And it does seem to be a tricky thing to reconcile with my position. This may be the weakest point of my position actually (I've thought long and hard on this one) and I suppose my justification for recognising the marriage of heterosexual sterile (or even couples who do not want kids) couples is that in case 1 (sterile) disease or unfortunate circumstances should not be a reason to stop a couple who in the normal course of life would have been able to have children and case 2 (don't want children) still have the capacity to have children and change their minds.
Some may see this as weak justification (indeed I see it as the weakest part of my position/beliefs) but it satisfies me for now and I'll have to work on refining it (or look to a greater mind to find something that is compatible with my sense of morals).
On to your second point about being okay on the personal level (micro) and not on the grand scale (macro) - evolution has made us so that we are meant to procreate between man and woman (bible people will supplant evolution with God(s) here) - obviously if everyone was a homosexual couple unless we use IVF on everyone the race would only last one generation. I am fully willing to accept if society is okay with babies being born solely via IVF if they so choose, but I will still find it strange and unnatural (maybe people more enlightened than me won't )
So on the micro scale - a few people in homosexual relationships are completely harmless but until we reach the age that it is socially acceptable that our children do not come out via the natural way (and maybe we're evolving towards that...) I think heterosexual relationships should be promoted, but not imposed on anyone (hence granting civil partnership rights to homosexual couples).
I realise I start to sound like O'Higgins from Norris v. AG (where shamefully the judge found that criminalising homosexuality is okay in Irish law - thankfully overturned by the ECHR) and it really surprises me even that I feel strongly on this issue despite not being religious at all. I fight for civil liberties but I feel that this really isn't a "right" that homosexual couples (along with the polygamous etc.) can claim.
I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights puts forward my belief adequately:UDHR wrote:Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Those who read just a little more into the wording will find that the definition of family becomes the battleground - since if a homosexual couple can be defined as a family then the UDHR would have no qualms about homosexual marriage - and that brings in the debate about homosexual adoption (another can of worms!)
So really, if it can be demonstrated that homosexual couples can raise children and not have such a great impact on the natural heterosexual/homosexual balance in society so that our species can continue to flourish then I would have no problems with moving from my current stance of pro-civil partnership to pro-marriage for homosexual unions.
Same applies for the polygamists and inter-familial relationships too (with priests I don't really care - I think most religions are slightly silly so why not allow marriage? The Anglicans allow it...)
Oh and before anyone asks "what if your son/daughter was homosexual" I would apply my beliefs regardless if it was a stranger or even if it was my child (or even myself). It'd be bloody hypocritical otherwise (thank goodness Cheney's daughter is a lesbian - you'd shudder to think what kind of laws the republicans could have passed against civil partnerships if she wasn't...)
edit: what makes me sad are things like this poll - I voted no...but I do not "hate everyone including myself". It's not just illiterate folks from the bible belt that have concerns about this... Though on the other hand I am concerned (maybe not the best word) that quite often well educated people are pro-homosexual marriage...that indicates to me that I should consider this matter seriously before deciding to stick with my original position or not (though maybe surprisingly many of my well educated law student colleagues share the same viewpoint of yes civil partnerships and no to homosexual marriage).
Oh and I do the same for the Lisbon treaty and China... trying to demonstrate that those going against the grain of what is considered "right" aren't just ignorant, brainwashed folks but hopefully as I've shown; well educated and people who do care about human rights and doing "good".0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
I mean, if you were tossing bricks at gay people, or treating someone differently because they were homosexual then yes, I'd label you a bigot. (If you are doing either of these things, then you are just not allowed to go to San Francisco. Or quote me ever again. :P)What about you? Do you think we can legally discriminate against polygamous groups or those who want to practise incest?
Am I wrong, or is polygamy based upon a religious belief? Even so, that's a bit tricky, because I know it's illegal, so that in itself is a bit of a gray area in terms of being able to practice/observe the rules and laws of your religion within a (supposedly) bigger secular society. Or maybe the practice isn't be based on religious beliefs and I've just wasted some time typing. Anyway, to be honest, I'm not sure. I don't agree with it by any means . . . but I did enjoy Big Love on HBO . . .
Incest is completely different to me, and absolutely should be illegal as it's often a form of abuse. A parent abusing a child, or children being made to have sex with each other . . . it gets really cringe-worthy and, again, often is not between consenting adults. So definite boos and hisses to that.On to your second point about being okay on the personal level (micro) and not on the grand scale (macro) - evolution has made us so that we are meant to procreate between man and woman (bible people will supplant evolution with God(s) here) - obviously if everyone was a homosexual couple unless we use IVF on everyone the race would only last one generation. I am fully willing to accept if society is okay with babies being born solely via IVF if they so choose, but I will still find it strange and unnatural (maybe people more enlightened than me won't )
So on the micro scale - a few people in homosexual relationships are completely harmless but until we reach the age that it is socially acceptable that our children do not come out via the natural way (and maybe we're evolving towards that...) I think heterosexual relationships should be promoted, but not imposed on anyone (hence granting civil partnership rights to homosexual couples).
I don't see legalising gay marriage as imposing it on anyone. Heterosexuals can still marry the person they love - and procreate - as they see fit. And homosexuals will be allowed to marry the person they love as they see fit. Yes, sex between a man and a woman is designed for procreation. But we're all set with that. I mean, it's not as if the human race is in danger of becoming extinct! We can have sex purely for pleasure now and we use contraceptives and have children past the period when we're our most fertile. And let's be real here, we're not all morphing into homosexuals. We don't need to worry about what's going to happen if no one were able to procreate naturally. 'What ifs' often lead us into dangerous territory. Although, really, when I think about it, it sounds like the subject of a novel where gay and lesbian couples would get together for the men to impregnate the women. A woman would still be having a natural birth, so that's one way around it . . . But I digress. I think. (Let's not muddy the argument with IVF and Artificial Insemination and the like! . . . And if we are going to go there, I would muddy it even further by bringing up the cases of married heterosexual couples who do use these methods to conceive, the same as lesbians might.)I think the Universal Declaration of Human Rights puts forward my belief adequately:
. . .
Those who read just a little more into the wording will find that the definition of family becomes the battleground - since if a homosexual couple can be defined as a family then the UDHR would have no qualms about homosexual marriage - and that brings in the debate about homosexual adoption (another can of worms!)
Other than the definition of family, I think it also is a little fuzzy because it says man and woman - but not to each other. I take that to mean man and woman in and of themselves; men and women each as an individual person. Or perhaps I'm just a bit too literal! I've also mentioned adoption, so the worms are wriggling all over the place here.So really, if it can be demonstrated that homosexual couples can raise children and not have such a great impact on the natural heterosexual/homosexual balance in society so that our species can continue to flourish then I would have no problems with moving from my current stance of pro-civil partnership to pro-marriage for homosexual unions.
Fair enough point . . . I think that we are a splendid example of open-minded communication. 0 -
-
That was a more thoughtful post than this debate usually raises, thirdfox.
Regarding incest, I have a problem with this, because aside from the instinctive "Ew", there never seems to be an equal dynamic between the couple - one partner always seems to be dominating the other to what I'd consider an almost abusive extent. I do have some other vague grumblings about it, but I'd need to have a way longer think and a much bigger post about it.
Polygamy, I can't really logically object to on any basis other than I'm not sure how every partner could be getting a fair shout in deal. I don't really have a strong opinion on it.
My point is, both of those two issues are entirely separate, and it's unfair to introduce them to this debate. Those people aren't gay - gay people aren't those people, and to put them on the same spectrum is clouding the issue. IF you let gays marry, YOU ALSO... is implied, and I don't think the gay community should be continually forced to have to account for those two other groups.
On to your second point about being okay on the personal level (micro) and not on the grand scale (macro) - evolution has made us so that we are meant to procreate between man and woman (bible people will supplant evolution with God(s) here) - obviously if everyone was a homosexual couple unless we use IVF on everyone the race would only last one generation. I am fully willing to accept if society is okay with babies being born solely via IVF if they so choose, but I will still find it strange and unnatural (maybe people more enlightened than me won't )
.
I'm going to have to wheel out the old gay animal chestnut.
Animals, especially herd/ community animals produce teh gheys too. Now, the most famous example would be the Bremerhaven penguins, but they just got loads of publicity, because penguins are f**king awesome, but that's an artificially single-sex environment so I don't think it's the best example. It's like a little penguin Oz.
What I mean is, in other species, there is an occurrence of uh... gay animals? That sounds odd. You get the idea. I grew up on a farm. Teh gay cows and teh gay sheep gay it up just fine, and they really don't mind whether they can marry or not. And without passing on their genes, they occur in every generation, so it's not like they're breeding themselves out, neither.
Now, I don't believe what sheep do to pass their long ovine hours has any bearing on human sexuality. The point is that even if you were to try and impose a herd animal model onto humans, herds don't necessarily need or want every member to be breeding all the time.
As has been pointed out, we're covered in terms of breeding. When there's three people left on earth, and two of them are gay, this will be an issue, but right now we've got like six billion people in the bank, so we're all good to gay ourselves silly for the next while at least.0 -
People keep referring to children in this issue on a level akin to "won't somebody please think of the children". Yeah, ok it has a relevance to some degree, but for the most part, I think it's a separate issue.
To suggest that children raised by gay parents are more likely to be gay themselves is just ridiculous. For the most part, sexuality is in-built and while there are certainly exceptions where people can be influenced by their environment, you cannot "catch the ghey" as some people seem to think.
For me I see it as a central issue, in fact the central issue (love and legalities are the big side issues - hence why I think civil partnership does just as well as marriage if those are the things that concern people).
If we do not base marriage on children and family can you see legal reasons to not allow polygamy/inter-familial relations? And in both those cases people can have children in fact, but we judge it to be too dangerous (health reasons for inter-familial) or against the fabric of society.
I think polygamy can be religious, but what if there were 4-5 *insert random number here* people who were totally in love with one another and wanted to get married, could they go to court and seek vindication of their "rights" to marry? In many muslim countries I believe having multiple wives are allowed and in some African countries/regions having multiple husbands is the tradition so maybe our stance on this in an unjustifiable discrimination? I think it'd be sociologically interesting to do studies in this area as our natural instincts are to have as many children with as many mates as possible, but human society/structures has developed so that people are encouraged to be monogamous. That could be turned into an attack on my position - in that evolution has already changed the way relationships work, so why not change it further?Am I wrong, or is polygamy based upon a religious belief? Even so, that's a bit tricky, because I know it's illegal...
Incest is completely different to me, and absolutely should be illegal as it's often a form of abuse...
I would make a distinction between what you call incest (boo hiss indeed) and inter-familial marriage/unions - I think for example it may be illegal for one to marry their blood cousin. So if a 27 year old brother wants to marry his 25 year old sister - free will, true love etc. Who are we to judge? It seems that people right now do feel that this is "unnatural" and should be prohibited. And if marriage is not about children, then the health risks associated with in breeding will be minimised if adequate protection is used.
So I'd be interested in others' opinions on this, can you reconcile the support you'd give to supporting homosexual marriage but (I'm hypothesising here) not polygamous or inter-familial marriages? If we are going to move towards the greater "equality" that others seek - I believe we should change our laws accordingly on these points also (and work to eliminate discrimination against these groups of people who wish to practise polygamy or sibling love). Just like how transgendered people are often discriminated against by homosexuals it is sad to see one minority who feel they are being victimised (maybe rightly so) shun others who are in roughly the same situation as they are.
Indeed - soon we'll be accused of bringing up the tone of the forumFair enough point . . . I think that we are a splendid example of open-minded communication.
Oh and whoops - that was a rather long post again eh? No more from me either! ...except this one final point - it has gotten to a stage that I do feel quite defensive about expressing my more controversial beliefs because people often instinctively react negatively. With friends I've managed to use my personal reputation as a "good" person to ask them at least to give me a fair chance to explain my views. Of course on the internet personal reputation counts for nothing as none of us know each other - that's why I'm quite happy to find that we can reach a pretty solid consensus on this (what we will all agree on) is an important issue (with the happiness of so many at stake - the reasons for denying them their happiness must be absolutely clear and valid). Though I would hope that with love and civil partnerships people can be almost or just as happy as that of a "marriage".0 -
Blasa, blasa, blaa. Whats gthis thread about? ****in' noxes poppin up!$For me I see it as a central issue, in fact the central issue (love and legalities are the big side issues - hence why I think civil partnership does just as well as marriage if those are the things that concern people).
If we do not base marriage on children and family can you see legal reasons to not allow polygamy/inter-familial relations? And in both those cases people can have children in fact, but we judge it to be too dangerous (health reasons for inter-familial) or against the fabric of society.
I think polygamy can be religious, but what if there were 4-5 *insert random number here* people who were totally in love with one another and wanted to get married, could they go to court and seek vindication of their "rights" to marry? In many muslim countries I believe having multiple wives are allowed and in some African countries/regions having multiple husbands is the tradition so maybe our stance on this in an unjustifiable discrimination? I think it'd be sociologically interesting to do studies in this area as our natural instincts are to have as many children with as many mates as possible, but human society/structures has developed so that people are encouraged to be monogamous. That could be turned into an attack on my position - in that evolution has already changed the way relationships work, so why not change it further?
I would make a distinction between what you call incest (boo hiss indeed) and inter-familial marriage/unions - I think for example it may be illegal for one to marry their blood cousin. So if a 27 year old brother wants to marry his 25 year old sister - free will, true love etc. Who are we to judge? It seems that people right now do feel that this is "unnatural" and should be prohibited. And if marriage is not about children, then the health risks associated with in breeding will be minimised if adequate protection is used.
So I'd be interested in others' opinions on this, can you reconcile the support you'd give to supporting homosexual marriage but (I'm hypothesising here) not polygamous or inter-familial marriages? If we are going to move towards the greater "equality" that others seek - I believe we should change our laws accordingly on these points also (and work to eliminate discrimination against these groups of people who wish to practise polygamy or sibling love). Just like how transgendered people are often discriminated against by homosexuals it is sad to see one minority who feel they are being victimised (maybe rightly so) shun others who are in roughly the same situation as they are.
Indeed - soon we'll be accused of bringing up the tone of the forum
Oh and whoops - that was a rather long post again eh? No more from me either! ...except this one final point - it has gotten to a stage that I do feel quite defensive about expressing my more controversial beliefs because people often instinctively react negatively. With friends I've managed to use my personal reputation as a "good" person to ask them at least to give me a fair chance to explain my views. Of course on the internet personal reputation counts for nothing as none of us know each other - that's why I'm quite happy to find that we can reach a pretty solid consensus on this (what we will all agree on) is an important issue (with the happiness of so many at stake - the reasons for denying them their happiness must be absolutely clear and valid). Though I would hope that with love and civil partnerships people can be almost or just as happy as that of a "marriage".0 -
This thread has moved on from gay marriage to a discussion about:
Adoption
The family unit
Insest????
Taxes and tax payers paying for gay marriage????
Worries over procreation????
Really, it's like we're a threat to society now
0 -
jaffa20 wrote:Really, it's like we're a threat to society now
Well, yis did start AIDS. *
* Sorry, couldn't resist a good wind-up line.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement