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.

Gay marriage

1…5681011…39

Comments

  • #212
    arybvtcw0eolkf
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,608 ✭✭✭✭arybvtcw0eolkf


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    Well, yis did start AIDS. *


    * Sorry, couldn't resist a good wind-up line. :p

    Now that was funny.


  • #213
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    So, it's Gay Marriage for some, tiny american flags for others?

    This is about the policy of Ireland not about the United States. People have just as much worries about society outside of the United States as those inside do.
    jaffa20 wrote: »
    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 :(

    I don't see how incest is related to gay marriage, but all the other things you have listed are potential implications for society if gay marriage was deemed legal in Ireland.


  • #214
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    As I said over and over again, which you completely failed to listen to, I wouldn't be against gay marriage if it didn't cost the Irish taxpayer anything. It's harmless, let them do what they want. I've said it about 3 or 4 times now, let me know when it sinks in.

    It sank in, it's still stupid and unfair. Gay people pay taxes too, your point is still biggoted.
    I also backed up my opinion about gay couples adopting.
    I firmly believe that children should have a primary male and female role models/guardians. I've seen the effects on friends who grew up in single parent families (good middle class backgrounds). Their personalities were clearly biased by the gender of their parent.

    Yes I remember the way in which you described how their personalities were altered. You essentially asserted that the only reason a female would have confidence is because of her father's influence. Which is a monumentally ignorant and sexist claim.
    That's not healthy and it is quote reasonable to assume that it may bias them towards homosexuality. In the same way that kids growing up with parents who smoke are more likely to smoke themselves. Humans and children specifically are excellent mimics, that's how we learn.

    That's not how sexuality functions. It is not learned. It's been shown time and again that even concerted attempts to influence someone's sexual orientation have either failed completely or driven the person to deppression and suicide. You are wrong.
    Feck sake, first you want the all the legal and financial entitlements of a marriage, then you want the state to give you children that your own relationship choices have denied you ?

    You don't ask for much do you ?

    Yeah I'm so sick of people demanding fundamental human rights too. Wish we could just gas them or something.


    To address an earlier point, please answer me this:
    If a heterosexual couple were completely open and honest about the fact that they cannot have children, would you forbid them from getting married in the same way you would a gay couple?

    If the answer is no then you're at best irrational and biased, at worst dangerously biggotted.


  • #215
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Jakkass wrote: »
    This is about the policy of Ireland not about the United States. People have just as much worries about society outside of the United States as those inside do.

    *facepalm*


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I don't see how incest is related to gay marriage, but all the other things you have listed are potential implications for society if gay marriage was deemed legal in Ireland.

    The reproduction argument fails in my eyes because raising a family is a tangential feature of marriage. Reproduction is not something we enforce on married couples. It's not written in the contract. It is not a necessary feature.
    Deny the right to get married to gay couples because they can't reproduce then you'd best take it from those who choose or pyhsically cannot have children.

    Basically, there is no solid argument against gay marriage. Marriage is a legal construct not a religious one. Straight people don't own the word, you don't get to call what circumstances it can and cannot be applied too.

    If you want to get married to someone then it should carry all the same rights and responsibilities regardless of the genders of people involved.

    After 15 pages nobody has mounted a real reason as to why these rights should be denied to a section of the population.


  • #216
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    After 15 pages nobody has mounted a real reason as to why these rights should be denied to a section of the population.

    I'd argue the same in the reverse. There is no real reason why civil partnerships aren't adequate.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'd argue the same in the reverse. There is no real reason why civil partnerships aren't adequate.

    Because they don't want to be bum buddies, they want to be married.
    Seperate but equal didn't really work before, it's not going to work now.

    They deserve all the same rights that a straight couple has, there is no reason to deny them that. The 'sanctity' of marriage is nothing the law should enforce - that exists in the personal context.


  • #218
    SV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,533 ✭✭✭SV


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Because they don't want to be bum buddies, they want to be married.
    Seperate but equal didn't really work before, it's not going to work now.

    They deserve all the same rights that a straight couple has, there is no reason to deny them that. The 'sanctity' of marriage is nothing the law should enforce - that exists in the personal context.

    Marriage is a piece of paper...and doesn't mean much, other than the fact if you want to seperate it costs a load.

    Who knew that when you weren't married you were only buddies. Weird one.


  • #219
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,044 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    There are a range of rights given to married couples it is not just a piece of paper.


  • #220
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Because they don't want to be bum buddies, they want to be married.
    Seperate but equal didn't really work before, it's not going to work now.

    They deserve all the same rights that a straight couple has, there is no reason to deny them that. The 'sanctity' of marriage is nothing the law should enforce - that exists in the personal context.

    Do you wonder why the word "partnership" is included in "civil partnership"? I just don't see what there isn't to be happy about with that. Some states aren't even considering to go that far at all.


  • #221
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Jakkass wrote: »

    Do you wonder why the word "partnership" is included in "civil partnership"? I just don't see what there isn't to be happy about with that. Some states aren't even considering to go that far at all.


    If we're back to the american model (which it appears we are) then Civil partnership is inferior to marriage in the eyes of the law in most US states thanks to the Defense of Marriage Act.

    What you're talking about is the "half-loaf is better than none" approach, which of course is terrible, because if you accept the half-loaf then you're basically saying that you're ok with that half-loaf and that makes it harder to procure the second half further down the road.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I have yet to see anything that would set my mind at rest that it wouldn't have adverse affects for children being raised without a mother or father under these gay marriages. That is the primary reason why I am opposed to moving any further than civil partnerships.


  • #223
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I have yet to see anything that would set my mind at rest that it wouldn't have adverse affects for children being raised without a mother or father under these gay marriages. That is the primary reason why I am opposed to moving any further than civil partnerships.

    Well here you are chief: there was a discussion of this in Humanities not too long ago and I went to the liberty of actually looking at the research available.

    My post:
    Dave! wrote: »
    It sounds very dramatic when you call it 'torture'... Is there any evidence to suggest that teasing about having gay parents is any more damaging to a child than any other kind of teasing? Children will tease each other about everything, I don't know why you get so hung up on the gay parenting thing. Do you know something I don't know relating to the mental health of these children? Or is it just another thing that they will get over once they become adults and it will not affect them in the long-term?

    Would you take the same stance where an Arab couple want to send their Muslim child to a public school (where it will likely be a minority)?

    I don't see the drama to be honest. The child will likely be teased, sure. But it's rare for someone to go through school without being teased about something! Even repeated teasing is fairly common.

    Also, consider this -- in school, did you know anybody whom lost a parent at a young age? I did, and the bloke was an absolute dipsh*t who got abused non-stop. But what would happen if someone mentioned his mother? The bully would get absolutely abused by everyone else! Even if the greatest bully accidentally made a mistake and mentioned his mother, he'd be apologising profusely within seconds.

    I don't know anyone who has been adopted, but I suspect that it would similarly be something which is treated with a bit of caution. If a child has been adopted, it's usually not because they had a healthy upbringing.




    Wikipedia says: "Guam, Andorra, Belgium, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom, some parts of Australia, Canada and some parts of the United States."

    I believe it varies state to state in the last 3, plus Germany.

    The American Psychological Association has done a bit of research on the subject, here (PDF), and found that:
    "...there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay
    parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents."
    (there's a summary here)

    There's another good paper by the Tasmanian Law Reform Institute, here (PDF), which reports:
    "...the Institute is firmly of the view that the law should be changed to allow same sex couples to be assessed as applicants for adoption..."

    It's also at pains to point out that:
    "This change will not give same sex couples the right to adopt. It merely means that they are eligible to apply. Each case will be assessed on a case-by-case basis."

    Surely this is an important point. It doesn't mean that every gay couple who applies will come out with a child -- but they'll be assessed. A greater pool of potential parents means the assessors have more choice of who will make eligible parents.

    The Williams Institute has also done research, here (PDF), and concludes:
    "...findings across these studies are remarkably consistent in showing no negative consequences for children of GLB parents with regard to standard child well-being measures."

    The American Academy of Paediatrics has issued a policy paper, stating:
    "...emphasizing that in light of data showing that children of gay and lesbian parents function just as well emotionally, cognitively, and socially as children of heterosexual parents, courts should stop using sexual orientation as grounds to deny members of same-sex couples the right to adopt their partner’s children."

    Likewise I believe with the American Medical Association, and if other papers are to be believed (not arsed looking into it):

    • American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (1999)
    • American Bar Association (1999, 2003)
    • American Psychoanalytic Association (2002)
    • Child Welfare League of America (2004)
    • National Adoption Center (1998)
    • National Association of Social Workers (2002)
    • North American Council on Adoptable Children (1998)




    That doesn't appear to be the case.
    "Sexual Orientation. A number of investigators have also studied a third component of sexual identity: sexual orientation (Bailey, Bobrow, Wolfe, & Mikach, 1995; Bozett, 1980, 1982, 1987, 1989; Gottman, 1990; Golombok et al., 1983; Green, 1978; Huggins, 1989; Miller, 1979; Paul, 1986; Rees, 1979). In all studies, the great majority of offspring of both gay fathers and lesbian mothers described themselves as heterosexual. Taken together, the data do not suggest elevated rates of homosexuality among the offspring of lesbian or gay parents."

    Also check out some of the sources in the wikipedia article
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_adoption


  • #224
    kraggy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,414 ✭✭✭kraggy


    vinylmesh wrote: »
    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.

    It's always been like that because relations between same sexes were always frowned upon at best or at worst punishable by death. Thankfully most societies have moved on and now gay people are on the verge of having the chance to get the same recognition for their love as straight people.

    Also, marriage shouldn't be a solely religious arrangement for two reasons. Firstly, what happens if two people wish to celebrate their love for each other and their future commitment to each other but do not believe in a deity or organised religion? Secondly, marriage needs to be recognised by the releavant State because of tax issues and basic yet imperative issues such as having the right to seeing your life-long partner when they are in hospital and possibly dying. These are crucial issues in any relationship and therefore, gay people shoud be given EXACT same rights as so called "straight" people.


  • #225
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I have yet to see anything that would set my mind at rest that it wouldn't have adverse affects for children being raised without a mother or father under these gay marriages. That is the primary reason why I am opposed to moving any further than civil partnerships.

    This has nothing to do with gay marriage, at all. I'll say it again

    raising a family is a tangential feature of marriage.

    'Think of the children' is not a valid argument to deny people a basic human right.


  • #226
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    This has nothing to do with gay marriage, at all. I'll say it again

    raising a family is a tangential feature of marriage.

    'Think of the children' is not a valid argument to deny people a basic human right.

    It has everything to do with gay marriage. If you are arguing for the eligibility of adoption alongside with marriage for the LGBT community it could have huge implications for society in the future.

    It's interesting the use of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, yet in many Western states the rights of the unborn are trampled on (see Article 3) do you not see that as hypocrisy in a sense?


  • #227
    KnifeWRENCH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,148 ✭✭✭✭KnifeWRENCH


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    The reproduction argument fails in my eyes because raising a family is a tangential feature of marriage. Reproduction is not something we enforce on married couples. It's not written in the contract. It is not a necessary feature.
    Deny the right to get married to gay couples because they can't reproduce then you'd best take it from those who choose or pyhsically cannot have children.

    +1, well said.


  • #228
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It has everything to do with gay marriage. If you are arguing for the eligibility of adoption alongside with marriage for the LGBT community it could have huge implications for society in the future.

    And what about all that stuff Dave! just posted? Or are you happy to continue to assume homos make bad parents and move on from there?


  • #229
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It has everything to do with gay marriage. If you are arguing for the eligibility of adoption alongside with marriage for the LGBT community it could have huge implications for society in the future.

    It does not have everything to do with gay marriage, firstly the ability to adopt is not the only difference between civil partnerships and marriages.
    Second, married couples are not the only people who may adopt in ireland
    third, even married couples undergo strict vetting to make sure that it's a suitable environment for a child to be raised.

    Basically, you're assuming that a child adopted and raised by a gay couple would be in some kind of horrific danger or end up warped or something and we should not allow that to happen.

    Firstly no. Dave! has just done a mega post on why that's a crock of shit and look! here's more.

    So you're arguing on a limitation of peoples rights based on a faulty premise and more to the point, you're assuming that it would open the floodgates for gay couples to adopt, ignoring that

    a] just because people want to get married doesn't mean they want children
    b] That there is no system in place to individually vet prospective adopters.


    Jakkass wrote: »
    It's interesting the use of the UN Declaration of Human Rights, yet in many Western states the rights of the unborn are trampled on (see Article 3) do you not see that as hypocrisy in a sense?

    Would you like to drag more irrelivant stuff into this, or am i going to have to shout at you?

    Thor almighty, Gay Marriage, Abortion..... Lets just add paedophillia to the mix and go for the trifecta.


  • #230
    SV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,533 ✭✭✭SV


    Ok, assuming homosexual couples can raise a child correctly despite it either being a father/father or mother/mother relationship..

    Do you not think the child will be subject to quite a fair bit of bullying and harrasment when the kids in school find out s/he has 2 mothers/2 fathers ?


  • #231
    c0rk3r
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,256 ✭✭✭c0rk3r


    Zillah wrote: »
    And what about all that stuff Dave! just posted? Or are you happy to continue to assume homos make bad parents and move on from there?

    The article was cited and rubbished by http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/5/2261b If you read the cited articles (of the original article) at the end you'll see that theres a 3-2 ratio agreeing disagreeing.

    Personally i agree with giving equal rights to homosexual unions the same as hetrosexual unions. Im firmly on the fence with regards same sex adoption. Very interesting topic though and nice to see proper journal articles being linked in AH.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    CreepingDeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,015 ✭✭✭CreepingDeath


    Zillah wrote: »
    To address an earlier point, please answer me this:
    If a heterosexual couple were completely open and honest about the fact that they cannot have children, would you forbid them from getting married in the same way you would a gay couple?

    If the answer is no then you're at best irrational and biased, at worst dangerously biggotted.

    The answer is no.

    Heterosexuality is natural.
    Homosexuality is basically a dysfunction of human behaviour.

    Natural selection / evolution took a wrong turn and because gays tend not to reproduce the gay genetic lineage should've dead-ended.

    Gay marriage is fruitless in the bigger picture, it serves no purpose other than to humour potential voters.
    In terms of evolution / natural selection, it is a joke.

    So, I don't see the point in expanding the definition of a heterosexual institution.

    And if you refute the genetic line, then that means you think there's environmental factors that contribute to homosexuality, in which case gays should not be able to adopt.


  • #233
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    Heterosexuality is natural.
    Homosexuality is basically a dysfunction of human behaviour.

    Hmmm, i see *scratches chin*. And what, may i ask, are you basing this on?


  • #234
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    ClioV6 wrote: »
    Ok, assuming homosexual couples can raise a child correctly despite it either being a father/father or mother/mother relationship..

    Do you not think the child will be subject to quite a fair bit of bullying and harrasment when the kids in school find out s/he has 2 mothers/2 fathers
    or for that time they called the teacher 'mum'
    or that they said somehting stupid
    or that they don't like football
    or that they're fat
    or that they have a lisp
    or they are ginger
    or they have cartoon character X on their schoolbag
    or they don't have cartoon character X on their schoolbag
    or they come from a poor family
    or they come from a rich family
    or that they come from a certain area
    or because it's a friday and they're shit out of luck

    Fixed your post.


  • #235
    CreepingDeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,015 ✭✭✭CreepingDeath


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Hmmm, i see *scratches chin*. And what, may i ask, are you basing this on?

    The fact that lifes primary purpose is to propagate and continue.
    Those that don't get naturally deselected from the gene pool cos they don't pass their genes on. Although if they had heterosexual brothers or sisters they might pass the genes on if they were recessive genes.


  • #236
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    The answer is no.

    Heterosexuality is natural.
    Homosexuality is basically a dysfunction of human behaviour.

    Natural selection / evolution took a wrong turn and because gays tend not to reproduce the gay genetic lineage should've dead-ended.

    Gay marriage is fruitless in the bigger picture, it serves no purpose other than to humour potential voters.
    In terms of evolution / natural selection, it is a joke.

    So, I don't see the point in expanding the definition of a heterosexual institution.

    And if you refute the genetic line, then that means you think there's environmental factors that contribute to homosexuality, in which case gays should not be able to adopt.

    I don't think you even know what science is.


  • #237
    SV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,533 ✭✭✭SV


    thelordofcheese wrote: »
    Fixed your post.

    Not able to answer it so try and ridicule it..hmm

    Good man yourself.


  • #238
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    The fact that lifes primary purpose is to propagate and continue.

    Hmmm, i see *scratches chin*, and what, may i ask, are you basing this on?


  • #239
    SV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,533 ✭✭✭SV


    MagicMarker wrote: »
    Hmmm, i see *scratches chin*, and what, may i ask, are you basing this on?

    Oh ffs, come on.

    that's logic.


  • #240
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    ClioV6 wrote: »
    Not able to answer it so try and ridicule it..hmm

    Good man yourself.
    Actually, Dave! already reference that in an earlier post.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    Zillah
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,369 ✭✭✭✭Zillah


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    Heterosexuality is natural.
    Homosexuality is basically a dysfunction of human behaviour.

    Ok, first of all, homosexuality exists in many species other than humans, including several primate species and dolphins. So it's not as "unnatural" as you might think. Its obviously a product of nature, unless you're proposing it's a result of a chemical spill or something?
    Gay marriage is fruitless in the bigger picture, it serves no purpose other than to humour potential voters.
    In terms of evolution / natural selection, it is a joke.

    We as a society do not give or deny fundamental human rights based on how useful we think those people are, or how evolutionarily fit we think they are. You're essentially a fascist. A fascist with a very poor understanding of evolution at that.

    I assume that if it turned out you had a genetic pre-disposition for cancer or down syndrome we can then deny you your basic human rights, right?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement