Gay marriage

philologos · 09-11-2008 09:08PM

ninty9er wrote: »

The majority of constitutional amendments don't directly affect all voters. The right to life of the unborn doesn't affect anyone who can vote.

It's about the rights of the people to determine what their state should stand for, and I'm personally glad that my country does vindicate the rights of the unborn. I would like to see rights for the LGBT community, but serious consideration needs to be taken before anything major should happen. By serious consideration I mean employing researchers to assess what it could hold for Ireland's future.

dny123456 · 09-11-2008 09:18PM

Jakkass wrote: »

It's about the rights of the people to determine what their state should stand for, and I'm personally glad that my country does vindicate the rights of the unborn. I would like to see rights for the LGBT community, but serious consideration needs to be taken before anything major should happen. By serious consideration I mean employing researchers to assess what it could hold for Ireland's future.

You're right of course, it's something they need to consider very carefully. That's why they've had an all party comittee headed by Aunty Mary discussing it for around 4 years now. The ironic thing is, many people are worried about it damaging marriage, it might actually strengthen it.

snorlax · 09-11-2008 09:31PM

yes it should be legalised

rainbow kirby · 09-11-2008 09:33PM

Jakkass wrote: »

It's about the rights of the people to determine what their state should stand for, and I'm personally glad that my country does vindicate the rights of the unborn. I would like to see rights for the LGBT community, but serious consideration needs to be taken before anything major should happen. By serious consideration I mean employing researchers to assess what it could hold for Ireland's future.

So giving me the same rights as a straight person is something that needs to be researched and may hold a threat to our country.
:rolleyes:

philologos · 09-11-2008 09:41PM

rainbow kirby wrote: »

So giving me the same rights as a straight person is something that needs to be researched and may hold a threat to our country.
:rolleyes:

Yes it is something that needs to be researched. A decent compromise has been made already.

jaffa20 · 09-11-2008 09:50PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes it is something that needs to be researched. A decent compromise has been made already.

Civil partnership doesn't need to be researched. What harm can it do? Haven't the uk brought it in and i don't see many problems there over it. What results do you expect from the research and how long do you feel this research should be carried out while in turn preventing elderly couples from finally making a commitment to each other. We are not subjects to be tested but beings that are a part of irish society.

philologos · 09-11-2008 10:24PM

jaffa20 wrote: »

Civil partnership doesn't need to be researched. What harm can it do? Haven't the uk brought it in and i don't see many problems there over it. What results do you expect from the research and how long do you feel this research should be carried out while in turn preventing elderly couples from finally making a commitment to each other. We are not subjects to be tested but beings that are a part of irish society.

I was referring to gay marriage, the compromise was civil partnerships.

MagicMarker · 09-11-2008 10:35PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I was referring to gay marriage, the compromise was civil partnerships.

What exactly needs to be researched prior to homosexuals being allowed to marry?

jill_valentine · 09-11-2008 10:38PM

Whether they generate radiation. Interfere with pacemakers. That sort of thing.

humanji · 09-11-2008 10:41PM

I hear they attract radar. That's why they're not allowed in the military. FACT!

Wurly · 09-11-2008 10:43PM

If something doesn't affect us directly, what business is it of ours? I hate when people have all these adverse opinions on subjects like these. It has nothing to do with them but they still think that other people should have their rights denied due to the fact that they're 'different'.

Why should two people that love each other be denied the right to get married?

It's none of our business and people not affected by this should not be allowed to decide whether gay people can or cannot get married.

Also, it doesnt matter if it's a state thing or a religious thing or what.

The fact is, straight people can marry. Why can't gay people? It's blatant discrimination.

jill_valentine · 09-11-2008 10:45PM

No, The Onion has already explained the Military Gay policy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aotlEpmAFVQ

Nodin · 09-11-2008 11:11PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

What exactly needs to be researched prior to homosexuals being allowed to marry?

How it would affect the natural Cat-Dog relationship, for instance. Also, somebody might - while reading the paper, or perhaps contemplating a cloud formation - think "that gay couple next door might be having sex". What, therefore of the effect on them, the civillians, when those thoughts about their neighbours doings cross their minds.

RandolphEsq · 09-11-2008 11:20PM

They took our jobs

Nodin · 09-11-2008 11:23PM

BrightEyes wrote: »

They took our jobs

True, as a young labourer spending my money on stout and cider, I often wondered what would have been, if the Gays hadn't stolen all the jobs in ballet. Certainly there'd be more money in it, and less muck....

gerrycollins · 09-11-2008 11:26PM

I dont think they should be allowed marry but couples who live together should have the same tax right/benefits as straight married couples.

I know its a little open to abuse but so is every other social welfare benefit in the country

Overature · 09-11-2008 11:29PM

God made man to be with woman, anything else is just wrong

MagicMarker · 09-11-2008 11:31PM

Overature wrote: »

God made man to be with woman, anything else is just wrong

But God isn't real.

Neither is Santa.

Gummy Panda · 09-11-2008 11:33PM

Overature wrote: »

God made man to be with woman, anything else is just wrong

Thats if you believe there is a god.

philologos · 09-11-2008 11:39PM

MagicMarker wrote: »

But God isn't real.

Would be nice if you could just explain your reasoning instead of just stating that. It's by no means factual and we probably won't have the answer in our lifetime.

gerrycollins wrote: »

I dont think they should be allowed marry but couples who live together should have the same tax right/benefits as straight married couples.

I know its a little open to abuse but so is every other social welfare benefit in the country

I share your views entirely. Where my line is drawn is where it involves children, as for having the same tax benefit I'm all for it.

MagicMarker · 09-11-2008 11:50PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Would be nice if you could just explain your reasoning instead of just stating that. It's by no means factual and we probably won't have the answer in our lifetime.

hahahahaha, my reasoning is based on the fact that there is absolutely no factual evidence to prove he/she/it did or does exist.

I don't have to prove otherwise, i can't exactly prove something doesn't exist if it doesn't exist!

It's up to those who say there is a God to prove so.

What's your reasoning?

Also, an answer to my previous question would be nice. What kind of research is needed before homosexual couples should be able to marry?

doonothing · 10-11-2008 06:07AM

Why, in summary, do people think gay couples should not be allowed marry, but civil partnership (more or less) is ok? Is it a religious thing or what? Whats the difference, basically?

Aaaand, why different when kids are involved? Do you think two gay men or women in a trusting and committed relationship are more or less capable of raising a child, then say, some scumbags in a run down area, or a single parent who works all the time, or I dunno, other such examples.

JohnG18 · 10-11-2008 06:53AM

I, being unable to sleep, read the whole 20 pages of this thread. And in doing so have noticed it going in circles. And unfortunately nothing will ever get solved through this forum(even though I am a fan). Because people will pop in the same arguments, Children, Definition of Marriage and Tax Benefits(Which was mainly just one person but he reiterated it several times to the extent which it irritated me no end).

However to throw my two cents worth in, I am in favour of Gay marriage.

And this section of my post shall be dedicated to CreepingDeath.
I pay taxes. I'm entitled to Tax benefits.
What I do in my personal life isn't unhealthy as it doesn't harm my health.
On you point of children of smokers more likely being smokers.
My parents smoke, I don't
My parents drink, I don't
My parents are straight, I'm not

You statement that Homosexuality is a mutation of evolution.....All evolution is deemed mutation.
And because it would be against the rules to insult you directly....Your arguments are idiotic, moronic, primitive and jerks.

Resi12 · 10-11-2008 06:57AM

I am sorry, I was just a reader but I am so frustrated by people on this forum. They are trying to discredit gay marriage with the most uneducated and narrow minded obvious answers thought by the church that gay is a sin.

Why should people who it does not effect i.e. Straights, get to choose whether we get married or not?

Just one thing please, Everyone against gay marriage and who say the classic line "It's a mockery to marriage", What is a mockery? What do ye think we want to get married for? Just for fun? Gay people want to get married for the same reason anyone does, love, it is that simple. No alterere motives. I am 17 and gay and it kills me some people are so close minded to change(not just targeted at americans) yet we are all talking about global change one day and then completely stopping change the next.

More than likely I will move away from Ireland, I always wanted to go to New York anyway.. In a way its awful, I am born Irish, Lived here all my 17 years and am completely proud of my nationality yet I am not given equal rights and treated as a 2nd class citizen.

It saddens me but hopefully one day us gay/lesbian/bi/transgender will be the ones on the recieving end of change.

The_B_Man · 10-11-2008 07:20AM

Whats the point in having gay marriages in the first place?

Marriage is something that was invented back in the day, with the intention of a male and a female partaking in. The point of it was to start a family, ie sprout a few kids and all that. Gay marriages are unable to do this, so whats the point in having them? Even by modern standards i dont even think they qualify for the same tax breaks that normal marriages get.

JohnG18 · 10-11-2008 07:49AM

The_B_Man wrote: »

Whats the point in having gay marriages in the first place?

Marriage is something that was invented back in the day, with the intention of a male and a female partaking in. The point of it was to start a family, ie sprout a few kids and all that. Gay marriages are unable to do this, so whats the point in having them? Even by modern standards i dont even think they qualify for the same tax breaks that normal marriages get.

The point is that we want the same tax breaks that "normal" couples get. We pay the same tax why should we not be entitled to the same tax relief? Is your taxation more important then my own?

Oh and it has happened that gay men and woman have fathered and mothered children. And also in Ireland same sex fostering is available.

The_B_Man · 10-11-2008 08:20AM

JohnG18 wrote: »

The point is that we want the same tax breaks that "normal" couples get. We pay the same tax why should we not be entitled to the same tax relief? Is your taxation more important then my own?

Oh and it has happened that gay men and woman have fathered and mothered children. And also in Ireland same sex fostering is available.

That wouldnt be a marriage what you're talking about.

"the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

If you want a same sex version, it would not be called "marriage". They'd have to invent something new. If it was something new, then it would be susceptible to changes. However, if its just the tax breaks you want, then thats something different altogether.

You wouldnt be able to have the religious ceremony first of all. Secondly, the definition of marriage includes "man and woman"..

The reason people call it "gay marriage" as opposed to just "marriage" is because its different. If you feel civil partnerships arent good enough and ur missin out because u dont get to wear a big dress, then thats your problem!

(other than that, its seems ur only interested in the tax breaks)

JohnG18 · 10-11-2008 08:25AM

The_B_Man wrote: »

That wouldnt be a marriage what you're talking about.

"the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc."

If you want a same sex version, it would not be called "marriage". They'd have to invent something new. If it was something new, then it would be susceptible to changes. However, if its just the tax breaks you want, then thats something different altogether.

You wouldnt be able to have the religious ceremony first of all. Secondly, the definition of marriage includes "man and woman"..

The reason people call it "gay marriage" as opposed to just "marriage" is because its different. If you feel civil partnerships arent good enough and ur missin out because u dont get to wear a big dress, then thats your problem! (other than that, its seems ur only interested in the tax breaks)

I was just replying based on the points you choose. To be honest couldn't care a less about tax breaks cause Im only 18 and atm I earn more than I need.

Secondly I never called it marriage or gay marriage or anything.

Thirdly I don't wanna wear a dress but thanks for the concern.

Fourthly....eh back on point I want an equal equivalent to marriage giving the partnership equal rights to a same sex partnership. Call it what you will.

javaboy · 10-11-2008 09:16AM

MagicMarker wrote:

But God isn't real.

MagicMarker wrote: »

hahahahaha, my reasoning is based on the fact that there is absolutely no factual evidence to prove he/she/it did or does exist.

I don't have to prove otherwise, i can't exactly prove something doesn't exist if it doesn't exist!

It's up to those who say there is a God to prove so.

What's your reasoning?

So let me get this straight. You are stating something as fact without proof. Sounds like faith to me. The only difference is in the number of Gods you believe in. Bit hypocritical imo.

Nodin · 10-11-2008 09:32AM

Overature wrote: »

God made man to be with woman, anything else is just wrong

You're presuming to know the mind of God with certianity....In which case we'll be wanting a few winners in various sporting fixtures as proof. First and second round of any football Cup doesn't count.

Gay marriage

Comments