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…89111314…39

Comments

  • #302
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    The_B_Man wrote: »
    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! :p (other than that, its seems ur only interested in the tax breaks)
    Marriage is 2 people coming together publically to make a lifelong committment to each other, gender should be irrelevant. Even if I was straight, if I was getting married I wouldn't want a religious ceremony as I'm about as atheist as it's possible to be.

    And I'd be quite comfortable in a dress or a trouser suit, thanks :)


  • #303
    javaboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    There should be no state/legal recognition of marriage. Churches can do what they want in this regard and likewise if two people want to say they are married let them.
    I don't think there should be any financial benefit to marriage/civil partnership.* The idea behind giving marriage special status is that the couple produce kids. So why not just give financial assistance to people with kids instead of people who might have kids?

    That would eliminate most of the debate imo.


    *I mean tax breaks etc. A civil partnership/marriage contract should still give the usual inheritance entitlements that it does at the moment.


  • #304
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    doonothing wrote: »
    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.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    I honestly don't think a man can replace a mother, or a woman replace a father. I don't see the need in going any further than civil partnerships.

    I think I summed it up above.


  • #305
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    I want to marry meself for the tax breaks, why can't I? It's a violation of my RIGHTS!!


  • #306
    mollzer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 255 ✭✭mollzer


    What do people think would happen if Gay people were allowed to marry?? LGBT are in minority in Ireland, its not like the economy is going to collapse if we all have the same rights legally ie tax breaks (which arent much really) inheritence rights, widow/widowers pension etc. And btw hetrosexual marriages are on the decrease arent they?? so some day it will all even out money wise!! so IMO any argument re money is naive. We all pay taxes!

    Someone said God made man and woman, yep he did, hetrosexual yea? well he made me too! and all other LGBT people! but we're not considered equal!.......and before that he made blacks, and before that he made 'the Irish', and before that it was women who didnt have equal rights, etc, etc. You get my point.

    Life changes all the time, each generation has to have something to talk about, this time its Gay marriage, a few years ago it was Divorce, before that it was the sale of Condoms in shops ffs that was causing religious uproar!! Just think how naive people feel now about that topic!

    When are humans going to ever learn to live and let live and be happy! Stop being sooo unfair to other humans who are trying to live their lives as best as they can. Why protest so much when no one is being harmed??


  • Advertisement
  • #307
    javaboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    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.

    Ok I'll give you that point on the "L" and "G" and in some cases the "T", but how exactly does "B" prohibit production?


  • #308
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    No tax breaks for married couples. Problem solved.


  • #309
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    javaboy wrote: »
    Ok I'll give you that point on the "L" and "G" and in some cases the "T"
    Nothing that can't be solved with a turkey baster :pac:


  • #310
    javaboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    Nothing that can't be solved with a turkey baster :pac:

    Note to self: Do not go to rainbow_kirby's house for Christmas dinner.


  • #311
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    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.

    Heh, what marriage is has changed quite a fair bit since 'back in the day'. Remember dowrys? Where men had to be paid a gift to take care of a woman for the rest of her life. Now it's a union that (in theory) both parties enter into because they want to, not because money has changed hands.

    Also, if the point of marriage is to have kids, would you also deny the right to marry to those couples that are infertile? What about a straight couple that choose not to have children, should they not be allowed to be married?

    Any plea to the purpose of marriage being the continuation of the species falls flat on it's face when you consider reality of infertile and childless by choice couples as well as single mothers and fathers.

    We don't need the help of legal constructs in order to help us multiply, we're extraordinarily good at that as it stands.


  • Advertisement
  • #312
    CreepingDeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,015 ✭✭✭CreepingDeath


    JohnG18 wrote: »
    And this section of my post shall be dedicated to CreepingDeath.
    I pay taxes. I'm entitled to Tax benefits.

    I pay taxes, so why can't I claim every single tax benefits available to all segments of the population ?

    Reason: because not all tax benefits are applicable to me.

    The benefits for marriage were put in place when the definition of marriage was very clear. Blurring the definition of marriage shouldn't automatically give rights to benefits.
    JohnG18 wrote: »
    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

    Show me were I said people are exactly like their parents ?
    I believe I said "more likely".
    Parent/guardians have a huge psychological impact on their kids. They're at the very least going to be more sympathetic and accepting of the gay life which may turn a few who are on the fence.

    In fact the best people to adopt are typically existing families who already have kids. That's the ideal situation.
    The worse case is condemning a kid to being an only child in a gay couple.

    So even heterosexual couples who want to adopt may be "discriminated against" :rolleyes: for couples with children.

    Even if gays are allowed to apply for adoption, I seriously doubt they'll be taken seriously. Then there'll be a big high court case / hissy fit, which the current heterosexual couples who failed for adoption wouldn't have the neck to do. Maybe that means they'll resort to adopting from third world countries who knows.
    JohnG18 wrote: »
    You statement that Homosexuality is a mutation of evolution.....All evolution is deemed mutation.

    Yes, but not all mutations are equal.
    The really bad ones get naturally deselected, eg. heart defects.
    The recessive genes can stay in the gene pool, like bad eyesight and get carried on. Typically brothers and sisters in the same family will carry on the recessive genes to the next generation and be carriers.
    From my secondary school biology, recessive means it takes two copies of the recessive gene to activate, so 2 carriers, even then the odds could be 1 : 4 or more.

    From a purely intellectual level, homosexuality is natures mistake.
    It's basically the equivalent of infertility, where those set of genes typically will not get carried to the next generation because gays tend not to have children.
    JohnG18 wrote: »
    And because it would be against the rules to insult you directly....Your arguments are idiotic, moronic, primitive and jerks.

    Yes, it would be against the rules but you've done your best to get around that.

    But have faith, I'm sure some liberal government will let the genie out of the bottle and gay marriage will eventually be allowed.
    Just because the government allows something, doesn't mean everyone has to accept or like it.

    You're not going to change peoples opinions by calling them primitive, morons or idiots.


  • #313
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    They're at the very least going to be more sympathetic and accepting of the gay life which may turn a few who are on the fence.

    holy dogsh*t..............


    Buddy we don't organise society on Darwinian principles. So what if gays can't reproduce? They're a tiny minority, the fate of the human race is not in jeopardy because gays want to get married. The planet is overpopulated as it is anyway is it not? So cutting down on reproduction is a good thing, no?


  • #314
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    The worse case is condemning a kid to being an only child in a gay couple.
    .

    Condemning, are we....
    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    So even heterosexual couples who want to adopt may be "discriminated against" :rolleyes: for couples with children..

    So....?
    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    Even if gays are allowed to apply for adoption, I seriously doubt they'll be taken seriously. ..

    Well, as they're taken seriously in Sweden, Spain, Britain, Belgium and a few other states, I'd be interested to know what you base that on.....
    CreepingDeath wrote: »

    Yes, but not all (......)children...

    Yet as its a trait that keeps cropping up, and given the various contributions of Gay people to society, it would seem that your rather primitive reading of things is missing something.


  • #315
    thelordofcheese
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,368 ✭✭✭thelordofcheese


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    Yes, but not all mutations are equal.
    The really bad ones get naturally deselected, eg. heart defects.
    The recessive genes can stay in the gene pool, like bad eyesight and get carried on. Typically brothers and sisters in the same family will carry on the recessive genes to the next generation and be carriers.
    From my secondary school biology, recessive means it takes two copies of the recessive gene to activate, so 2 carriers, even then the odds could be 1 : 4 or more.

    From a purely intellectual level, homosexuality is natures mistake.
    It's basically the equivalent of infertility, where those set of genes typically will not get carried to the next generation because gays tend not to have children.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a prime example of why a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

    Learn to science before trying to bring science into the discussion.


  • #316
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    Parent/guardians have a huge psychological impact on their kids. They're at the very least going to be more sympathetic and accepting of the gay life which may turn a few who are on the fence.
    *facepalm*
    It's not a choice...


  • #317
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    Parent/guardians have a huge psychological impact on their kids. They're at the very least going to be more sympathetic and accepting of the gay life which may turn a few who are on the fence.
    LOL at the ignorance and stupidity of that comment.


  • #318
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 14,379 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Gay marriage? Two halves can't make a whole without a hole! ooh eeh ooh ahh ah ting tang, wanna wanna bing bang, ooh ee ooh ah ah ting tang wanna wanna bing bang!


    I think Quagmire said it best!



    Personally I could care less, they're not hurtin anyone.


  • #319
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    CreepingDeath wrote: »
    They're at the very least going to be more sympathetic and accepting of the gay life which may turn a few who are on the fence.

    And this is what it boils down to, isn't it? This is the problem?

    It's not about marriage, and it never was. You're afraid if gay citizenship is equal to straight citizenship, loads of apparently straight people will suddenly fly out of the closet because they don't know they're supposed to be ashamed anymore.

    Marriage isn't about commitment, or love, or anything else. No! It's a special straight prize for straights, that we get for being straight all the time, like a good attendance medal.

    Maybe we can compromise. Gays can get married, and instead we'll have some other straightness incentive scheme. Loyalty Cards? Vouchers for Boots maybe? Remember Tiger tokens? How about discount cinema tickets, would that do? Would that save us from the inevitable gay extinction to come?

    The possibilities are endless.


  • #320
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Oh jakkass, yoo hoo!!! I'm still waiting on an answer to that question.

    What research, in detail please, do you think is necessary before allowing homosexuals to marry?

    Now don't make me ask you a 5th time ya little skilly wag!


  • #321
    hot2def
    Closed Accounts Posts: 794 ✭✭✭hot2def


    on the real - screw gay marriage.


    screw all the people jumping up and down about civil partnerships not being enough, winding up an intolerant majority by throwing around the word marriage.

    Are we so insecure that we must ape straight people to feel validated?

    even if you force through gay marriage in law, the vast vast majority of people will never seen two men/women as "married".

    this little stand off is getting in the way of gay people attaining rights: civil partnership, inheritance, adoption, tax laws etc.



    let straight people have marriage has their own special event: they've completely screwed it up on their own anyway.


  • Advertisement
  • #322
    Dyr
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,246 ✭✭✭✭Dyr


    My, my, the ould gays are fierce uppity these days.


  • #323
    Nehaxak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,717 ✭✭✭Nehaxak


    I couldn't care less about this one either way but I don't see any legitimate reason why gays can't get married like any other couple.


  • #324
    nacho libre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,869 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


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

    best post so far. you can't really argue with reason like that.


  • #325
    Gummy Panda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,919 ✭✭✭✭Gummy Panda


    nacho libre wrote: »
    "God made man to be with woman, anything else is just wrong"

    best post so far. you can't really argue with reason like that.

    sarcasm?


  • #326
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Gummy Panda wrote: »
    sarcasm?
    Like a fox!


  • #327
    nacho libre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,869 ✭✭✭✭nacho libre


    Dave! wrote: »
    holy dogsh*t..............


    Buddy we don't organise society on Darwinian principles. So what if gays can't reproduce? They're a tiny minority, the fate of the human race is not in jeopardy because gays want to get married. The planet is overpopulated as it is anyway is it not? So cutting down on reproduction is a good thing, no?

    you could be on to something there.
    God has a reason for everything. We mortals can't know his grand plan. I personally believe that he invented homosexuality as a form of population control. it's no coincidence gayness has become more prevalent as the population of the planet explodes.


  • #328
    javaboy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    Gummy Panda wrote: »
    nacho libre wrote: »
    "God made man to be with woman, anything else is just wrong"

    best post so far. you can't really argue with reason like that.

    sarcasm?

    I'd say the "best post so far" part was sarcastic but he's dead right about the second bit. You can't argue with that kind of reason.


  • #329
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    nacho libre wrote: »
    it's no coincidence gayness has become more prevalent as the population of the planet explodes.

    Impossible to prove. Theres no statistical data on the subject for the vast majority of the last 8,000 years (unless theres a secret society of Gay Counters, who've hidden clues in famous artworks). It's become far more open in the West in the last few decades, but that doesn't indicate any more prevalence per amount of population than hitherto. Who was going to admit to being gay when it was illegal, for instance.


  • #330
    Nehaxak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,717 ✭✭✭Nehaxak


    Sex itself and enjoyment of same has generally become more open, particularly so and thankfully at last also in Ireland.
    So with that, people will enjoy whatever takes their fancy (within legal limits I might add) and if that's being gay then well fine. Dunno wtf the problem is really to be honest, I really don't.
    Live and let live, let gay people get married and move on with life...


  • Advertisement
  • #331
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Nehaxak wrote: »
    Sex itself and enjoyment of same has generally become more open, particularly so and thankfully at last also in Ireland.
    So with that, people will enjoy whatever takes their fancy (within legal limits I might add) and if that's being gay then well fine. Dunno wtf the problem is really to be honest, I really don't.
    Live and let live, let gay people get married and move on with life...

    Exactly. We have a short enough span allotted to us, theres no point in making it more difficult for each other where we don't have to. Let them work away...


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement