Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Maine repeals gay marriage

24567…24

Comments

  • #32
    The_Minister
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    Temple_Grandin wrote: »
    The majority of people in the past thought that it is ok to treat women like possessions, does that mean it was right?

    The thing that's puzzling me is I don't get why you have a problem with it. Why is it any of your business what two consenting adults do with their lives?
    If you use the 'It's not natural' argument then I don't know how your posting given the usage of a computer is not natural.

    What catastrophic real social impact do you predict from legalising gay marriage?

    In fairness, that argument only really applies to legalising sodomy.

    If gay marriage (or a subsitute) comes in, then his tax money will be subsidizing those relationships. As such, he does have some interest.


  • #33
    Fo Real
    Closed Accounts Posts: 479 ✭✭Fo Real


    ShooterSF wrote: »
    They are 2 different issues though.

    So and I don't hold my breath on this one, what is your problem with 2 same sex people committing themselves to each for life in the eyes of the state? And please something more specific than "It's icky. Ewww."

    If same sex-marriage is accepted then it opens the door for many other groups.

    "Beastiality is okay! Legalise it so I can openly have sex with my dog!"
    "Pedophilia is okay! Legalise it so I can ....."
    etc.

    Don't give an inch to the homosexuals because if you do they will only want more and more "entitlements" like the right to adopt a child. We must draw the line somewhere.


  • #34
    kowloon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,187 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    Homosexuality a disorder; for the purpose of propogation of the species perhaps, but if it is a disorder, is it one that actually needs to be corrected?

    I see no reason why the anti-same sex marriage camp shouldn't have to justify a restriction on rights as opposed to the current system of people having to fight for something that hurts nobody.


  • #35
    The Saint
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,932 ✭✭✭The Saint


    Fo Real wrote: »
    If same sex-marriage is accepted then it opens the door for many other groups.

    "Beastiality is okay! Legalise it so I can openly have sex with my dog!"
    "Pedophilia is okay! Legalise it so I can ....."
    etc.

    Don't give an inch to the homosexuals because if you do they will only want more and more "entitlements" like the right to adopt a child. We must draw the line somewhere.
    You really have issues with basic logic don't you?

    It's been pointed out many times already. There is a world of difference between consensual and non-consensual.


  • #36
    El_Dangeroso
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    The_Minister wrote: »
    In fairness, that argument only really applies to legalising sodomy.

    If gay marriage (or a subsitute) comes in, then his tax money will be subsidizing those relationships. As such, he does have some interest.

    Subsidizing how? Do you mean through married couples tax-allowance?

    That's a rather tenuous argument, the same could be said of people under a certain income bracket being allowed to have a child given that the state will subsidize that child's ubpringing.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Local-womanizer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,798 ✭✭✭Local-womanizer


    Fo Real wrote: »
    If same sex-marriage is accepted then it opens the door for many other groups.

    "Beastiality is okay! Legalise it so I can openly have sex with my dog!"
    "Pedophilia is okay! Legalise it so I can ....."
    etc.

    Don't give an inch to the homosexuals because if you do they will only want more and more "entitlements" like the right to adopt a child. We must draw the line somewhere.

    Seriously, I cannot believe you are mentioning pedaphilia in this argument.

    2 homosexuals are not hurting anyone, its consentual. Pedaphilia is not. The 2 are a world apart and peoples views will not change on that. Simple as.

    Why shouldent a homosexual couple be allowed to adopt? Just because they are gay does not mean they are not capable of raising a child.

    Why should people have to "conform" to society's view on what is normal, it has sweet F all to do with any one else. Why should 2 people be denied a simple basic right just to keep the church and the homophobes in this backward country happy? Its a load of Sh1te tbh.

    Typical bullsh1t from bigots in this country. It does not affect you in any way whatsoever unless you just dont like seeing them kiss in the street and making you feel uncomfortable.


  • #38
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,769 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Fo Real wrote: »
    There are groups on the internet fighting for the accptance of pedophilia. They try to pass themselves off as normal repectable people, arguing that their love of children is merely a fetish or sexual persuasion - the same way homosexuals claim their lifestyle is merely a sexual persuasion. There are direct parallels between the two groups.

    The only difference is that today's media have brainwashed the vulnerable and weak-minded in our society into thinking homosexuality is "normal" and "acceptable" eg. gay kisses on daytime TV soaps for children to see. This kind of thing was not on our TVs as recent as 15 years ago. If the media decide tomorrow that it's okay to molest children will you be in favour pedophiles' rights?

    Do you acknowledge the huge difference between homosexuality and paedophelia in that acts of the latter there's no consent?

    Same sex marriage would not allow homosexuals rape people.
    Also why do the vast majority of countrys/states in the world still have bans on gay marriage? Are they all backward, leaving you as the only progresive thinking intellect in the world?

    Religion I'd imagine. We're close to a civil partnership, same sex couples can adopt in the UK/in some American states. Religion is losing its grip. 20 years time the majority of countries in the west will be allowing civil marriage.


  • #39
    Fo Real
    Closed Accounts Posts: 479 ✭✭Fo Real


    Local-womanizer wrote: »
    Seriously, I cannot believe you are mentioning pedaphilia in this argument.

    2 homosexuals are not hurting anyone, its consentual. Pedaphilia is not. The 2 are a world apart and peoples views will not change on that. Simple as.

    I think it's a valid comparison. I've already outlined the parallels between homosexuals and pedophiles. For the record, I don't hate homosexuals. I'll do business with them and would accept one as a friend. But they shouldn't be allowed to marry for the reasons I've already mentioned.
    Why shouldent a homosexual couple be allowed to adopt? Just because they are gay does not mean they are not capable of raising a child.

    This is where your "it's consentual; it's hurting nobody" argument goes out the window. That child did not choose or consent to having two parents of the same-sex. He may be subjected to bullying or discrimination for the rest of his life because of it (which I think is wrong by the way but there are people who see gay-bashing as a hobby)
    Why should people have to "conform" to society's view on what is normal, it has sweet F all to do with any one else. Why should 2 people be denied a simple basic right just to keep the church and the homophobes in this backward country happy? Its a load of Sh1te tbh.

    Typical bullsh1t from bigots in this country. It does not affect you in any way whatsoever unless you just dont like seeing them kiss in the street and making you feel uncomfortable.

    I'll repeat once more: How does accepting homosexual marriage = progress? The vast majority of countrys/states in the world still have bans on gay marriage. Are they all backward, leaving you as the only progresive thinking intellect in the world?


  • #40
    jhegarty
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,138 ✭✭✭jhegarty


    kowloon wrote: »

    I see no reason why the anti-same sex marriage camp shouldn't have to justify a restriction on rights as opposed to the current system of people having to fight for something that hurts nobody.


    Like it or not that's the way democracy works.


  • #41
    Bottle_of_Smoke
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,769 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Fo Real wrote: »
    I'll repeat once more: How does accepting homosexual marriage = progress? The vast majority of countrys/states in the world still have bans on gay marriage. Are they all backward, leaving you as the only progresive thinking intellect in the world?

    Careful now. Take a look at this map. It appears the vast majority of western nations have same sex marriage or something along the lines of a civil partnership.

    The vast majority of the ones who don't have either of the above are actually backward countries.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Euro_Kraut
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,957 ✭✭✭Euro_Kraut


    Liam Byrne wrote: »

    Most people that I know are perfectly happy to just live together until such point as they decide they want kids, so that it puts those kids on a legal footing....."marriage", per se, has no appeal for them.

    So - given that that is most people's view on marriage - it means that there's no "need" for it for a gay couple.
    I think there is a flaw in your argument.

    You appear to have decided that is 'most peoples' view on the basis of your observation of your friends. I don't think its good to explopoate from a perceptions of the behaviors of a narrow group to the entire populations.

    The reasons for marriage are wide and varied. People should have the right to get married for regardless of motivation. Child birth should not be compulsory. Many married couples choose not to have children as is their right - I am sure most would agree with that as there appears to little clamour to reverse the current laws in that regard.

    A lot of homosexuals would appear to disagree with your argument that they do not 'need' to have the right to marry.


  • #43
    Anita Blow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,935 ✭✭✭Anita Blow


    Fo Real wrote: »
    I think it's a valid comparison. I've already outlined the parallels between homosexuals and pedophiles. For the record, I don't hate homosexuals. I'll do business with them and would accept one as a friend. But they shouldn't be allowed to marry for the reasons I've already mentioned.



    This is where your "it's consentual; it's hurting nobody" argument goes out the window. That child did not choose or consent to having two parents of the same-sex. He may be subjected to bullying or discrimination for the rest of his life because of it (which I think is wrong by the way but there are people who see gay-bashing as a hobby)



    I'll repeat once more: How does accepting homosexual marriage = progress? The vast majority of countrys/states in the world still have bans on gay marriage. Are they all backward, leaving you as the only progresive thinking intellect in the world?
    I just don't see why you're against homosexuals marrying? I mean, just because they can't marry doesn't mean they'll automatically stop being gay and live heterosexual lives. They'll continue to live with their partner, so why not give them the same rights as a heterosexual couple?

    Put simply, what right have you to say 2 consenting, loving people cannot marry? It doesn't affect you in any real way so why does it matter whether some random same-sex couple wants to marry or not or adopt a child?

    Also, the parallels you draw between paedophilia and homosexuality are just plain stupid. One is consenting, the other is not.
    Allowing same-sex marriage=progress because it's pulling down the barriers in this world that have stood for decades. We're finally realising that if 2 people are consenting lovers, then they deserve the same respect and diginity as any other couple out there..whether they're hetero or homo.

    It's going to take quite a while for the backwards teachings of the church to be reversed though so I wouldn't see it happening for a while..

    I'd hope that some day, 2 men/women together could have the same rights as myself and my girlfriend...simply because it's the right thing to do


  • #44
    Podge_irl
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 33,988 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Do gay people genuinely view marriage that differently to the rest of us ? That they need the "lifelong commitment" to be recognised, while hetero couples are just happy being together and feel little or no compulsion to be "hitched" ?

    Being married is merely a legal contract, but it has important ramifications for things such as tax status and inheritance.


  • #45
    Fo Real
    Closed Accounts Posts: 479 ✭✭Fo Real


    Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »
    Careful now. Take a look at this map. It appears the vast majority of western nations have same sex marriage or something along the lines of a civil partnership.

    The vast majority of the ones who don't have either of the above are actually backward countries.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg

    Interesting. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

    Although more western countries than I thought have some form of civil partnership, it still looks like they are a minority. The vast majority of the USA still reject it and as we can see some states like Maine are actually repealing it. Who is to say a "backwards" trend won't prevail?

    Still: even if every country in the world leglised gay marriage, does that make it right? Should smoking tobacco be legal? It directly harms and kils people and costs healthcare systems around the world billions annually.


  • #46
    El_Dangeroso
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    Podge_irl wrote: »
    Being married is merely a legal contract, but it has important ramifications for things such as tax status and inheritance.

    Never mind being able to make medical end-of-life decisions should a partner be incapicitated.


  • #47
    Local-womanizer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,798 ✭✭✭Local-womanizer


    Fo Real wrote: »
    I think it's a valid comparison. I've already outlined the parallels between homosexuals and pedophiles. For the record, I don't hate homosexuals. I'll do business with them and would accept one as a friend. But they shouldn't be allowed to marry for the reasons I've already mentioned.

    So you think a same sex couple in a loving relationship is the same as some middle age man shagging a kid?Seriously!



    Fo Real wrote: »
    This is where your "it's consentual; it's hurting nobody" argument goes out the window. That child did not choose or consent to having two parents of the same-sex. He may be subjected to bullying or discrimination for the rest of his life because of it (which I think is wrong by the way but there are people who see gay-bashing as a hobby)

    Why should these peoples way of living be dictated by what other bigots think of them? The answer is it shouldent.


    Fo Real wrote: »
    I'll repeat once more: How does accepting homosexual marriage = progress? The vast majority of countrys/states in the world still have bans on gay marriage. Are they all backward, leaving you as the only progresive thinking intellect in the world?

    It = progress as it is giving homosexuals rights that they should have, just like women and Blacks when they were allowed to vote. That for me is progress. It creates and equal society. In doing so it will eventualy change society's view on the whole subject. People will think nothing of a same-sex couple in 10-15 years time if the Bill was passed here. It would be the norm.

    Its not like the country is going to be over-run by homosexual couples if it is passed. You dont wake up one morning a decide to be gay.


  • #48
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    Fo Real wrote: »
    Still: even if every country in the world leglised gay marriage, does that make it right?
    Yes it does.


  • #49
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,152 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Euro_Kraut wrote: »
    I think there is a flaw in your argument.

    You appear to have decided that is 'most peoples' view on the basis of your observation of your friends. I don't think its good to explopoate from a perceptions of the behaviors of a narrow group to the entire populations.

    Quite possibly, however given the amount of 20 - 35 year-olds living together as distinct from getting married would indicate that there is a basis for at least some extrapolation.
    Euro_Kraut wrote: »
    The reasons for marriage are wide and varied. People should have the right to get married for regardless of motivation. Child birth should not be compulsory. Many married couples choose not to have children as is their right - I am sure most would agree with that as there appears to little clamour to reverse the current laws in that regard.

    I agree with the first part, but I cannot see any logic or relevance behind the "reverse the current laws" comment. I do, however, see a point in your argument that younger married couples who choose not to have children would dent the earlier observation; and while I don't want to claim to speak for every one of those couples, there are at least some of those for whom the phrase "don't want to have kids " would include the phrase "....not yet".
    Euro_Kraut wrote: »
    A lot of homosexuals would appear to disagree with your argument that they do not 'need' to have the right to marry.

    I think you've taken me up wrong on this; my "argument" is not that they don't need to, it's that they feel the need to.

    I firmly believe in "live and let live", and have never defined anyone by their sexuality; having said that - when it comes to children, having a child is 100% physically impossible without a mother and a father - across mammals on the planet, as far as I know, and there must be some credence to that fact.

    Yes, there's blurred lines with some people viewing sex itself, and not just sexuality or sexual orientation, as something transient, and there's certainly some crossover happening with effeminate males and butch females, but the above cannot be denied. Just as there's a reason the Earth is round, there's a reason why nature only allows a male + female partnership to create children.

    And yes, that's at the nub of my post; given that I - and a lot of other under-40 / next-generation people (but admittedly not everyone) - only see marriage in that context, and for that purpose, I do find it curious that gay people feel the "need" to have marriage available.

    I have no problem with some level of committed partnership, btw; lucky them if they find someone worthwhile. And while I'm not 100% for gay marriage, I'm not a raving opponent of it either......just curious as to why it's such an issue.


  • #50
    Reindeer
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,076 ✭✭✭Reindeer


    Mark200 wrote: »
    The amount of backward places left in the supposedly 'civilised' part of the world is ridiculous.

    Strong words from a country of 'ungrateful Lisbon denounce-rs'...


  • #51
    Local-womanizer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,798 ✭✭✭Local-womanizer


    Fo Real wrote: »
    IStill: even if every country in the world leglised gay marriage, does that make it right?

    Why is wrong?

    You failed to make a viable argument regarding civil partnership itself, you are bringing into questions the changing attitude of a country. You are scared that these attitudes will change to such an extent that certain crime will become legal.

    I cant get my head around your thinking. People in power are rational enough to realise the difference between padaphilia and civil partnership.

    Padaphila issue is being addressed in which offenders are being offered help.


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Fo Real
    Closed Accounts Posts: 479 ✭✭Fo Real


    Local-womanizer wrote: »
    Why is wrong?

    You failed to make a viable argument regarding civil partnership itself, you are bringing into questions the changing attitude of a country. You are scared that these attitudes will change to such an extent that certain crime will become legal.

    I cant get my head around your thinking. People in power are rational enough to realise the difference between padaphilia and civil partnership.

    Padaphila issue is being addressed in which offenders are being offered help.

    If I, as Taosieasch, allowed civil partnership would you be satisfied? True, it doesn't harm anybody. But I would draw the line there.

    No gay couples adopting children. A child has the right to a mother and father.
    No other groups of various sexual persuasions would be legally forced to be socially accepted as gay rights were. This includes beastiality fans, necrophiliacs ("this is hurting nobody!" / liberal ) and pedophiles. It's a downward spiral into moral decay.


  • #53
    El_Dangeroso
    Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 5,620 ✭✭✭El_Dangeroso


    http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/idiocracy.png


  • #54
    kowloon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 14,187 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    jhegarty wrote: »
    Like it or not that's the way democracy works.

    Not really.


  • #55
    Fo Real
    Closed Accounts Posts: 479 ✭✭Fo Real


    Temple_Grandin wrote: »
    http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/idiocracy.png

    I don't claim to have superior morals.

    On the contrary, some people in this thread need to get off their high horse, denouncing the rest of the world as "backward" for not having their same "enightened" opinion, "ignorant twats" and having their own definition of progress.


  • #56
    ShooterSF
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,822 ✭✭✭ShooterSF


    Fo Real wrote: »
    If I, as Taosieasch, allowed civil partnership would you be satisfied? True, it doesn't harm anybody. But I would draw the line there.

    No gay couples adopting children. A child has the right to a mother and father.
    No other groups of various sexual persuasions would be legally forced to be socially accepted as gay rights were. This includes beastiality fans, necrophiliacs ("this is hurting nobody!" / liberal ) and pedophiles. It's a downward spiral into moral decay.

    So you're saying that although you have no problem with gay marriage you do not want it to go ahead in case it somehow leads us to supporting non consensual relationships i.e rape?

    You do realise it is possible to draw that line at least at a personal level. I too would be against legalising rape (both of a person or an animal). I too have no problem with gay marriage. However I can support one and denounce the other. Why can't you?


  • #57
    Resi12
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭Resi12


    Fo Real wrote: »
    I don't claim to have superior morals.

    On the contrary, some people in this thread need to get off their high horse, denouncing the rest of the world as "backward" for not having their same "enightened" opinion, "ignorant twats" and having their own definition of progress.

    Most countries that people are referring to as 'backward' are seen that way because of their stance on more than gay rights, e.g. Woman's rights in the middle east.

    And for the last time you really don't seem to be getting that you can't compare peadophilia to being gay. And so what if gay people had the right to adopt? I think it's more you that needs to come off your high horse of thinkin married heterosexuals with childrens' lives are all perfect.

    There are plenty of straight people that shouldn't be parents or be married but they still do and you don't see referendums being held against them question their ability to do tasks that are a given right to do!


  • #58
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,152 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    One small point I want to make, given some other posters' comments above.

    Allowing heterosexual couples to have civil partnerships or marriage does not increase (or unfortunately, decrease) the level of paedophilia or rape.

    So that has absolutely no bearing on the discussion.

    In addition, the other key point is that of consent; paedophelia, bestiality and necrophelia (apologies for the spellings, but those are 3 words I don't use much and I'm definitely not going to Google) cannot, by their nature, include this key aspect.

    Add in the fact that the consent and sex can exist without either marriage or civil partnerships, for either of the other 2 (adult heterosexuals and adult homosexuals) and it seems that there is no reason to even mention those in this thread.

    There are probably 2 key points:

    1) Is a civil partnership enough, and acceptable enough, to achieve the recognition and the legal status required ?

    2) If a form of "marriage" (I'm using it in quotes because the official definition is a union between a man and a woman) is made available, does it raise issues re the possibility or otherwise of adoption, which would affect people's acceptance of it ?

    Re #2 - yes, there's arguments about loving gay couples versus crap hetero couples, but that's not a valid comparison, IMHO, because neither appears to be the ideal......that said, I don't want a discussion on MY personal view - I'm just raising it as one of the potential hurdles that explains why the route of "civil partnership" is more acceptable to most people, as it avoids any implicit acceptance of gay adoption being a factor in voting against it.


  • #59
    Local-womanizer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,798 ✭✭✭Local-womanizer


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    There are probably 2 key points:

    1) Is a civil partnership enough, and acceptable enough, to achieve the recognition and the legal status required ?

    It isent unfortunatly, Civil Partnership still fails to fully recognise gay couples. Points that have been raised by gay groups are why should they settle for a CP which is seen as inferior to marriage in the eyes of the state. Andf the adoption issue is a huge bone of contention aswell.

    If the CP Bill was put to the people tomorrow I think myself if would rejected, by people against homosexuals and homosexuals themselves, albeit for totally different reasons.

    But as pointed out, and it should have never come up, the difference between homosexuality and padaphilia and other assorted philias, consent is the key word.

    And pointed out, a downward spiral into moral decay, jesus, I would have thought we couldent have spiralled any further tbh.

    Its basic human rights at the end of the day, not letting people live their lives is infringing on their rights. Look at the European Human Rights Convetion and take your pick of what basic rights homosexuals are being denied!

    Convienant I'am after doing an essay on the Civil Partnership Bil for college last week:p


  • #60
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,683 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    If youre going to liken gay marriage to paedophelia do you also believe that gay sexual intercourse should result in jailtime and being forced to submit yourself to the sex offenders registrar?


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    RandolphEsq
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,296 ✭✭✭RandolphEsq


    Mark200 wrote: »
    The amount of backward places left in the supposedly 'civilised' part of the world is ridiculous.

    Interesting . . . what reasons would you use if I asked you to qualify your claim?


Advertisement
Advertisement