POLL: GAY MARRIAGE....:-) AH A HAPPY POLL:-)

I would vote No

and a Yes from me!

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Okay


Well would you mind giving a reason why?

Why should i? It's my opinion and thats it, i'm not going to start asking you why you voted yes, that's your choice.

You started this poll, you've not questioned anybody who voted yes but you question me because i voted no??

scudzilla wrote: »

Why should i? It's my opinion and thats it, i'm not going to start asking you why you voted yes, that's your choice.

You started this poll, you've not questioned anybody who voted yes but you question me because i voted no??

You seem very hostile, do homosexuals threaten you?
Are you homophobic?
Do you not believe they should disgrace the sacrament of marriage?


I believe we are all equal and we all deserve equal rights.
If two men or two women want to get married, they can fire ahead as far as I'm concerned.
If you have strong feelings against it I presume you have a strong argument to back those feelings up? Or are you just cruel and angry?

On the highlighted point, you're in the vast minority so it would make sense to ask why you hold this stance. I feel it is safe to assume that the yes voters are voting on similar merits.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Would it be better to get rid of marriage, or at least state recognition of it, altogether?

Yeah, going to sound like a miserable unmarried bachelor here but I agree. Why should the state bestow additional privileges upon a married couple over unmarried couples/singletons (regardless of gender) because they performed a ceremony pledging their love to each other.

Do away with it all.

SunDog wrote: »

Yes. A lifelong commitment between two people in love. Why the fʋᴄƙ not?

But the commitment is not lifelong nowadays. And why should only two people be involved?

Jimoslimos wrote: »

Yeah, going to sound like a miserable unmarried bachelor here but I agree. Why should the state bestow additional privileges upon a married couple over unmarried couples/singletons (regardless of gender) because they performed a ceremony pledging their love to each other.

Do away with it all.

It doesn't have to be a big ceremony, you can go to the registry office sign some papers and be out in a half an hour if you want to.
If you decide to take these rights with your unmarried partner (if we abolished marriage) you'd probably have to do roughly the same thing.

I like weddings, they're nice.

Would priests be allowed to marry other priests?

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So do I. Great fun. That said I don't see why the state should be in any way involved.

poeticseraphim said it better than I could have.
When you want to cover the likes of joined assets and children you're going to have to sign something and go through some sort of rigmarole to do it, we call it marriage and we like to dress them up as a big party.

I'm not religious so that part holds nothing for me, it's just a big party expressing a couples love.
The state don't force you to go through them for this but there are benefits to be had if you do.

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Would there not be difficulties with ownership of ....stuff...if a woman has worked in the home for years etc

Also if you are foreign and want to marry and Irish person or 'be ' with them?? How would you get a marriage visa etc...???

I think it does benefit society...

Is there any developed society where they don't do it??

I know in Sweden couples can just live together in 'sambo' and they get a certain legal status..not sure about visa rights etc


Also there are next of kin rights...adoption rights....

We could all do civil partnerships ..???

Anyway the thread is not about that ..

It is about gay marriage:-)

A lot of those, splitting of assets, etc usually have to be sorted in court anyway so not much change there. Next of kin, adoption again in a similar way - two people can be listed as the legal guardians on the birth certificate. There shouldn't need to be marriage for these concepts to work.

As for foreign spouses, yes there isn't much way around that. I think however the state demanding proof that a couple 'love' each other is a little archaic, plus, and I know this will seem extremely cynical, I don't see 'love' as a valid immigration reason. That said I'm all in favour of lifting certain restrictions on immigration, so long as the person can prove they are capable of supporting themselves in a new country. Otherwise we have the situation where the foreign spouse is simply a 'dependent' - which itself I'd argue can be dangerous, especially if that person has no means of escaping an abusive relationship through issues such as language difficulties or fear of having to leave the country.

I do agree we could all do civil partnerships!

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Isn't that the problem though? The state bestows benefits upon married people and thus discriminates against people who aren't married - gay people, brothers and sisters who live together etc.

I know but what I'm saying is if we scrap marriage we'll just have to do the same thing with a different name. You can bet there'll be people wanting discrimination with that too.

I think everyone should have the same rights, what ever name we give it.

Xavi6 wrote: »

Where's the poll option for those not fussed / who would spoil their vote?

Practice what you preach OP in terms of including everyone

I know this was probably in jest but adding a spoil vote choice has always annoyed me, even if it is boards tradition.

Call me a hypocrite, I guess I am one in this instance.