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

Opinions on same sex marriage in Ireland

Options
1…1011121416

Comments

  • Options
    #392
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    darced wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Nothing in the rules of tandem riding specify children are compulsory.

    Tandems are concerned primarily with two people but do allow for one of these 12326824_265x265_pad.jpg to be attached for as long as is required but once the user is capable of self-sufficiency it may be detached. The essence of the tandem remains the same and continues to be propelled forward by two people.

    :p


  • Options
    #393
    Trudiha
    Registered Users Posts: 235 ✭✭Trudiha


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    I'd be happy if we could go back to easier ways of addressing people than calling them androgynous non descriptive terms such as our "partner", "life partner", "significant other", "other half", etc-

    Boyfriend, girlfriend, husband, wife.

    So much easier than all the too far gone politically correct "thou shalt walk on eggshells" nonsense.

    Well, it's supposed to be and exercise in addressing heterosexual privileged/assumption.


  • Options
    #394
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    darced wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    and every man is not the same as every other man and every woman is not the same as every other woman so should everyone who gets married have their own, unique, name for it?

    two people is the same as two people.


  • Options
    #395
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    I think gay couples can foster together, primarily because there's no legal relationship between the child and the couple. At the end of the day, responsibility for the child lies with the HSE, with the couple "employed" as carers.

    You are probably correct about the fostering - I only know about adoption as friends of mine adopted - well - legally only one of them was allowed.....


  • Options
    #396
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    darced wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Yeah but you're still not getting it.

    Why is this the only example of different nomenclature for gay people? Why not have a different name for tax credits for gay couples, for example? Why not have a different name for our PPS numbers, have a different name for our taxes? Why do you only draw marriage out for special consideration? That's what people want to know.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #397
    darced
    Registered Users Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭darced


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #398
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Yes. Logic is slowly creeping into the debate. On that point. The state already calls different things by different names.

    Where does the State call things with exactly the same outcomes different things because of differences between those availing of said things?
    1ZRed wrote: »
    I hate partner. Husband and boyfriend do grand than that guessing game, which when used by straight people always makes me wonder are they gay.

    I'm too old for boyfriend. I'm too young and not classy enough for gentleman friend. Man friend sounds silly. I'm not married, so husband is out.

    Just as well I'm terminally single, so I don't have to worry about these things :D.
    darced wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Only because of the biology of the participants and no one has explained why that's sufficient reason to justify different treatment in the law.

    Is there something about marriage that is dependent on the opposite genders?


  • Options
    #399
    Trudiha
    Registered Users Posts: 235 ✭✭Trudiha


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Is there something about marriage that is dependent on the opposite genders?

    Historically, no. In fact, just having two people involved in a fairly recent thing. Monogamy is quite new fangled.


  • Options
    #400
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Gay individuals can adopt/foster but gay couples cannot. Not even if they have a civil partnership.

    Also in the case of children born outside marriage where no father is recognised in law via a Guardianship declaration- should the mother marry her husband can then adopt her children although he has no biological relationship to them.
    I actually wish arguments for gay marriage would focus more on these real-life inequalities and differences between marriage and civil partnerships rather than degenerate into tiresome debates on semantics.

    Because for most people (and I'm not much better informed) that is all they see.


  • Options
    #401
    wolfpawnat
    Registered Users Posts: 6,124 ✭✭✭wolfpawnat


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Gay individuals can adopt/foster but gay couples cannot. Not even if they have a civil partnership.

    Also in the case of children born outside marriage where no father is recognised in law via a Guardianship declaration- should the mother marry her husband can then adopt her children although he has no biological relationship to them.

    Thank you for clarifying that. I knew there was some allowances, so a gay single parent is better than a co-habiting/civil-partnership couple. :confused: That is baffling.

    Yes, if there is no father on the birth cert and/or he does not get Guardianship rights, her husband can be declared legally their father via adoption. Great in one respect, slightly sad in another, but that is for another thread.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #402
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,763 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Yes. Logic is slowly creeping into the debate. On that point. The state already calls different things by different names.

    Wow its like im psychic or something you did completely ignore my reply proving id explained why i thought theres no difference and again asking you for your reasoning, and still you refuse to try to explain it.
    If your curious that post is right right here but im sure your just gonna conveniently ignore this post as well


  • Options
    #403
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Knasher wrote: »
    Can you give me a single example where the state differentiates by name yet makes no legal differentiations?

    I'm no legal eagle, nor do I work for the department of naming stuff. Any examples of two different things being called the same thing under law?


  • Options
    #404
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Wow its like im psychic or something you did completely ignore my reply proving id explained why i thought theres no difference and again asking you for your reasoning, and still you refuse to try to explain it.
    If your curious that post is right right here but im sure your just gonna conveniently ignore this post as well

    I think he secretly wants us to play the message board equivalent of Guess Who. He tells us if he's for or against something, and then we have to guess why.

    It's a unique way to hold a discussion, I'll give him that, but it doesn't strike me as particularly effective or constructive.


  • Options
    #405
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    VinLieger wrote: »
    Wow its like im psychic or something you did completely ignore my reply proving id explained why i thought theres no difference and again asking you for your reasoning, and still you refuse to try to explain it.
    If your curious that post is right right here but im sure your just gonna conveniently ignore this post as well

    According to you I'm a child. According to you theres no difference in the two relationships. According to you black is white and you obviously on come on these forums for a stupid petty argument with internet strangers.


    Just don't read my posts.


  • Options
    #406
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Trudiha wrote: »
    Well, it's supposed to be and exercise in addressing heterosexual privileged/assumption.


    It's an exercise that causes more confusion than anything else tbh.


  • Options
    #407
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    The state already calls different things by different names.
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I'm no legal eagle, nor do I work for the department of naming stuff.

    Nuff said...


  • Options
    #408
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    I'm no legal eagle, nor do I work for the department of naming stuff. Any examples of two different things being called the same thing under law?
    Absolutely. Cars are different from trucks, but any law that applies to both refers to them as motor vehicles, it doesn't pass a law applying to one and then the same law applying to the other. Men and women are referred to as people. Cows and sheep are referred to as animals. And so on.

    I can't think of a single reason why the government would engage in such a pointless exercise for something it regards as legally equivalent.


  • Options
    #409
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Knasher wrote: »
    Absolutely. Cars are different from trucks, but any law that applies to both refers to them as motor vehicles, it doesn't pass a law applying to one and then the same law applying to the other. Men and women are referred to as people. Cows and sheep are referred to as animals. And so on.

    I can't think of a single reason why the government would engage in such a pointless exercise for something it regards as legally equivalent.

    Exactly. Different vehilces being called different things where applicable. See?


  • Options
    #410
    Knasher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Exactly. Different vehilces being called different things where applicable. See?
    Stop being obstinate.


  • Options
    #411
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Knasher wrote: »
    Stop being obstinate.

    Oh yeah, I'm being obstinate. Riiiiiiiight.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #412
    Grand Moff Tarkin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Grand Moff Tarkin


    Why would anyone wish to get married??


  • Options
    #413
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,763 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    According to you I'm a child. According to you theres no difference in the two relationships. According to you black is white and you obviously on come on these forums for a stupid petty argument with internet strangers.


    Just don't read my posts.

    Well I equate your argument with that of a child in it equals "cus I said so" and you refuse to explain it and yes I don't see a difference between the relationships and I explained why in an easy to understand way. I don't think black is white I think everything is actually grey or multicoloured if that helps you understand my point of view?
    I think your the one here for petty arguments as everyone but you seems to be able to explain their opinions


  • Options
    #414
    bhamsteve
    Closed Accounts Posts: 451 ✭✭bhamsteve


    I don't have any objection to same sex marriage, but at the same time I don't think married couples/parents should have a higher legal status or privileges than unmarried couples/parents whether they are gay or straight.


  • Options
    #415
    Trudiha
    Registered Users Posts: 235 ✭✭Trudiha


    Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »
    Why would anyone wish to get married??

    I don't want to get married. I'd just like to be treated equally to straight people and have the option of getting married if the urge ever came over me.


  • Options
    #416
    Grand Moff Tarkin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Grand Moff Tarkin


    Trudiha wrote: »
    I don't want to get married. I'd just like to be treated equally to straight people and have the option of getting married if the urge ever came over me.
    Don't get me wrong i think everyone should have the option if they wished to get married. My point was why anyone would go to the hassle and rigmarole of it when you can just live with your girl/boyfriend.


  • Options
    #417
    Trudiha
    Registered Users Posts: 235 ✭✭Trudiha


    Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »
    Don't get me wrong i think everyone should have the option if they wished to get married. My point was why anyone would go to the hassle and rigmarole of it when you can just live with your girl/boyfriend.

    Tax breaks, inheritance rights, legal protection for children, more tax breaks, expensive honeymoon, getting to go in a big fancy car, financial security, wedding dresses, romance, bring smug in front of the unmarried.


  • Options
    #418
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Trudiha wrote: »
    Tax breaks, inheritance rights, legal protection for children, more tax breaks, expensive honeymoon, getting to go in a big fancy car, financial security, wedding dresses, romance, bring smug in front of the unmarried.
    And most importantly, sometimes they have cooler surnames.

    Seriously guys the question is not about whether marriage is worthwhile or not. Some people think it is worthwhile for them, that's their (our) choice.

    Most of us have been in co-habiting relationships beforehand and would completely sympathise with issues with tax credits and lack of basic recognition for unmarried couples.


  • Options
    #419
    Grand Moff Tarkin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Grand Moff Tarkin


    Trudiha wrote: »
    Tax breaks, inheritance rights, legal protection for children, more tax breaks, expensive honeymoon, getting to go in a big fancy car, financial security, wedding dresses, romance, bring smug in front of the unmarried.
    My friends who have tied the knot are all far from smug at this point. In fact a buddy who i advised on his stag weekend not to get married told me last week how much he wished now that he had listen to me. My only friends who seem really happy are living in sin as they used to say back in the days of old. :)


  • Options
    #420
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Grand Moff Tarkin wrote: »
    My friends who have tied the knot are all far from smug at this point. In fact a buddy who i advised on his stag weekend not to get married told me last week how much he wished now that he had listen to me. My only friends who seem really happy are living in sin as they used to say back in the days of old. :)


    Some fcuking friend you are, ya left that a bit late didn't you? Get the stag out of the way first and THEN tell him not to marry the girl he was in love with! :pac:

    Here's another idea they didn't have back in the "days of old" that you might advise your friend about- divorce.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #421
    hoodwinked
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,175 ✭✭✭hoodwinked


    bhamsteve wrote: »
    I don't have any objection to same sex marriage, but at the same time I don't think married couples/parents should have a higher legal status or privileges than unmarried couples/parents whether they are gay or straight.

    but they reason they do is because of situations like these arising: imagine if the privileges / legal status of marriage were attached after you spend 5 years as a couple (or 10 years or whatever timeline) suddenly you hit that big anniversary where you qualify for the privileges / legal rights and afterwards things go south, you break up and that ex gets half your house/life/things... legally you are still tied even though you broke up.

    by giving them with marriage you are effectively signing to agree to give legal status /privileges over to this person. they can't just take them or claim them you are willingly tying yourself to them,


    this is why i think same sex marriage should be allowed over automatic marriage by virtue of living together for a specific time period. keep it as a choice

    you either are Boyfriend/girlfriend (or boyfriend/boyfriend...etc) and retain your legal rights/ownerships to yourself

    or

    you choose to get married and your spouse gets half of everything as you give them half your legal rights/ownerships.




    why should people be legally tied to someone just because they are dating a specific time period, if you want to be tied choose to get married.

    every couple irregardless of gender should have this choice.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement