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

APART FROM RELIGIOUS BELIEFS what are the arguments against gay marriage?

24567…12

Comments

  • #32
    krudler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    kylith wrote: »
    What is this? I don't even?

    To be able to get married you must be; of legal age to consent, giving informed consent and entering freely into the union. Dogs, cats, horses, children, tables, cars, and the Berlin Wall are either not of legal age, or are unable to give consent. Therefore we don't have to worry about adults marrying anyone except other adults. Happy now?

    Told ya, the same old arguments, if men can marry men then men can marry sheep and playstations and tractors, where will it end?!?!?!


  • #33
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    kylith wrote: »
    What is this? I don't even?

    To be able to get married you must be; of legal age to consent, giving informed consent and entering freely into the union. Dogs, cats, horses, children, tables, cars, and the Berlin Wall are either not of legal age, or are unable to give consent. Therefore we don't have to worry about adults marrying anyone except other adults. Happy now?

    He may have a point...

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #34
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,443 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    kylith wrote: »
    What is this? I don't even?

    To be able to get married you must be; of legal age to consent, giving informed consent and entering freely into the union. Dogs, cats, horses, children, tables, cars, and the Berlin Wall are either not of legal age, or are unable to give consent. Therefore we don't have to worry about adults marrying anyone except other adults. Happy now?

    I'm pretty sure the Berlin Wall is old enough. The bits that are left anyway. New thread anybody? Could be the new 'biscuits' or 'ice cream'!


  • #35
    DavyD_83
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,992 ✭✭✭DavyD_83


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    In a marraige contract (usually) most assest will be in both names. It's not really fair to tax someone for taking ownership of soemthing they already own.



    I disagree with your premise in the first chapter - why can two people not just declare their love for each other and not want to bring kids into the world? They might not like kids, they might know they'd be bad parents and just make a responsible addition.

    Marraige is not solely about having kids.

    I wasn't saying married people should be forced to have kids. well, i didn't mean to.
    and when I referred to taxes, i more meant income tax, and the fact that married couples are allowed to share tax free allowances. Presumably this is a product of the theory that wifey would stay at home with the kids and hubby would be out earning for both of them.
    I understand the (theoretical) benefit to society in this model, however providing similar benefits to just allow one member of the couple stay at home and mind the house does not seem to have the same reasoning for me.
    I'm not saying this is a correct way of thinking about things, but I do think it was the basic thought process behind this setup back when it was designed.

    Sry, off topic i think.


  • #36
    stevenmu
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


    From a secular point of view marriage is a state institution used to promote the traditional family unit (one male and one female parent, plus x number of kids).

    It, in theory, recognises the importance of children to society, and in particular it recognises the importance of children being raised as well as possible. It makes the assumption that the traditional family unit is the best environment for raising children. And, it therefore encourages this unit through benefits like tax reliefs and other protections.

    There are studies which back up the claim that the traditional family unit is the best environment for children. These form the basis for a secular argument gay marriage, in short people believe that the state should only endorse and promote the best possible environment for children to be raised.

    As far as I'm aware though*, most or all of these studies are disputed in one way or another, and there are other studies which show that same-sex parents do as good a job. Either way, there doesn't appear to be any real scientific consensus, which is why the strongest objection comes from religious beliefs.



    *tbh I've never looked at this in any real detail, this is just what I've picked up from newspaper/magazine articles.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Gbear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    kylith wrote: »
    What is this? I don't even?

    To be able to get married you must be; of legal age to consent, giving informed consent and entering freely into the union. Dogs, cats, horses, children, tables, cars, and the Berlin Wall are either not of legal age, or are unable to give consent. Therefore we don't have to worry about adults marrying anyone except other adults. Happy now?

    That argument always struck as desperately looking for something to shakily place your argument on because just saying it's icky wouldn't fly.

    It's just so bloody lazy. If you think about it for more than about 4 seconds you come to the conclusion you've outlined.


  • #38
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,745 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »
    He may have a point...
    That's what reminded me of it. I bet you it wasn't recognised by the government though.
    endacl wrote: »
    I'm pretty sure the Berlin Wall is old enough. The bits that are left anyway. New thread anybody? Could be the new 'biscuits' or 'ice cream'!

    Ah, but the Berlin wall can't sign a marriage licence, can it? It can't even draw an X on the page.


  • #39
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,779 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    DavyD_83 wrote: »
    I wasn't saying married people should be forced to have kids. well, i didn't mean to.
    and when I referred to taxes, i more meant income tax, and the fact that married couples are allowed to share tax free allowances. Presumably this is a product of the theory that wifey would stay at home with the kids and hubby would be out earning for both of them.
    I understand the (theoretical) benefit to society in this model, however providing similar benefits to just allow one member of the couple stay at home and mind the house does not seem to have the same reasoning for me.
    I'm not saying this is a correct way of thinking about things, but I do think it was the basic thought process behind this setup back when it was designed.

    Sry, off topic i think.

    Ah, ok - I was thinking inheritance tax and the like.

    In case, as I said, the marraige contract usually sees a married couple as just that - one couple - and that refers to legal status, taxes, assets and everything.

    I don;t see why this should be any different when you have kids. Couples need security too,

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #40
    Sin City
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,375 ✭✭✭Sin City


    DavyD_83 wrote: »
    I was thinking about this the other day. I have nothing against gays getting married.
    I was more wondering about the fact that gay married couples would also want to be entitled to tax benefits that other married couples get.

    I have nothing against this in theory, but it got me wondering why are married couples entitled to any of this anyway?

    Surely all the tax benefits that exist for married couples, are essentially designed to allow them to support a family and continue to create and raise further tax payers (aka children)

    In this case, should all current 'marriage benefits' only come into play when the couple has children.
    I would assume they should also be entitled to the same if they adopt or otherwise acquire (that word looks wrong) children.
    I don't see any real social benefit to households where only one individual works unless there are children to take care of, so why should the state subsidise them or make allowances for them .

    Anyway, short version of my rambling; shouldn't all 'marital benifits' only be available for those raising children (whether gay, straight or into donkeys)?

    Aquire children lol
    free-candy-van.jpg


  • #41
    RangeR
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,258 ✭✭✭RangeR


    WTF is going on here, guys. You lot are having a rational argument about a rational subject. Where the hell has the smart comments gone. ?THIS IS AFTER HOURS!!!!

    This is where I come to get my ****s and giggles!!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,443 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    kylith wrote: »
    That's what reminded me of it


    Ah, but the Berlin wall can't sign a marriage licence, can it? It can't even draw an X on the page.

    Ok. You got me there. There were too many people talking sense. I thought the debate needed just a pinch of devil's advocacy.

    :)


  • #43
    krudler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    stevenmu wrote: »
    From a secular point of view marriage is a state institution used to promote the traditional family unit (one male and one female parent, plus x number of kids).

    It, in theory, recognises the importance of children to society, and in particular it recognises the importance of children being raised as well as possible. It makes the assumption that the traditional family unit is the best environment for raising children. And, it therefore encourages this unit through benefits like tax reliefs and other protections.

    There are studies which back up the claim that the traditional family unit is the best environment for children. These form the basis for a secular argument gay marriage, in short people believe that the state should only endorse and promote the best possible environment for children to be raised.

    As far as I'm aware though*, most or all of these studies are disputed in one way or another, and there are other studies which show that same-sex parents do as good a job. Either way, there doesn't appear to be any real scientific consensus, which is why the strongest objection comes from religious beliefs.



    *tbh I've never looked at this in any real detail, this is just what I've picked up from newspaper/magazine articles.

    I guarantee you for every study showing the "right" family is mum and dad and blah amount of kids there's one showing that having one male or female parent, or two gay ones or no parents, or adoptive ones, or an only child or dozen siblings people can still turn out fine.

    Now we'll just wait for the "they'll be bullied in school!" argument.


  • #44
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,443 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    RangeR wrote: »
    WTF is going on here, guys. You lot are having a rational argument about a rational subject. Where the hell has the smart comments gone. ?THIS IS AFTER HOURS!!!!

    This is where I come to get my ****s and giggles!!!!!

    Hold tight. Give people time to get logged on. 6 o'clock mass is just finishing up around now.


  • #45
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    stevenmu wrote: »
    From a secular point of view marriage is a state institution used to promote the traditional family unit (one male and one female parent, plus x number of kids).

    It, in theory, recognises the importance of children to society, and in particular it recognises the importance of children being raised as well as possible. It makes the assumption that the traditional family unit is the best environment for raising children. And, it therefore encourages this unit through benefits like tax reliefs and other protections.

    There are studies which back up the claim that the traditional family unit is the best environment for children. These form the basis for a secular argument gay marriage, in short people believe that the state should only endorse and promote the best possible environment for children to be raised.

    As far as I'm aware though*, most or all of these studies are disputed in one way or another, and there are other studies which show that same-sex parents do as good a job. Either way, there doesn't appear to be any real scientific consensus, which is why the strongest objection comes from religious beliefs.



    *tbh I've never looked at this in any real detail, this is just what I've picked up from newspaper/magazine articles.

    The secular basis of marriage is that of it being to do with chattel, it has nothing to do with family and everything to do with ownership and inheritance. The idea of marriage being for the benefit of a family is about as old as marriage being a commitment of love between two people and each has as much validity when taken in regards to the whole history of marriage.

    I recently read an extremely good article on gay marriage. It confirms gay marriage opponents beliefs that allowing same sex marriage will change all marriage, but it says it will change it for the better not damage it.
    “When [conservatives] say that gay marriage threatens my marriage, I used to say, ‘That’s ridiculous.’ Now I say, ‘Yeah, it does. It’s asking you a crucial question about your marriage that you may not want to answer: If I’m a man, am I actually sharing the duties and responsibilities of married life equally with my wife?’ Same-sex marriage gives us another image of what marriage can be.”

    http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...liss/309317/3/


  • #46
    Solair
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,226 ✭✭✭Solair


    The reproductive argument doesn't make sense for two reasons:

    1) There are plenty of married heterosexual couples who choose not to or can't have kids. So, making that argument's pretty offensive to couples who are in that situation.

    2) The human race's doing almost too well. The global population is increasing so fast that we can't even guarantee feeding everyone. There's absolutely no risk whatsoever of the population going into decline because we recognise gay marriage. Also, people will be gay anyway, whether they're allowed to marry or not making the argument a bit moot anyway.

    A gay couple (or a straight couple without kids) still creates a solid relationship unit, they contribute to society in all sorts of ways - work, creating things, generating knowledge, supporting others in the community, paying taxes, participating in general. If they do adopt, then they're giving a kid a start in life that they might otherwise not have had.

    I think people just have to start seeing humanity for what it is. I find religious and conservative views tend to look at humanity in a very strange way. They often seem to see it as if we were just lone hunters / gatherers out in the forrest operating without any form of society.

    In reality, humanity's a huge, deeply-interconnected system. It's not a bunch of competing individuals, rather it's organised as societies / tribes / super-tribes or whatever terminology you want to give it.

    When the society does well, it's because of the contributions of all of its members. A prosperous society has good health, low child mortality and generates loads of knowledge and does really well. For that to happen, everyone has to chip in. It's not all about having kids and reproducing, it's about supporting a bigger communal effort because that way our society's does well and prospers and reproduces and we go on.

    It's pretty damn obvious that a percentage of humans are homosexual. I think it's extremely arrogant to assume that that's not something that's emerged as part of human evolution and that was quite possibly advantageous.

    For example, it may be some kind of an adaptation that allowed a % of the population (before artificial contraception arrived) to be able to live without having to bear kids. I mean, if you think about it if you'd a small tribe, you'd have a situation where the kids were actually supported by extra adults and the burden of child rearing / hunting / gathering / building / developing knowledge etc could be spread around a lot more.

    It's about time we stopped looking at something that's clearly a very common human trait as if it were something strange / unusual / abnormal and actually started looking at it as something that's just part of what makes us what we are as a species.

    I don't really see being anti gay marriage as being any different to deciding to ban redheads from marrying or something.


  • #47
    Duggy747
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    If Gays get married then the prophecy of Cthulhu will be fulfilled, allowing his 7th son to rise and bring a 1000 centuries of suffering upon the earth by strangling people with their own bowels and making kites out of ginger people's skin.

    He'll then milk the men through their nipples and have women on a never-ending period while children will be told Santa doesn't exist but if he did he'd probably hate them anyways........




    ......Or.........or so I'm told, anyways.


  • #48
    Clareboy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 536 ✭✭✭Clareboy


    Just think about it for a moment! A man getting married to a man! What a nonsense!


  • #49
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,745 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    Duggy747 wrote: »
    If Gays get married then the prophecy of Cthulhu will be fulfilled, allowing his 7th son to rise and bring a 1000 centuries of suffering upon the earth by strangling people with their own bowels and making kites out of ginger people's skin.

    He'll then milk the men through their nipples and have women on a never-ending period while children will be told Santa doesn't exist but if he did he'd probably hate them anyways........




    ......Or.........or so I'm told, anyways.

    Ah, the wrath of the Ancient Ones. Finally a good argument against letting teh gheys have human rights.


  • #50
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Clareboy wrote: »
    Just think about it for a moment! A man getting married to a man! What a nonsense!


    Why?


  • #51
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    kylith wrote: »
    Ah, the wrath of the Ancient Ones. Finally a good argument against letting teh gheys have human rights.

    I'd say they should be allowed marry but everyone is automatically divorced once the stars begin to align. Hah! You've been lawyered Cthulhu!


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    Derpington95
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 269 ✭✭Derpington95


    krudler wrote: »
    Yes, we'll all turn gay, and mankind will be doomed.



  • #53
    krudler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Clareboy wrote: »
    Just think about it for a moment! A man getting married to a man! What a nonsense!

    Next they'll be allowing whites to marry blacks, imagine! *polishes monacle*


  • #54
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    UCD released relevant and interesting findings on the welfare/well-being of children in December:
    https://www.ucd.ie/t4cms/Family%20Relationships%20and%20Family%20Well-Being%20Dec%202012.pdf

    A summary is on page vii.

    The most relevant part was that they found that the makeup of the family, i.e. single parent, two parents, step parent, married, unmarried, etc etc, had very little effect on the child's outcome. This flies in the face of the generally-accepted idea that a single mother is more likely to have a troublesome child than a "traditional" family.
    What was found was that education of the parents was important. So the child of a well-educated single mother was likely to have a better outcome than the child of a poorly educated two-parent family. Where education is equal, the number of parents doesn't seem to make a difference.

    Overall this challenges the widely-held bias in favour of "traditional" families because they're what's best for children. Which is relevant to the marriage equality debate for obvious reasons.


  • #55
    stevenmu
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 9,688 Mod ✭✭✭✭stevenmu


    krudler wrote: »
    I guarantee you for every study showing the "right" family is mum and dad and blah amount of kids there's one showing that having one male or female parent, or two gay ones or no parents, or adoptive ones, or an only child or dozen siblings people can still turn out fine.
    I'm sure there is.

    I suppose the problem with surveys/studies is that the results will always be generalisations. No matter what studies show, there will always be awful mother/father parents, and fantastic lone or gay parents, and vice versa.

    That actually leads nicely to my own opinion on gay marriage. The state can generally only do social policies on a large scale based on generalisations. Marriage, family, love, parenting etc is far too nuanced and personal for the state to get involved in. Therefore they should just stay as far away from it as possible.


  • #56
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    stevenmu wrote: »
    I'm sure there is.

    I suppose the problem with surveys/studies is that the results will always be generalisations. No matter what studies show, there will always be awful mother/father parents, and fantastic lone or gay parents, and vice versa.

    That's pretty much the complete opposite of what studies are/do. Science needs to be and good science is exact. It's when science hits the media that it loses it's detail. Loads of people read 400 word newspaper report and decide they understand an issue without ever reading the 400 page study that goes into explicit detail.


  • #57
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,443 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Lyaiera wrote: »
    That's pretty much the complete opposite of what studies are/do. Science needs to be and good science is exact. It's when science hits the media that it loses it's detail. Loads of people read 400 word newspaper report and decide they understand an issue without ever reading the 400 page study that goes into explicit detail.
    Oh yeah?!? Provide a link!*






    *That's how we win debates. Isn't it...?


  • #58
    darced
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,056 ✭✭✭darced


    This post has been deleted.


  • #59
    yore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,127 ✭✭✭yore


    Why will these things never change? In my opinion because the PC crowd are too busy mocking and pooh-poohing the people on the other side to actually try to get an idea of the underlying "un-comfortableness" they perhaps feel about it.

    Of course, if someone says they don't like the idea, the response is to call the homophobic or stone-aged or religious freak etc. Instead of trying to address what might be their underlying concerns.

    Divorce only came into this country recently. Anti-religion Nazis will try to have you believe that this was due to the evil church keeping the people down. What else could have been the reason? Perhaps people felt that it would denigrate marriage. To them, marriage is something special. By bringing in divorce they felt it was a slippery slope that would lessen the institution of marriage. in other countries, the US at least, marriage is often something that people enter into with a view of "This might be fun for a few years". Is marriage more of an institution in Ireland than say the US? I would say yes, it still is. Is that a bad thing or a good thing? Some would say it's good and some would say not. Of course, you will all be able to give me specific example of your friend blah blah but I'm talking on an overall basis. Of course, if you voiced an opinion against liberalisation of divorce laws, you'd be automatically mocked as some kind of religious freak even if you never in a church in your life.

    The above is an analogy for discussion on gay marriage. You may think that allowing gays to "marry" doesn't dilute anything but that is your opinion so don't think you have the right to push that on to others. Because by doing that, you will never change anyone's opinion.


    Does allowing gay marriage change the definition of marriage? The answer is yes. Does it dilute the meaning of marriage? Yes of course, it expands the definition; now it has more meanings. If you are against gay marriage are you automatically a zealot or homophobic or small minded? No, you might be just trying to protect the institution of marriage (as you see it). Do you have the right to push that definition of something onto others? Well in effect you are not pushing your definition onto others, you are just maintaining the status quo. Do others, so-called "liberals" have the right to push their own definition to force a change? I would say no. What is a compromise? Maybe allow the gays to have different types of union. Have something new and call it something different rather than trying to force your changes onto everyone else!


    My other solution, maybe allow Gay marriage but forbid gay divorce. That'll learn them :D


    oh and don't forget, gays could always get married. Always. And they could get married to other gays. Just not to ones of the same sex :P


  • #60
    jill_valentine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,090 ✭✭✭jill_valentine


    There we go.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,443 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by darced viewpost.gif
    Gay marriage will lead to gay adoption which I dont really agree with,what is the need to marry for gays anyway?civil union,marriage,all more or less the same thing.

    Is the gay marriage debate really just about adoption?

    Your opinion is your opinion. You haven't provided a rationale for it though. Is this because you don't have one?

    Civil partnership is not the same as marriage. Its perfect for couples (gay or straight) who want a civil partnership. Its useless for couples who want to marry. Its like saying a visa is the same thing as citizenship.

    Its not just about adoption. Its about respect and recognition.

    Edit: If you don't agree with gay adoption, don't adopt a gay child. This should address your objection.


Advertisement
Advertisement