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.
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?
Comments
-
-
Amongst the (rightful) clamour for equality, people seem to be blissfully (or perhaps wilfully) ignorant of the inherent discriminatory state of marriage, whether of the hetero or homosexual kind. Usually based on class lines.
Co-habitating couples from lower socioeconomic backgrounds often cannot afford to marry, since that often means loss of benefits (e.g single parent allowance). Plus they don't earn enough to make much use of the tax breaks available to married couples. AH logic however dictates;
Unmarried couple from council estate claiming welfare: Scum :mad:
Married couple from wealthy upper-middle class background availing of tax breaks: OK
The State should play no part in the intimate love lives of its citizens. Bestowing extra rights on people because they declare love for each other is wrong full stop, gay or straight. Guardianship rights, next of kin, etc, are important issues and can and should be legislated for in a more logical way than marriage.
I don't have any problem with gay marriage (other than the same ones I have for straight marriage). I do feel however that it seems to be a cause célèbre for equality whilst ignoring the fact that it still discriminates. Inequality is fine once you're on the right side of the fence0 -
Jimoslimos wrote: »Amongst the (rightful) clamour for equality, people seem to be blissfully (or perhaps wilfully) ignorant of the inherent discriminatory state of marriage, whether of the hetero or homosexual kind. Usually based on class lines.
Co-habitating couples from lower socioeconomic backgrounds often cannot afford to marry, since that often means loss of benefits (e.g single parent allowance). Plus they don't earn enough to make much use of the tax breaks available to married couples. AH logic however dictates;
Unmarried couple from council estate claiming welfare: Scum :mad:
Married couple from wealthy upper-middle class background availing of tax breaks: OK
The State should play no part in the intimate love lives of its citizens. Bestowing extra rights on people because they declare love for each other is wrong full stop, gay or straight. Guardianship rights, next of kin, etc, are important issues and can and should be legislated for in a more logical way than marriage.
I don't have any problem with gay marriage (other than the same ones I have for straight marriage). I do feel however that it seems to be a cause célèbre for equality whilst ignoring the fact that it still discriminates. Inequality is fine once you're on the right side of the fence
How much does it cost to get married in a registry office? I'd doubt the cost is prohibitive, so am not sure you're argument stands up.
And it's not a "cause célèbre", it's seen by many people (even straight people like myself) as a basic human right. If you don't care about it, that's cool, just don't contribute to the debate then.0 -
-
I could care less about what the church thinks of gays getting married. I married my wife after spending 17 years together, I didn't get married in a church, I got married in a registry office. We simply got married for financial reasons, not because we wanted our union recognised by a bunch of hypocrites (insert religion here).
People who oppose gays signing a piece of paper so the state recognises their union, are eejits who think people should conform to what they see as normal. I say feck em and carry on regardless.
As long as someone is not doing something to harm themselves or others, I say let them at it. The religious types are quiet happy to ignore their own short comings and focus on something that is none of their business.
Marriage is a piece of paper to me, I don't need someone's approval to know I'm committed to my partner.
Anyone who has a problem with gay marriage can kiss my hairy ass, dangle berries and all 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
StinkyMunkey wrote: »I could care less about what the church thinks of gays getting married. I married my wife after spending 17 years together, I didn't get married in a church, I got married in a registry office. We simply got married for financial reasons, not because we wanted our union recognised by a bunch of hypocrites (insert religion here).
What are you talking about? How is this relevant? You are just giving your own personal opinion on marriage. It has no relevance to anyone else's opinion or arguments against anything
I presume you didn't have any reception then? Or even bother telling your family/friends if it was purely financial?
Why wait 17 years to do something that presumably could have given you financial benefits much sooner? Seems like a bit of a stupid thing to me.
You'll have people saying "it means nothing, it'd only a bit of paper" then in their next breath saying how they'd never get married. Seems a bit contradictory to me!
BTW, if you "could care less" it means you care a bit
0 -
Advertisement
-
But, people are allowed be stupid and contradictory. As long as it doesn't impact on anybody else. That's part of the fun of being people!What are you talking about? How is this relevant? You are just giving your own personal opinion on marriage. It has no relevance to anyone else's opinion or arguments against anything
I presume you didn't have any reception then? Or even bother telling your family/friends if it was purely financial?
Why wait 17 years to do something that presumably could have given you financial benefits much sooner? Seems like a bit of a stupid thing to me.
You'll have people saying "it means nothing, it'd only a bit of paper" then in their next breath saying how they'd never get married. Seems a bit contradictory to me!
BTW, if you "could care less" it means you care a bit0 -
-
Jimoslimos wrote: »Co-habitating couples from lower socioeconomic backgrounds often cannot afford to marry, since that often means loss of benefits (e.g single parent allowance). Plus they don't earn enough to make much use of the tax breaks available to married couples. AH logic however dictates;
Unmarried couple from council estate claiming welfare: Scum :mad:
Married couple from wealthy upper-middle class background availing of tax breaks: OK
Few issues with this. Firstly, a wedding cost little to nothing, so the "cannot afford it" line is rubbish. You can get married in a registry office during your lunch break. I know one person who has done this. The first couple are using the "cannot afford it" line to justify their fraudulent behaviour. Single parent allowance isn't meant for households in which there are two adults, who are a couple and parents, who fancy a few extra quid. It is meant for households in which there is only one (single) parent to help them out.
Secondly, there is one massive difference between the two couples. The first couple are breaking the law of the land and are guilty of fraud, whilst the second are living within the bounds of the law. The first couple is stealing from every law abiding tax payer in the country. They are stealing from couple B. It's very simple really.0 -
-
Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on!!!PopePalpatine wrote: »Perhaps you should read up on the history of gay marriage: it's more than just a recent "fad".
Some of that predates the church, christian marriage, and jebus!
What exactly are you trying to say here?!?
0 -
-
-
-
What are you talking about? How is this relevant? You are just giving your own personal opinion on marriage. It has no relevance to anyone else's opinion or arguments against anything
I presume you didn't have any reception then? Or even bother telling your family/friends if it was purely financial?
Why wait 17 years to do something that presumably could have given you financial benefits much sooner? Seems like a bit of a stupid thing to me.
You'll have people saying "it means nothing, it'd only a bit of paper" then in their next breath saying how they'd never get married. Seems a bit contradictory to me!
BTW, if you "could care less" it means you care a bit
What difference does it make how we celebrated the day with family and friends, or am I obliged to follow a set plan?
You missed my whole point. Ill make it a little more understandable, I don't care about a piece of paper that says I'm married. What I do care about is people who think its their god given right to dictate how others should live their lives to their standards (pun intended).0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Because it would be daft. Are you arguing for the sake of argument?enfant terrible wrote: »Why is it daft if they are in love and want to get married why not change the laws on marriage to allow them to marry too?
On the assumption you aren't.....
.....right, I'll kick off with 'patriarchal inequality', if I may?
In cultures which permit polygamous (I'm sure you realise bigamy is a crime, not a state. You really meant polygamy, didn't you) marriages, it tends to be a man marrying multiple wives, where the man's word is law, and the wives status is inferior. It doesn't happen the other way round. And this arrangement is usually based on an ancient and anachronistic belief system.
That's why I wouldn't. If you can find an example of a modern, well-educated, non-religious person who would willingly like to enter into such an arrangement, I'll take your point. You'll be a long time looking though.0 -
-
Because it would be daft. Are you arguing for the sake of argument?
On the assumption you aren't.....
.....right, I'll kick off with 'patriarchal inequality', if I may?
In cultures which permit polygamous (I'm sure you realise bigamy is a crime, not a state. You really meant polygamy, didn't you) marriages, it tends to be a man marrying multiple wives, where the man's word is law, and the wives status is inferior. It doesn't happen the other way round. And this arrangement is usually based on an ancient and anachronistic belief system.
That's why I wouldn't. If you can find an example of a modern, well-educated, non-religious person who would willingly like to enter into such an arrangement, I'll take your point. You'll be a long time looking though.
I'm talking about our culture.
Are you saying there are no people who would want to enter a polygamous marriage in the western world?0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement