The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well that boat sailed a long time ago, marriage is now a contract with an undefined expiration date. Divorce did that, not same sex unions.

I don't think most people marry thinking that the expiration date is defined on some contract that says 'till I get tired and want more, couldn't give a crap if we have children or no'....That's where family law comes in.

Not really - ask any ex partner with a child messed up in family law and divorce proceedings? Some of them become so bitter they pay to score points for years and years and years - and so enraged that they tear down everything, even spend their lives doing it..

What has that got to do with 'Marriage'? Or why should we change it? Some fail that's why it should be not 'Marriage' but as you say only a contract? Is that the case? If so, why fight for it so hard, if it's merely a contract?

I think it's about family, a mum dad and their children.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Gay couples can and do have children. There are hundreds of children in Ireland right now being raised by gay couples. Those children are being denied the protections of that marriage brings, because their parents can't get married. If you believe marriage is about protecting the family with children, then it has to apply to all families with children, not just the ones with heterosexual parents.

I'm not denying that there are gay couples who love a child, but they didn't have them with their 'partners' - that's a fact! No, they are not being denied anything that any other couple who break up have concerning a biological child have under law either - and there are lots of couples who are not gay and have problems they have to work out.

Neither am I denying that any child should not be protected no matter whom their parents are, or discriminated against, every single child is precious.

What I AM saying is that Marriage is completely different to that, and nothing got to do with what you are saying. It's different because it involves a biological family unit - a mother and father with children.

When you redefine Marriage, it impacts on redefining not only what 'Marriage' is to a couple, but also a gay couple and also what it is to any kind of imaginable family unit - including polygamy logically, and where that leaves children.

Marriage is FOR children - It may be something that goes against our carnal nature blah blah etc so on... but marriage is something that is right for children and to foster love and responsibility, it's the most progressive step to give security and nurture. It's promoted in society for a good reason.

I don't see why anybody would want to redefine it, other than to make it meaningless, and why anybody would want to do that is not anything to do with security for children, but I can't help feel that it's more so to do with their own personal feelings regarding themselves despite all others.

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm not denying that there are gay couples who love a child, but they didn't have them with their 'partners' - that's a fact!

Ummm, no it isn't a fact. They may not have have the children together, in the natural sense, but some have had them "with" their partners in the same way thousands of heterosexual couples with reproductive problems have.

Just because your particular religion has an issue with IVF and other reproductive therapies does not entitle you to ignore their existence and use untrue sound-site you back up your logically unstable position.

lmaopml wrote: »

No, they are not being denied anything that any other couple who break up have concerning a biological child have under law either - and there are lots of couples who are not gay and have problems they have to work out.

I am not sure what your point is here... There are a couple of possibilities, I think, so I will try to address them all. You can then let me know which one you were referring to.

First option. You are referring to unmarried heterosexual couples and the fact that they can have similar problems, post break-up to unmarried same-sex couples. This is possibly true, though I believe there are a number of actions a heterosexual couple can take to partially address the the inequality in parental rights post breakup. In addition, and this is the big one, a heterosexual couple can always get married. So, if you are trying to say that unmarried heterosexual couples have similar issues to unmarried same-sex couples, because of their unmarried status, then your argument falls down because the unmarried heterosexual couple can get married, something you seek to deny to the same sex couple.

Second option, even when married there are issues with children post breakup. This isn't a great argument either. Whilst there might still be issues post breakup that need to be dealt with the simple fact is marriage will resolve at least some of the issues that will arise during a breakup and will most certainly help with the issues that a same sex couple currently have when one of the couple dies.

lmaopml wrote: »

Neither am I denying that any child should not be protected no matter whom their parents are, or discriminated against, every single child is precious.

What I AM saying is that Marriage is completely different to that, and nothing got to do with what you are saying. It's different because it involves a biological family unit - a mother and father with children.

I guess you guys cling to this biological family unit argument because it is all you have really, aside from religious arguments, which are pretty useless, but this argument really isn't much better.

As has been pointed out to you many times, there is no requirement for children to be born in order for a marriage, or a family to be valid. There are no fertility tests, no questionnaires to establish the intention of the couple to have children. So the problem here is this: If you are going to decide that marriage is about children and people should not be able to get married unless they are capable and will of having children naturally, then by not ensuring that heterosexual are capable of and intend to have children, then your are talking about a discriminatory policy.

Let me explain what I mean here. You are arguing that marriage is about having children, but further, you argue that it is about having children naturally. OK, so far. Now, the state is perfectly able to discriminate in certain circumstances, but there are limits. First we would run a comparators test. We have a gay couple that aren't allowed to be married. The reason given is that they can't [naturally] have children. We believe they are being discriminated against due to their sexuality, so we compare them to a heterosexual couple that can't have children. When we do this we find that there is no restriction on them getting married, so discrimination.

So you have failed the first bit really, but we can look at the second bit anyway, as it is quite important, and again shows the wrongness of your position and highlights you inability to justify your discrimination based on anything other than religious belief and your particular flavour of morality. The state can discriminate if it can show that the discrimination is a proportionate measure to fulfil a legitimate aim. Is it proportionate? Clearly not. You want to tell every single gay person that they are unable to marry anyone that they might want to marry. What is the legitimate aim? Seriously, what is it?

lmaopml wrote: »

When you redefine Marriage, it impacts on redefining not only what 'Marriage' is to a couple, but also a gay couple and also what it is to any kind of imaginable family unit - including polygamy logically, and where that leaves children.

Can you explain how this redefinition actually effects anyone? You guys, anti same-sex marriage people that is, keep saying this but never actually explain what the impact is.

Polygamy is not logically included. First of all, polygamy is not a protected class, for the purposes of discrimination legislation. Secondly, if we look at proportional measure and legitimate aim it is very different to same sex couples. First, the person is not barred from marrying anyone. A polygamous person can marry another person, so there is not an outright 100% ban on them being married. The bar is merely on them marrying more than one person. Legitimate aim? Polygamy is generally frowned upon on the basis of equality. Polygamy tend to give rise to very unequal, in terms of rights, relationships. If you look at countries where it is allowed they tend to not be bastions on equality. Additionally, this type of relationship can lead to friction, anxiety and social friction. Therefore, on balance, the state is likely perfectly justified in banning such relationships, as many do.

The anti same-sex crowd's slippery slope argument really isn't work the effort of typing. At the end of the day any particular type of marriage should be looked at on its own and analyed in terms of what it means. Allowing same sex marriage does not mean men marrying kids, animals, tractors or 5 women. It means one man marrying another man or one woman marrying another woman. That's it.

lmaopml wrote: »

Marriage is FOR children - It may be something that goes against our carnal nature blah blah etc so on... but marriage is something that is right for children and to foster love and responsibility, it's the most progressive step to give security and nurture. It's promoted in society for a good reason.

So why do you insist on denying it to the children of same sex couples? Are they less deserving than the children of heterosexual couples?

lmaopml wrote: »

I don't see why anybody would want to redefine it, other than to make it meaningless, and why anybody would want to do that is not anything to do with security for children, but I can't help feel that it's more so to do with their own personal feelings regarding themselves despite all others.

I still don't understand why it would become meaningless. I am doing a dissertation on, broadly, this subject. I have read article after article from anti same-sex academics, I have read hundreds and hundreds of pages of court reports on same sex marriage cases and I still can't actually see what the problem is. There is plenty of talk about marriage becoming meaningless, the harm that will befall marriage and society, but at the end of the day, there is nothing. All these arguments are merely attempts to try to move opposition to same-sex marriage away from sectarian, religiously motivate bigotry to more palatable non-religious reasons, but they fail. Just a little scrape of the surface and you see the real reason, a disapproval for homosexuals based, for the most part, on particular religious doctrines. Not acceptable people.

MrP

lmaopml wrote: »

I don't think most people marry thinking that the expiration date is defined on some contract that says 'till I get tired and want more, couldn't give a crap if we have children or no'....That's where family law comes in.

(edit)
What has that got to do with 'Marriage'? Or why should we change it? Some fail that's why it should be not 'Marriage' but as you say only a contract? Is that the case? If so, why fight for it so hard, if it's merely a contract?

I think it's about family, a mum dad and their children.

Of course you are right, marriage is much more than a contract, it a social validation and a recognition by that society of a legitimate family. If it was just a contract then their wouldn't be a problem. We could just give equal legal standing to all similar contracts and move on. It's the bit about social validation that's causing this furrore.
Somewhere along the line of this discussion we have moved from marriage meaning a hetro couple to marriage meaning a family with genetic offspring.

Again, how do you justifies restricting what is a legal validation of a social institute on the basis of sexual orientation? This is so clearly a human right not to be denied on that basis that it amazes me that anyone can put forward the argument.

It's about love and the freedom to chose who you love and the acceptance of the society you live in and contribute to.

@MrPudding

It means one man marrying another man or one woman marrying another woman.

at a time

We have no problem with serial monogamy it's just overlaps that cause the problems.

Doctor DooM

lmaopml wrote: »

What I AM saying is that Marriage is completely different to that, and nothing got to do with what you are saying. It's different because it involves a biological family unit - a mother and father with children.

When you redefine Marriage, it impacts on redefining not only what 'Marriage' is to a couple, but also a gay couple and also what it is to any kind of imaginable family unit - including polygamy logically, and where that leaves children.

Marriage is FOR children - It may be something that goes against our carnal nature blah blah etc so on... but marriage is something that is right for children and to foster love and responsibility, it's the most progressive step to give security and nurture. It's promoted in society for a good reason.

I don't see why anybody would want to redefine it, other than to make it meaningless, and why anybody would want to do that is not anything to do with security for children, but I can't help feel that it's more so to do with their own personal feelings regarding themselves despite all others.

I don't know what ccountry you're living in, but my step sister and I watched our parents marry for love purely and get rather tired of these insulting 'marriage isfor the kids' arguments, where people effectively insult the people who dedicated their lives to bring us up in a loving but non traditional environment.

They then of course say 'thats not what I mean' despite their entire argument revolving around it.

NuMarvel

lmaopml wrote: »

What I AM saying is that Marriage is completely different to that, and nothing got to do with what you are saying. It's different because it involves a biological family unit - a mother and father with children.

This seems to be the basis of your argument, and it's wrong. Marriage and family does not have to involve any children, the courts have already ruled on that. And even if kids were a requirement, no one would apply a criteria that they must be biologically related to both parents. That would leave hundreds of adopted children in an unfair position overnight. Whatever you look at it, the State already applies a different definition of family and marriage. We can't move to your preferred ideal without marginalising a significant number of heterosexual married couples.

lazygal

Me and my husband were no less married before we had children, or more married afterwards. I know married couples who don't want children, they aren't less married than us. I know married couples struggling with infertility and looking at adoption of non biological children, again they are no less or more married than us.

As a married couple, other people's marriages and the right to marry a man or a woman, has zero impact on our marriage. Zilch. Your marriage would want to be on rocky ground if two men or women getting married would affect it. And its extremely silly to bring children into it - we were never asked during the registration process or the marriage ceremony itself our plans in regard to having biological children. It has nothing to do with marriage.

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm not denying that there are gay couples who love a child, but they didn't have them with their 'partners' - that's a fact! No, they are not being denied anything that any other couple who break up have concerning a biological child have under law either - and there are lots of couples who are not gay and have problems they have to work out.

Neither am I denying that any child should not be protected no matter whom their parents are, or discriminated against, every single child is precious.

What I AM saying is that Marriage is completely different to that, and nothing got to do with what you are saying. It's different because it involves a biological family unit - a mother and father with children.

When you redefine Marriage, it impacts on redefining not only what 'Marriage' is to a couple, but also a gay couple and also what it is to any kind of imaginable family unit - including polygamy logically, and where that leaves children.

Marriage is FOR children - It may be something that goes against our carnal nature blah blah etc so on... but marriage is something that is right for children and to foster love and responsibility, it's the most progressive step to give security and nurture. It's promoted in society for a good reason.

I don't see why anybody would want to redefine it, other than to make it meaningless, and why anybody would want to do that is not anything to do with security for children, but I can't help feel that it's more so to do with their own personal feelings regarding themselves despite all others.

My sister and her husband did not have their son together - is their marriage invalid?

My 93 year old great-uncle and his 89 year old wife married in 1945, they have no children - is their marriage invalid?

What about my brother's adopted daughter - has she equal membership in their family to his two biological daughters?

My best mate and her brother were both adopted - were they and their parents a real family?

If marriage is for children - why was I not allowed to marry my OH and give our son the legal protections of having two recognised parents? Because he wasn't my OH's biological son?

But my nephew's legally recognised father has no biological relationship to him either he is simply the husband of my nephew's mother...

Two boys two years apart in age born to two sisters both of whom are in long-term monogamous relationships with people who have no biological relationship to their sons - one boy does have two legally recognised parents, one does not. Why? Because one boy's mother is heterosexual so could marry her partner and this in turn enabled her spouse to adopt their son.

The other boy was born to a lesbian so was consigned to be considered the child of a single mother even though he did have another parent. One who was there his whole life unlike his cousin's father who first met his son when the boy was 10 years old.

It is all very well and good to say marriage is about providing a secure and stable environment for raising children (it isn't really or childless marriages would be invalid) but it's a bit rich to say oh- we only mean when the children are the biological product of both members of the married couple.

By this logic adopted children are not included either so is the marriage of those whose children are adopted valid?

Or are only the children of heterosexual women worthy of growing up in this all important safe and secure environment as afforded by marriage while those of lesbians are somehow unworthy? Unless they are adopted by heterosexuals then they can have two legally recognised parents (who have no biological relationship to them)?

When you look at the reality of life and the existence of children being raised by same-sex couples then it is hard to see how your stance is not advocating discrimination against those children by denying them access to two legal parents.

'Sorry kid but as your mommy is a lesbian you only get to have the one parent but if your mommy was straight of course you could have two parents. No, your daddy would not have to be your actual biological daddy - see we believe all children should have the security of being raised by a married couple and all the rights and protections that entails so we allow the spouses of lone parents to adopt their partner's children- except if their biological mammy or daddy is gay obviously.'

Guys since I posted last night there are six different responses from the regulars on this thread - and I'm only one person..lol..who only posts on Friday evenings mostly, and not often by a long shot on this thread.

I'll try to give it a shot later time permitting to post however, as I think it's good to see where people are coming from, and at least try to understand - that can only be a good thing. I would like to understand what legal differences are being made in real life situations - and perhaps say why I think marriage is something that I believe should be set aside and protected.

Please remember however, that this is not my 'pet' drum to beat as a poster on the forum, and I'm no expert, and haven't written or studied or done any dissertations on the subject, like many of the posters who may be more dedicated on this topic and follow this thread, like some of your good selves.

lmaopml wrote: »

Guys since I posted last night there are six different responses from the regulars on this thread - and I'm only one person..lol..who only posts on Friday evenings mostly, and not often by a long shot on this thread.

I'll try to give it a shot later time permitting to post however, as I think it's good to see where people are coming from, and at least try to understand - that can only be a good thing. I would like to understand what legal differences are being made in real life situations - and perhaps say why I think marriage is something that I believe should be set aside and protected.

Please remember however, that this is not my 'pet' drum to beat as a poster on the forum, and I'm no expert, and haven't written or studied or done any dissertations on the subject, like many of the posters who may be more dedicated on this topic and follow this thread, like some of your good selves.

Bann is probably the best person to explain the difficulties that arise, from a legal perspective, with respect to children. In fact, I believe she has already explained in some detail the lengths she and her partner had to go to in making preparations should one of them die. one thing to to remember is that it is not just about the legal side of things. Even if same-sex couples had something available to them which was identical, legally, to marriage, but could not use the term marriage, that is still wrong. That is the state saying that same sex relationships are lessor and opposite sex relationships. If you are going to say that then you need a justification for it.

I am really happy that you are engaging with this conversation, and I am looking forward to you explaining why you think marriage deserves protection, and from what, at the expense of loving same-sex couples and their existing or future children.

MrP

MrPudding wrote: »

Bann is probably the best person to explain the difficulties that arise, from a legal perspective, with respect to children. In fact, I believe she has already explained in some detail the lengths she and her partner had to go to in making preparations should one of them die. one thing to to remember is that it is not just about the legal side of things. Even if same-sex couples had something available to them which was identical, legally, to marriage, but could not use the term marriage, that is still wrong. That is the state saying that same sex relationships are lessor and opposite sex relationships. If you are going to say that then you need a justification for it.

I'm not saying that any one person is 'lessor' - let me make that clear. I realise that there are people who are 'hurting' etc. and they don't have to be homosexuals either.

I'm saying that I think Marriage is important because it involves children and parents. I tend to view it as a child's right to know their father and mother and that this is beneficial and healthy for them - I think it's important to remember that this is the reason why 'marriage' is paused over in relation to what the State promotes for the common good. It's not merely because of a disney movie outlook on marriage, but because of the reality that a child will experience within an environment where they have both father and mother. I happen to believe that both role models are important to a child too....that there are natural instincts that both parents fulfill, and this is important to society and for the common good too of society.

I am really happy that you are engaging with this conversation, and I am looking forward to you explaining why you think marriage deserves protection, and from what, at the expense of loving same-sex couples and their existing or future children.

MrP

Cheers, Mr. P.

I guess I don't think that one can underestimate the value of a male and female role model in a family unit, even in a broken or suffering marriage a child will inevitably want to 'know' their parents - their mum and their dad, simply because they know they have both.

While I understand that people should not be discriminated against, and I think this is a red herring really, as people are not being discriminated against merely 'because' of their choices, no not so, and laws are not built around individual rights only - there is a notion of the common good of a society and I think it's reasonable to say that strong marriages do promote the common good of a society.

I think that's my thoughts really thus far - I hope not to hurt anybody, it's not my wish, but I do think it should be ok to say what I believe is 'good' too - as opposed to beating people with a stick, I'm not qualified for that, and neither am I looking to engage in it.

Cheers for you response. Apologise for the length of mine, but I find this an interesting subject and there is lots to say on it.

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm not saying that any one person is 'lessor' - let me make that clear. I realise that there are people who are 'hurting' etc. and they don't have to be homosexuals either.

I fully accept that your intention might not be to say that one person is lessor than another, but that is the result of what you are proposing. By restricting the use of the term marriage to opposite sex couples, when you have already said that marriage is special and need protecting, what you are actually saying, intentionally or not, is that same-sex couples are inferior, they don't deserve to use the "special" term marriage and further, marriage needs to be protected from them. Can you see how this might not be an acceptable view to project?

The fact the non-homosexual people are hurting or have issues is also not a sufficient reason not fix the problem that same-sex couple face.

lmaopml wrote: »

I'm saying that I think Marriage is important because it involves children and parents. I tend to view it as a child's right to know their father and mother and that this is beneficial and healthy for them - I think it's important to remember that this is the reason why 'marriage' is paused over in relation to what the State promotes for the common good. It's not merely because of a disney movie outlook on marriage, but because of the reality that a child will experience within an environment where they have both father and mother. I happen to believe that both role models are important to a child too....that there are natural instincts that both parents fulfill, and this is important to society and for the common good too of society.

It is arguable that things are as they are because of a long existing bias or animus towards same sex couples. For a long time homosexuals have been subject to hostile behaviour and discrimination and law were formed on that basis. As societies have become more enlightened they have come to realise that this hostility and discrimination has no place, and so these laws are being overturned. This really is the last big big one. So whilst the law currently might favour opposite sex couples you can't really take anything form that other than the realisation that the "good" that the state is promoting is born of a time when homosexuals were hated, distrusted and seriously discriminated against. Not really a solid, equitable and fair basis for a law.

I will get to the "kids need and mother and father" below.

lmaopml wrote: »

Cheers, Mr. P.

You're welcome.

lmaopml wrote: »

I guess I don't think that one can underestimate the value of a male and female role model in a family unit, even in a broken or suffering marriage a child will inevitably want to 'know' their parents - their mum and their dad, simply because they know they have both.

There are a couple of problems with this. The first is that there isn't really any indication that having male and female role models is a requirement for the healthy upbringing of a child, and there isn't really any indication that not having them is any detriment.

I really hope you aren't going to pull a Jimitime and scream gay conspiracy, but there really is a preponderance of evidence that suggests that however much our instinct tells us a mother and father is important, the facts don't bear that out. Having a loving couple at the head of the house seems to be the most important attribute of a household that will raise happy well adjusted kids.

You may have noticed a couple of months ago that there was a bit of action in the Supreme Court of the US around the Proposition 8 case from California as well as a challenge on DOMA. The ASA, the American Sociological Society, submitted an amicus brief, as did many other interested parties, you can find it here is you are interested, I would highly recommend. I know you have little time, so I will give you a few highlights:

All valid science affirms same-sex marriage. (my highlighting).
There is no evidence that children with parents in stable same-sex or opposite-sex relationships differ in terms of well-being.
The Regenerous study (David Quinn's new favorite study) is deeply flawed and not accepted. See here for more on that.
The social science consensus is both conclusive and clear: children fare just as well when they are raised by same-sex parents as when they are raised by opposite-sex parents.

Now, I am hoping that you are going to be more open than Jimi and Phil were on this. I appreciate that you believe a mother and father are required, or offer the best chance for a child, but your belief is simply not born out by reality. As a result, it simply can't be used as justification for continued discrimination against an entire class of person.

The second problem is directly relating to children. You are ignoring the possible scenarios where a same-sex couple might have children. I am perfectly happy to accept that there are some advantages, for children, when their parents are married. That seems quite clear. The problem, for you, is that there is no indication that the marriage needs to be between a man and a woman. Therefore, by seeking to continue the ban on same sex marriage you are putting the children of same sex couples at a disadvantage and for them to be brought up in a manner which is less advantageous to them than that which there opposite-sex parented classmates have. If you truly care about children how can you think that is right.

Same-sex couples can have children from previous opposite-sex relationships. They can adopt, like same-sex couples (well, one of them can adopt and if that person dies the child will likely be taken into care because the law does not recognise the other as a parent, which it would if they were married). And like opposite-sex couples, religious beliefs apart, they can take advantage of IVF and surrogates. Why do they not deserve the protection of marriage for their parents?

lmaopml wrote: »

While I understand that people should not be discriminated against, and I think this is a red herring really, as people are not being discriminated against merely 'because' of their choices, no not so,

What choice? I really hope you are trying to say that people choose to be gay...

lmaopml wrote: »

and laws are not built around individual rights only - there is a notion of the common good of a society and I think it's reasonable to say that strong marriages do promote the common good of a society.

Quite correct, laws are not, in general, built around individuals. They tend to be build around classes of person. We already have laws to protect gay people form discrimination, so it is quite clear that laws are already built around that particular class of person, so there is nothing unique being asked for here, in terms of laws for an individual. In addition, as I mentioned above, in reality we are talking about a correction here. Historically laws have been discriminatory against gay people, they have been influence by the lawmakers personal opinion towards gay people; fear, mistrust, revulsion, moral outrage etc. That is no longer acceptable. In reality we are not talking about a raft of new laws to give more rights to gay people, we are, arguably, talking about removing restrictions that probably should not have been there in the first place because they were put there for the wrong reasons.

The common good argument does not work. I won't argue that strong marriages aren't good for society, but that is not enough for a couple of reasons. First, just because something is not the best is not a reason to ban it. To give a good example, related to children; studies show that single parent families are inferior to married families. The children of single parent families tend to do less well than married families and the children are more likely to get into trouble with the law. Is there a common good argument for banning single parent families?

Secondly, even allowing that strong marriages are good for society, as the evidence would seem to suggest, the evidence would also suggest that this is the case whether the marriage is opposite-sex or same-sex, so you are actually arguing for same-sex marriage here. If marriage promotes and assists the common good of society, and there appears to be no difference, in this respect, between same-sex and opposite-sex marriage, and if you are interested in the common good of the state then why would you support banning marriage from same sex couples?

I have posted this before, and it is a bit of a monster, but please have a read of the Perry v Brown case form California. You will see a lot of the same arguments being raised by the proponents of Proposition 8, you will see them completely fail to put forward any meaningful evidence to support these claims and you will see a judge complete, totally and utterly take there arguments apart.

It pains me to see people try to use these same arguments. They really are worthless.

lmaopml wrote: »

I think that's my thoughts really thus far - I hope not to hurt anybody, it's not my wish, but I do think it should be ok to say what I believe is 'good' too - as opposed to beating people with a stick, I'm not qualified for that, and neither am I looking to engage in it.

I understand that a lot of your feeling on this is informed by your religious belief, and I understand that this can be a very difficult thing to fight against, but I hope that you can be persuaded, that is why I post this stuff. They have it wrong here Imaopml, they really do.

MrP

aloyisious

As this is the Gay Megathread, I hope the Mod's will forgive me putting this up here. Dublin Pride Week 21st - 30th June (it's 30th Anni) is coming up soon and as precursors this coming week, Tonie Walsh and Ailbhe Smyth are giving presentations (Tonie at 1PM on Monday 10th at Central Library ILAC Centre & Tues 11th Cabra Library, AND Ailbhe at 1PM on Thurs 13th at Central Library ILAC Centre)

Tonie Walsh of the IQA (Irish Queer Archives) presents his talk on the history and appreciation of the LGBT civil rights movement since the early beginnings of “gay liberation” on the island of Ireland c.1971. State sponsored homophobia. Censorship. David Norris Constitutional Action and decriminalisation. Fairview Park and anti-violence campaigns.

Ailbhe Smyth has been an "out" lesbian for many years. A born and bred "dub", she will be talking about her life in the city, her involvement in LGBT and feminist politics and about how much has changed over the past few decades.

Booking essential..... contact: Central Library, T. 873 4333, E. centrallibrary@dublincity.ie; Cabra Library, T.869 1414, E. cabralibrary@dublincity.ie..... These are part of Dublin Pride events.

NuMarvel

MrPudding wrote: »

Same-sex couples can have children from previous opposite-sex relationships. They can adopt, like same-sex couples (well, one of them can adopt and if that person dies the child will likely be taken into care because the law does not recognise the other as a parent, which it would if they were married). And like opposite-sex couples, religious beliefs apart, they can take advantage of IVF and surrogates. Why do they not deserve the protection of marriage for their parents?

In addition to this point, I really want to highlight that all of the above happens in Ireland, despite the continuing ban on same sex marriage. There are hundreds of children in Ireland being raised right now by gay couples, despite those couples being unable to marry in Ireland. The ban on same sex marriage doesn't stop gay couples becoming parents, it just stops gay couples being able to offer legal protections and rights through marriage to their partners and children.

That's why I sometimes think all this talk about same sex parents is a bit of a distraction, because becoming a parent isn't dependent on someone's marital status. Whether the ban on same sex marriage is overturned or not, gay couples will continue to have and raise children. Opponents of same sex parenting have put their money on the wrong horse by opposing same sex marriage, and are doing more harm than good to children with same sex parents.

doctoremma

lmaopml wrote: »

What I AM saying is that Marriage is completely different to that, and nothing got to do with what you are saying. It's different because it involves a biological family unit - a mother and father with children.

That's interesting, because as far as my husband, myself and the state in which we married are concerned, our marriage involves a couple. And a couple with no intention to ever procreate, to boot. Am I contributing to the societal decline of marriage? Have I somehow "reduced" the meaning of anyone else's marriage?

eviltwin

doctoremma wrote: »

That's interesting, because as far as my husband, myself and the state in which we married are concerned, our marriage involves a couple. And a couple with no intention to ever procreate, to boot. Am I contributing to the societal decline of marriage? Have I somehow "reduced" the meaning of anyone else's marriage?

As a married woman with kids I can honestly say your decision not to have children doesn't undermine my marriage a jot. Although we had our kids before marriage so maybe we are not a valid married couple either. Blimey its all so confusing!!!

Seriously though I know a couple who got married a couple of years ago. Neither want kids. My best friend got married last year, she and her husband are unable to have children although they would love them. We don't sit around when we meet up and have a "my marriage is better than yours" debate, we never even think about it.

If you are the type of person who feels marriage equality will undermine the relationship you have with your spouse then you have bigger problems imo.

NuMarvel

doctoremma wrote: »

That's interesting, because as far as my husband, myself and the state in which we married are concerned, our marriage involves a couple. And a couple with no intention to ever procreate, to boot. Am I contributing to the societal decline of marriage? Have I somehow "reduced" the meaning of anyone else's marriage?

eviltwin wrote: »

Seriously though I know a couple who got married a couple of years ago. Neither want kids. My best friend got married last year, she and her husband are unable to have children although they would love them. We don't sit around when we meet up and have a "my marriage is better than yours" debate, we never even think about it.

These bring up a major flaw in the "marriage is about children" argument: when people apply to marry, they are not asked at any stage about their ability or desire to have children, never mind their suitability to be parents.

If marriage is supposed to be built around children, shouldn't the State make at least a cursory enquiry about what the couple think about children? If gay couples are denied the right to marry because they can't be a mother and father, shouldn't the same apply to everyone who can't or doesn't want to be?

I do find it interesting that marriage is now being defined solely as man plus woman plus biological children of both who were conceived after the marriage occurred and it lasts until death.

Under that very limited re-definition there are many, many families in Ireland where the adults might think they are married (as does the State which treats them as married) but in fact are not as they do not conform to this man plus woman plus biological children of both who were conceived after the marriage occurred and it lasts until death definition...

So my separated 30 years but won't divorce as they are Catholic parents are 'married'. They just can't tolerate each other's presence for more than an hour at a funeral before the flame war starts . Yet, they are the 'ideal' as they do conform to man plus woman plus biological children of both who were conceived after the marriage occurred and it lasts until death...:eek:

My sister might think she has been married 20 years but clearly hasn't as their son is not her husband's biological son - I am not sure if, given the 'til death' clause, she may be considered still married to her first husband as she did get an annulment from the RCC on the grounds that he didn't want children but then learned that as far as the State was concerned she was still married even though the RCC said she was never really married - she moved to the UK and got a divorce and I think the story now is that the State said she was married but that was dissolved while the RCC say her first marriage was invalid so doesn't count. She will be annoyed to be told her second marriage apparently doesn't count either.

My brother - wow - where to start. He is divorced but he got married to a Protestant in a German registry office and they were divorced in Switzerland. They had three children but one of them was adopted. Were they a married couple with 2 children plus a. n. other? Are they still married as both brother and his ex are still alive? Were they ever married at all as no clergy were involved???

What about my many divorced and remarried cousins - everyone involved has children from previous relationships (and a few from one night stands in the case of a few of the men) - are they married? If not, can I ask for my gifts back???

My mother's now deceased next door neighbours married in 1968 - he was a widower with 2 children. Were they really married? They never did have any biological children...actually, her now deceased neighbours on the other side married in 1959 - or at least thought they did but then had no children....the State certainly considered they were married as she had to give up a very good job in the Dept. of Post and Telegraphs due to the Marriage Ban. She didn't get her job back on the grounds that her husband turned out to be firing blanks therefore they weren't really married at all at all...

Can of worms being opened by those who seek to redefine marriage in a way that completely contradicts the State's current definition of marriage and then insist that their redefinition is actually the only definition in order to justify preventing some people from getting married. I do enjoy the irony.

doctoremma

Golly Bannasidhe, no wonder the area around you and yours is blacked out on Google maps. A veritable marriage vortex, 'thou shalt not enter' and all that.

doctoremma wrote: »

Golly Bannasidhe, no wonder the area around you and yours is blacked out on Google maps. A veritable marriage vortex, 'thou shalt not enter' and all that.

That would be because of the families my aunts married into ...makes my lot look like good Catholics...which of course they are - according to the census any way.

Links234

Here is the chilling effects of Russia's anti-LGBT laws:

649x432xrussia-8.jpg.pagespeed.ic.I-uxVODrji.jpg

649x457xRussia-gay-rights-protest-egg-Reuters.jpg.pagespeed.ic.xc8mzbLGBK.jpg

649x432xrussia-2.jpg.pagespeed.ic.D0PEZV6drT.jpg

I know I thanked that ^ but not sure how it relates to a marriage thread.
Still no harm to be reminded how legalized bigotry results in real harm to real people.
A lot of the responses here from the anti SSM side are based on supposition, presumptions and gut feelings. All of which are nothing more than bigotry.

tommy2bad wrote: »

I know I thanked that ^ but not sure how it relates to a marriage thread.
Still no harm to be reminded how legalized bigotry results in real harm to real people.
A lot of the responses here from the anti SSM side are based on supposition, presumptions and gut feelings. All of which are nothing more than bigotry.

I don't think this was intended to be a thread specifically about same-sex marriage - my impression was that it was more of a catch all for anything gay related to keep it out of the other threads.

But yes, it is good that people see that we are talking about real people who are really affected by legalised bigotry. That man is being attacked by children. Children who know their State sanctions such hatred. That is the face of exclusion and lack of legal protections.

Yeah now you point it out this is actually the gay megathread, just seems to be about marriage more than anything else( marriage being so gay :P )

aloyisious

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yeah now you point it out this is actually the gay megathread, just seems to be about marriage more than anything else( marriage being so gay :P )

Marriage so Gay!!!! Now that'd put the cat amongst the pigeons

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

I guess I don't think that one can underestimate the value of a male and female role model in a family unit, even in a broken or suffering marriage a child will inevitably want to 'know' their parents - their mum and their dad, simply because they know they have both.

While I understand that people should not be discriminated against, and I think this is a red herring really, as people are not being discriminated against merely 'because' of their choices, no not so, and laws are not built around individual rights only - there is a notion of the common good of a society and I think it's reasonable to say that strong marriages do promote the common good of a society.

I think that's my thoughts really thus far - I hope not to hurt anybody, it's not my wish, but I do think it should be ok to say what I believe is 'good' too - as opposed to beating people with a stick, I'm not qualified for that, and neither am I looking to engage in it.

I really don't get this thread.

You guys claim children need or do better in family units with a male and female parents.

We say that isn't true.

You guys then ask for the evidence that this isn't true.

We present it to you.

You guys then say that doesn't seem right, surely nature commands that a child does better with male/female parents, show us more evidence

We present more evidence to you.

You guys then say that still doesn't seem right, you can't understand how it would be the case, more evidence please

We present even more evidence to you

There is silence on the matter for a few days

You guys claim children need or do better in family units with a male and female parents. :rolleyes:

If you are so wilfully willing to ignore the evidence and go on your own gut feeling about this topic, why would you expect someone hitting a gay person with a stick because they believe that gays are a serious threat to society to listen to reason and evidence that they aren't.

Children do not require a mum and dad. They require a loving family with parents who will provide a relatively safe and stable environment and introduce the child to various role models beyond just themselves. This is true whether the child is in a family with homosexual parents, heterosexual parents or any sort of gray area you can imagine.

Children suffer in families that are unstable, that are poor, that have single parents both trying to raise the child and work, that are frequently moving, that are insular and isolated (which includes a heck of a lot of religious families I might add), that shield the child from meeting and experiencing other people. These effects are often unjustifiably simplified down to "Well he did bad because his mother left" or "Well he did bad because he didn't have a strong male role model", which then leads anti-gay groups to jump all over the idea that you have to have a father and mother.

It is the psychology version of Young Earth Creationism.

I think it's rather difficult to keep up with the posts on this thread - I'm left scratching my head as to the overwhelming input from it's regulars - I'm not one of them, and neither have I been incorporated into the 'you guys' club - I'm a person, the same as anybody else who posts is.

I will say, I am very sorry if anybody thinks me a 'bigot' and a little dumbfounded at the idea that for the first time in my life I am accused of being such for merely participating in an online dialogue.

Perhaps some of you are right and my outlook is 'merely informed' or greatly informed by being a Christian. I happen to think this is important however, and not only that, but that there is a truth there that life has taught me too with my own family and experiences of life and love and marriage and it's breakdown - I'm not above those things, even if I don't spill about every single person I know and love.

I realise that marriages break down and all sorts of pain is associated with this, most especially and more often the pain is felt by the children - however, I don't understand your need to say 'this' happens 'therefore' marriage is not important, but I want it, because it isn't important?

Marriage is important, monogamy is important, family is important, fathers are important - these things are demonstrably true - and truth is important.

Now, you may call me a bigot, and you would be so very wrong, because I don't fit the definition - or you may extend very graciously the idea that another person can have an input and voice that is not 'thanked' but is important nonetheless.

lmaopml wrote: »

I think it's rather difficult to keep up with the posts on this thread - I'm left scratching my head as to the overwhelming input from it's regulars - I'm not one of them, and neither have I been incorporated into the 'you guys' club - I'm a person, the same as anybody else who posts is.

It is a subject that people feel strongly about, but I am not sure there is a club, and certainly not a club that you aren't a part of. Post what you can when you can and try to engage with the other posters.

lmaopml wrote: »

I will say, I am very sorry if anybody thinks me a 'bigot' and a little dumbfounded at the idea that for the first time in my life I am accused of being such for merely participating in an online dialogue.

Whilst I don't think I have prsonally called you a bigot, I would like to address this point. If anyone thinks you are a bigot it is not because you are participating in an online dialogue, it is more likely due to the apparent unwillingness to look at evidence being presented to you and acknowledge that your position is, basically, without merit and is built on nothing more than supposition and religious doctrine and is in direct opposition to current thinking based on a preponderance of evidence.

lmaopml wrote: »

Perhaps some of you are right and my outlook is 'merely informed' or greatly informed by being a Christian. I happen to think this is important however, and not only that, but that there is a truth there that life has taught me too with my own family and experiences of life and love and marriage and it's breakdown - I'm not above those things, even if I don't spill about every single person I know and love.

I understand that you think being informed by your christianity is important, and as much as I disagree with christianity, or indeed religion in general, I genuinely believe that you should be entitled to hold the beliefs that you do. Further, I believe that your church should be, to a certain extent, fully able to promote and exercise those beliefs as well. Where we part company, I'm afraid, is the point where you or your religious organisation try to have laws based on those beliefs and try to impose the particular doctrine they support on those that don't.

lmaopml wrote: »

I realise that marriages break down and all sorts of pain is associated with this, most especially and more often the pain is felt by the children - however, I don't understand your need to say 'this' happens 'therefore' marriage is not important, but I want it, because it isn't important?

I am not sure what your point is here, or indeed what you are trying to address. I know marriage break up has been mentioned in relation to the tired argument of "but wait, you can't redefine marriage" as evidence that it has already been redefined, but I don't think anyone is saying it is not important. This is also a silly argument because we are arguing for marriage equality. We are arguing for marriage to be made available to a class of person to which it is currently denied. Why would we be doing that if we thought it was not important? I think it is extremely important, that is why I am arguing for same-sex couple to be allowed to marry.

And you are right, when a marriage or any relationship breaks up the children suffer. One of the important aspects of marriage, from a civil perspective, is if a marriage does break up there are certain rights and obligations that must be fulfilled. Of course, marriage is supposed to be forever, but the reality of it is that often it isn't. Whilst it is sad, it has to be accepted that marriages do break up and recognition of that does not reduce its importance.

lmaopml wrote: »

Marriage is important, monogamy is important, family is important, fathers are important - these things are demonstrably true - and truth is important.

I would agree with you that marriage and family are important. I would also tend to agree that monogamy is important. These things are, generally, supported by evidence and therefore demonstrably true. Fathers, on the other hand, not so clear and not necessarily demonstrably true. You have been provided with plenty of links in this thread that show that having a father and a mother is not as important as was once thought. So whilst one might think, instinctively, that a child needs a father and a mother, this is simply one more area where instinct has proven to be inaccurate. That you will stubbornly cling to your ideas without any indication that you have even looks at the evidence that supports a different viewpoint, or tried to engage with that evidence is rather frustrating.

lmaopml wrote: »

Now, you may call me a bigot, and you would be so very wrong, because I don't fit the definition - or you may extend very graciously the idea that another person can have an input and voice that is not 'thanked' but is important nonetheless.

I don't think I have ever called you a bigot, but I can understand why some might. Again, I do accept that you hold a different idea but I think the problem is that the problem is that you don't seem to be willing to acknowledge that there is another side to it, and further, that you simply ignore or dismiss out of hand any evidence that does not fit with your viewpoint.

Several people have posted quite detailed responses to your posts and many, including myself, have provided links to other sources of information and evidence of our positions and you simply ignore them without comment and trot out your demonstrably untrue and inaccurate suppositions, demanding, presumably, that they should be accepted and valued because they are based on your genuinely held religious belief. Well, no. I don't accept them. Your religious belief has this wrong. Your instincts have this wrong. Am I am afraid, as long as you cling to these particular opinions, in opposition to the evidence you are likely to be considered, mistakenly or otherwise, for a person holding a bigoted opinion.

MrP

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

Now, you may call me a bigot, and you would be so very wrong, because I don't fit the definition

Bigot
a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

Obstinately
perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion

Can you point out which of the above you are not doing?