nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Same sex marriage - how will it impact you?

old hippy

Forget for a moment that it signifies the fall of civilisation, ignore the children and other peripherals for a sec.

You're opposed to the idea of two people, deeply in love, of the same sex getting hitched.

Don't be codding us with your civil union is enough bobbins.

Be honest - how would gay marriage affect you? How would it impact on your life. Nobody else's - your life. How would gay marriage change it

Deleted User wrote: »

Mod

This thread is about same sex marriage, keep it on topic. Attempts to derail the topic will be seen as trolling and will be actioned accordingly.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

_Redzer_

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Bit harsh on religious people. Just like not all atheists are smug and arrogant, not all religious people are irrational and fanatical. But yeh, I can't understand a lot of that post - plain English works better than clunky, flowery language/sentences not fully understood or constructed by the author.
I think what he might be saying is that secularism would be forced on people who are religious, but it's ok for religion to be forced on people who are secular.

I won't deny it, I absolutely despise religion. I view it as a cancer for a multitude of reasons, but like cancer, I hate it, not those with it. So I might hate religion but I don't hate religious people.

Why I hate religion is exactly because of this. Thinking their views should apply to all and how they possess the gold standard of morality. On a large, religious institutions think all should follow their rules.

As for individuals, I know not all who are religious have the same mindsets or think they same way, but those who do, and use their religion to justify things which have no logical or ethical bases to be opposed, well, it's all just a cop out really.
Religion is no moral compass when it comes to morality, and when it comes to making decisions on civil laws which affect people's lives, there's no time for Paddy the religious homophobes irrational opposition because it's of zero value since he won't be able to form his opinion in any way other than 'I don't like it, just because', or 'the bible says so.'

That's how I see religion. It's fine and I've no problem with it, because it's got nothing to do with me, but once it's being carted out in decision making I just think shouldn't happen, because basing your views on your religion lacks all rationality and logic as your thinking is immediately biased as a result.

_Redzer_

Jimoslimos wrote: »

No it wouldn't. Religious organisations are under no obligation to marry anyone. You could have a marriage ceremony but it would be a civil one (not to be confused with a civil partnership).

I think that's fair enough. Their church their rules. I'd just wish that because of this fact they'd keep their noses out of civil marriages that have nothing at all to do with them.

Alan Shore

I was going to say not at all but I think this summed it up perfectly.

December2012 wrote: »

It will affect me because I will live in a more equal society with better civil rights.

RDM_83 again

_Redzer_ wrote: »

I think that's fair enough. Their church their rules. I'd just wish that because of this fact they'd keep their noses out of civil marriages that have nothing at all to do with them.

I agree with same sex marriage being a right.
But its not really fair to say that churches or religious groupings should keep their noses out.
It may impact the associated activities of their organisations.
Witness the UK, most Catholic adoption agencies are now closed, now as somebody thats anti-religious that probably a positive for you but to me it seems a restriction of choice.
And whatever your opinion on it unless they take a different attitude to equality legislation than they have in the UK (which I actually have a feeling they might, there is precedence for discrimination by charities it just wasn't applied in the UK) it will impact their activities so you can't say it has Zero impact on them.

crockholm

SpaceTime wrote: »

Think about it from the point of view of what it says about Ireland too.

If we become the first country that I'm aware of to grant constitutional rights to gay people and we do that by a majority vote in a referendum it really does say that we're an open minded, forward thinking place that puts human rights on the agenda in a serious way and that it has the backing of the majority of the people.

Also think about the economic benefits. We are trying to attract some of the world's most creative and innovative IT companies and both retain our own talent and attract in overseas talent to do amazing things here in Ireland.
You tend to scare a lot of talented people away by being a conservative backwater and attract them by being and open, liberal place.

See: NYC or California modern day Britain or The Netherlands etc vs Alabama for example...

Our bad old days of deep conservatism sent many of our most talented people abroad. Not everything about Irish emigration was economic. A lot of it was driven by stifling social conservativism driven by a top down right wing church and state combination. That drove a lot of our most innovative people out.

If you were nonconservative, not conforming ... You probably headed to somewhere more interesting. As part of that era you can be 100% certain we lost a lot of very bright people just because they were gay/lesbian.

Hopefully we will never repeat that mess!

Without wishing to nitpick,Californians rejected gay marriage by a 4.5% margin(52% vs 47.5%) in the proposition 8 vote,the rulings of the vote was overturned by the californian judiciary,I believe

Can't really think how it would impact me though.

_Redzer_

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I agree with same sex marriage being a right.
But its not really fair to say that churches or religious groupings should keep their noses out.
It may impact the associated activities of their organisations.
Witness the UK, most Catholic adoption agencies are now closed, now as somebody thats anti-religious that probably a positive for you but to me it seems a restriction of choice.
And whatever your opinion on it unless they take a different attitude to equality legislation than they have in the UK (which I actually have a feeling they might, there is precedence for discrimination by charities it just wasn't applied in the UK) it will impact their activities so you can't say it has Zero impact on them.

Why should there even be catholic adoption agencies, or Muslim or Jewish agencies even? What's the benefit? It's just going to extremely biased.

Just have one neutral service everyone can apply to. Problem solved.

No one religion should have a monopoly on services and the Catholic Church has here on schools for example. I don't believe all should be shut down, if you want that and are religious I don't see the harm, but neutral public schools should vastly outnumber them, because we're not all catholic. But that's going way off topic when it's got nothing to do with the OP.

Honestly, I think it's just another cop out that this will affect them, it won't, civil SSM has zero to do with them. They should have no say in it if nobody is after them to hold SSM in their churches, because nobody should force them.

[Deleted User]

I don't know, I think restricting the wishes of the parents surrendering the child for adoption, should they want the child to be raised in their culture/religion of origin, is forcing them to play by rules they feel infringes on their rights, in the same way as any organisation that speaks against SSM infringes on the rights of gay partners. There has to be some accommodation for everyone, within reason.

Within reason being the operative phrase here.

ixoy

I'd no longer be able to answer the question "When are you getting married" with "Well the law won't let us get married" as a valid excuse.

Foxhound38

Jimoslimos wrote: »

No it wouldn't. Religious organisations are under no obligation to marry anyone. You could have a marriage ceremony but it would be a civil one (not to be confused with a civil partnership).

In fairness, as much as I'm on the side of marriage equality here - I have to say fair enough if the religions don't want to marry gay people in their churches etc. I have no interest in civic society forcing them to change their rules, and in return I have no patience for them trying to enforce those rules on wider civic society...

Links234

crockholm wrote: »

Without wishing to nitpick,Californians rejected gay marriage by a 4.5% margin(52% vs 47.5%) in the proposition 8 vote,the rulings of the vote was overturned by the californian judiciary,I believe

not to nitpick your nitpick, but the proposition 8 campaign was backed by huge money, and from a lot of religious groups outside California, such as the Mormon Church among many, many others. It was the Mormons who did most of the legwork too, making up the vast majority of campaigners going door to door. The idea behind the campaign was that if they could prevent marriage equality in a liberal state like California, it could be an example that even a liberal state was against marriage equality, so there was a huge push for it from the religious right.

Mint Aero

It doesn't bother me however if there was a referendum I would have to consider implications further down the line, specifically the right to adopt but alas that's another thread. So I'm 50/50 on it at the moment.

December2012

Have any of you who think that it doesn't affect you considered that in the future it might?

Maybe your (future) kids / grand kids will be gay?

Corkfeen

Mint Aero wrote: »

It doesn't bother me however if there was a referendum I would have to consider implications further down the line, specifically the right to adopt but alas that's another thread. So I'm 50/50 on it at the moment.

Not really getting why you think there should be an issue with them adopting. Adoption rights for gay people should be resolved prior to any referendum anyway.

Links234

Foxhound38 wrote: »

In fairness, as much as I'm on the side of marriage equality here - I have to say fair enough if the religions don't want to marry gay people in their churches etc. I have no interest in civic society forcing them to change their rules, and in return I have no patience for them trying to enforce those rules on wider civic society...

It's an absolute fallacy to suggest that this is purely 'gay people verses religion', because many LGBT people are religious, and many religious organizations are open to LGBT members and would be perfectly happy to perform marriage ceremonies.

In fact, what's often getting lost in this debate, is that a great number of different faiths who are open to LGBT people are getting their religious freedoms quashed by being barred from performing these ceremonies.

Friend Computer

December2012 wrote: »

Have any of you who think that it doesn't affect you considered that in the future it might?

Maybe your (future) kids / grand kids will be gay?

I don't understand; wouldn't that still only affect their kids since they're the ones getting married?

RDM_83 again

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Why should there even be catholic adoption agencies, or Muslim or Jewish agencies even? What's the benefit? It's just going to extremely biased.

Just have one neutral service everyone can apply to. Problem solved.

As somebody who despises religion of course you would feel that way, but this isn't really the place for the rights and wrongs of it, its about how there is potential impacts

_Redzer_ wrote: »

No one religion should have a monopoly on services and the Catholic Church has here on schools for example. I don't believe all should be shut down, if you want that and are religious I don't see the harm, but neutral public schools should vastly outnumber them, because we're not all catholic. But that's going way off topic when it's got nothing to do with the OP.
[/QUOTE

Again witness the case in the UK, there is/was a diversity of adoption services its not like situation of schooling in the ROI, what simply happened was the pool became less diverse, but the rulings still removed their charitable status

_Redzer_ wrote: »

Honestly, I think it's just another cop out that this will affect them, it won't, civil SSM has zero to do with them. They should have no say in it if nobody is after them to hold SSM in their churches, because nobody should force them.

But it does effect them or at least there is a good chance it will or are you saying that it doesn't effect them if it doesn't directly impact activities inside religious buildings in which case your taking a rather narrow view of things.

Candie wrote: »

I don't know, I think restricting the wishes of the parents surrendering the child for adoption, should they want the child to be raised in their culture/religion of origin, is forcing them to play by rules they feel infringes on their rights, in the same way as any organisation that speaks against SSM infringes on the rights of gay partners. There has to be some accommodation for everyone, within reason.

Within reason being the operative phrase here.

This is what I believe, I don't believe that blanket enforcement is a good thing and I think that charitable agencies should be allowed some leaway in terms of discrimination/targeting of their activities as long as their is a diversity of services so that those excluded by one grouping can access an equivalent and off equal standard service from another provider.

e.g /I believe that the problem with Males suffering domestic abuse is a major unreported issue, does that mean I would force Womans domestic refuges to comply with equality legislation or have their charitable status removed, not at all.

seenitall

At the risk of stating the obvious, a government passing a law that promotes equality is such a powerful statement to all its bigots, that although I am straight and have no gay friends, I would be overjoyed if it happened here. Sometimes laws lead, and the attitudes follow.

What it would also mean to me, is the reaffirmation of Ireland as a great choice for my adopted country, unfortunately in contrast to the country I am from originally, where the majority of voters have recently, regrettably and shamefully, cemented the No gay marriage law.

walt_white

SpaceTime wrote: »

One thing to bear in mind is that the broadcasting legislation here requires a 50:50 balanced debate regardless of what political or public opinion polling is.

It's going to be very difficult for producers of radio and television programming to get non extreme guests on the no side and it probably gives them a huge platform as you won't find political parties or mainstream opposition to it.

Opinion polling shows a strong majority in favour right now.

the media in ireland is very liberal so i dont think the yes side will have too much to be concerned about there , the media here ( for the most part ) has been a big ally of the " marriage equality " movement

the only risk the yes side has is if people decide to be bloody minded , the economy seems to be improving however so less people are likely to vote no as a way of giving the goverment a bloody nose

right now id say a 55 - 45 % in favour is a likely outcome

crockholm

Links234 wrote: »

not to nitpick your nitpick, but the proposition 8 campaign was backed by huge money, and from a lot of religious groups outside California, such as the Mormon Church among many, many others. It was the Mormons who did most of the legwork too, making up the vast majority of campaigners going door to door. The idea behind the campaign was that if they could prevent marriage equality in a liberal state like California, it could be an example that even a liberal state was against marriage equality, so there was a huge push for it from the religious right.

Not to nitpick your nitpicking of my nitpick,but it would be dishonest to say that the no side were not well funded either,pretty much all of Hollywood got behind the no vote,prop 8 got higher yes votes within the hispanic and african-american communities,whereas a majority of Whites voted against it.

Regardless,the yes vote won by 600,000 votes,and the rest is californian judicial history.

Nodin

old hippy wrote: »

Forget for a moment that it signifies the fall of civilisation, ignore the children and other peripherals for a sec.

You're opposed to the idea of two people, deeply in love, of the same sex getting hitched.

Don't be codding us with your civil union is enough bobbins.

Be honest - how would gay marriage affect you? How would it impact on your life. Nobody else's - your life. How would gay marriage change it

Not at all. Other than getting an invite to a gay wedding maybe.

Arawn

It would give me a **** ton more people who I consider idiots for getting married

Sisko

I would feel a bit more pride for my country and to live somewhere that at least in this regard, is not holding on to dated ideas. I would see it as a step forward.

I look back on things like being "gay" only being legalised in the late 80's and divorce the mid 90's with embarrassment. I can't believe such backward thinking was happening in my life time in my country.

It would otherwise not affect me in the slightest.

efb

I would be on a Husband hunt

_Redzer_

Sisko wrote: »

I would feel a bit more pride for my country and to live somewhere that at least in this regard, is not holding on to dated ideas. I would see it as a step forward.

I look back on things like being "gay" only being legalised in the late 80's and divorce the mid 90's with embarrassment. I can't believe such backward thinking was happening in my life time in my country.

It would otherwise not affect me in the slightest.

You can feel a bit more embarrassed because it was the early 90's, not late 80's... to make it sound worse. Homosexuality was only decriminalised 20 years ago in 1993.

Vito Corleone

Why on earth would you feel embarrassed? Sure it was hardly you that made the laws.

Anyway, it wouldn't impact me at all.

Legs.Eleven

Jaysus I'd be proud as punch if this went through. I hope Ireland does the right thing.

Sleepy

Like many others have already said on the thread, the biggest impact this is likely to have on my life is having more weddings to go to. Though it would also give me a little more pride in the place I live, knowing that in the course of my lifetime we've thrown off the yoke of the Catholic church and taken some steps to becoming more like the country I want to live in.

walt_white

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

Jaysus I'd be proud as punch if this went through. I hope Ireland does the right thing.

i would at best be indifferent to gay marriage being made legal , i think thats enough

theblaqueguy

It will not impact my life at all

But I'm undecided on how I would vote if there was a referendum on it.

MetLuver

_Redzer_ wrote: »

You can feel a bit more embarrassed because it was the early 90's, not late 80's... to make it sound worse. Homosexuality was only decriminalised 20 years ago in 1993.

Wow, that is truly cringe-worthy, I forgot it was so recently. To look around today with so many open minded 'normal' thinking people it just defies belief that these guys that believed homosexuality to be illegal and criminal were not even our ancestors, they were our bloody Parents and Aunts and Uncles. I think because there is such a relaxed attitude about it now only goes to show how quickly a collective mindset can change. People are people and we are all who we are. I cannot imagine loving a man as much as I love my Girlfriend but love is love and if someone told me I couldn't marry her for some pig ignorant bigoted reason my retaliation would be explosive, I may seem to be ranting but I just find it hard to imagine that two people who love each other very much can be denied something that their friends and family are automatically awarded just because they are in an opposite sex relationship. Unless you want to marry children or animals or anything like that, I believe no-one has any right whatsoever to tell you you are wrong.

I think if this was passed it would be an absolute triumph for this embarassing, backward (seeming) country and it would remind us all that we are a great country and the people of our land are more progressive and modern than our sh!tty government (and RTE) makes us out to be :cool: