Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Options
1…219220222224225…325

Comments

  • Options
    #6632
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    wprathead wrote: »
    That is nonsense imo. Why shouldn't he be supporting it? I think it is great to see the Taoiseach out supporting SSM
    If idiots vote no "As a protest vote" then they are lowest of the low, gombeen, individualist ****.


    You really should have a look around on irish websites and forums. There's a huge amount of people voting no just to give an FU to Enda & this government.
    It is ridiculous but it is also happening.


  • Options
    #6633
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    freyners wrote: »
    Ben Conroy I believe.

    http://www.irishcatholic.ie/article/ben-conroy-and-homosexuality

    Not everyone agrees with him!


  • Options
    #6634
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Daith


    david75 wrote: »
    You really should have a look around on irish websites and forums. There's a huge amount of people voting no just to give an FU to Enda & this government.
    It is ridiculous but it is also happening.

    Then I'd really hope the other parties in particular SF and the AAA (or whatever they're called) try to dissuade people of that notion.

    Bringing it back from politics and to show that it is affecting real Irish people is the important thing.


  • Options
    #6635
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    The Black Oil wrote:
    Not all opponents of SSM are bigots. You can be against SSM and not be a homophobe. The liberal media. Liberal tolerance is intolerant. Conscience. Had a conservative written this there'd be uproar. Most media welcomes pro-gay research uncritically, any research favouring traditional values is roundly attacked.
    I am not sure I can think of a valid reason why one might be against SSM and not be a bigot... With respect to research, the reason the traditional values research tends to be rounded in is that it tend to be sh1t.

    MrP


  • Options
    #6636
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Are there any non-religious arguments available against SSM?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6637
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Are there any non-religious arguments available against SSM?

    The only ones I've heard are the 'marriage is an outdated institution which we should abandon entirely' one from people who don't think anyone should be getting married and the 'why would gays want to be so conformist as to be involved in such a traditional institution as marriage' one. Neither of which are valid, IMO. There's also the old 'look at this GAY PERSON WHO SPEAKS FOR ALL OF THE GAYS' who doesn't want to get married so neither do any of the other gays silliness.


  • Options
    #6638
    Otacon
    Registered Users Posts: 6,721 ✭✭✭Otacon


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Are there any non-religious arguments available against SSM?

    The only argument I have ever heard that fits that bill is allowing same-sex couples to marry and enjoy tax benefits would cost the state too much money. Of course that doesn't hold up when you think that it is still discriminatory but it is the closest I have seen to a non-religious argument.


  • Options
    #6639
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Are there any non-religious arguments available against SSM?

    There are quite a few non-religious arguments. The more pertinent question is are there any valid, rational and reasonable non-religious arguments. The answer to that question is not so far.

    MrP


  • Options
    #6640
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Are there any non-religious arguments available against SSM?
    As MrP says, there are a few, but I don't believe they extend much beyond "it's icky".


  • Options
    #6641
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,321 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Are there any non-religious arguments available against SSM?

    CHILDREN!

    What about children, I don't know. But it's generally the go-to shriek of opposition.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6642
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Penn wrote: »
    What about children, I don't know. But it's generally the go-to shriek of opposition.
    ...which, given the biological issues concerned, seems an odd worry at best.


  • Options
    #6643
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Meant to say, I'm pretty sure Ben Conroy is Breda O'Brien's son.


  • Options
    #6644
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    Will the marraige referendum allow polygamy, I mean it between consenting adults and a staple of islam and lds religion, I cannot see a reason for it to be disallowed and I think all adults should have the right to marraige.

    If the referendum doesn't give that right to everyone I will have to vote no till it's inclusive of all.


  • Options
    #6645
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,431 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    That's tongue-in-cheek, right?...


  • Options
    #6646
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    macyard wrote: »
    Will the marraige referendum allow polygamy, I mean it between consenting adults and a staple of islam and lds religion, I cannot see a reason for it to be disallowed and I think all adults should have the right to marraige.

    If the referendum doesn't give that right to everyone I will have to vote no till it's inclusive of all.
    FYI LDS prophets outlawed polygamy in the 1890s and it is not a staple of the mainstream church, you might be thinking of Fundamendalist LDS sects.
    Why would you vote no because polygamy isn't part of the referendum? Unless you think allowing two consenting adults of the same gender to marry is some sort of 'slippery slope' or means we need to further examine which type of relationships should receive legal recognition?
    I don't understand why polygamy would influence one when voting on the rights of gay people to marry.

    ETA you may be confused - this about the recognition of civil marriage. Religious groups can make their own rules about marriage, as long as they don't try to legally marry a person to more than one partner. FLDS ceremonies aren't legally binding, polygamy works on an internal church system, which is not recognised by civil law.


  • Options
    #6647
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    TheChizler wrote: »
    That's tongue-in-cheek, right?...

    If you mean me no why?

    Should all consenting adults not be allowed to marry, it's the culture of many religions and it doesn't effect anyone same as SSM doesn't, it's a marraige referendum not a SSM referendum we should be inclusive of all now why not give rights to all adults why discriminate


  • Options
    #6648
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    macyard wrote: »
    If you mean me no why?

    Should all consenting adults not be allowed to marry, it's the culture of many religions and it doesn't effect anyone same as SSM doesn't, it's a marraige referendum not a SSM referendum we should be inclusive of all now why not give rights to all adults why discriminate
    Actually, a quick read of the experience of the Lost Boys of the FLDS sects in the USA would show you very quickly that polygamy is incredibly harmful to children and women. Particularly as it is inherently unequal, only men can have multiple wives and the secretive nature of the relationships leaves women and children in a very vulnerable state.


  • Options
    #6649
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    lazygal wrote: »
    FYI LDS prophets outlawed polygamy in the 1890s and it is not a staple of the mainstream church, you might be thinking of Fundamendalist LDS sects.
    Why would you vote no because polygamy isn't part of the referendum? Unless you think allowing two consenting adults of the same gender to marry is some sort of 'slippery slope' or means we need to further examine which type of relationships should receive legal recognition?
    I don't understand why polygamy would influence one when voting on the rights of gay people to marry.

    ETA you may be confused - this about the recognition of civil marriage. Religious groups can make their own rules about marriage, as long as they don't try to legally marry a person to more than one partner. FLDS ceremonies aren't legally binding, polygamy works on an internal church system, which is not recognised by civil law.

    I would vote no cause they don't allow polygamy.

    All adults should be allowed to marry and if we are going to fix marraige now we might as well fix it right, leaving out polygamy is discrimination against muslims and the likes.


  • Options
    #6650
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Daith


    macyard wrote: »
    Should all consenting adults not be allowed to marry, it's the culture of many religions and it doesn't effect anyone same as SSM doesn't, it's a marraige referendum not a SSM referendum we should be inclusive of all now why not give rights to all adults why discriminate

    No it's a referendum about whether marriage should be between people of different sexes only or that it it can include people of the same sex.

    Feel free to campaign for what you want but it's not what the referendum will be about.


  • Options
    #6651
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    macyard wrote: »
    I would vote no cause they don't allow polygamy.

    All adults should be allowed to marry and if we are going to fix marraige now we might as well fix it right, leaving out polygamy is discrimination against muslims and the likes.
    Why would you vote no? Surely polygamy has nothing to do with allowing two men or two women to marry each other? What is the Muslim 'and the likes' position on polygamy anyway? I've already pointed out your mistake regarding the LDS position.

    Given your other posts, I suspect I'm wasting my time on trying to enlighten you so I'll stop bothering now.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6652
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    lazygal wrote: »
    Actually, a quick read of the experience of the Lost Boys of the FLDS sects in the USA would show you very quickly that polygamy is incredibly harmful to children and women. Particularly as it is inherently unequal, only men can have multiple wives and the secretive nature of the relationships leaves women and children in a very vulnerable state.

    Sames as SSM children are not apart of marraige you cannot use them to stop marraige of consenting adults, also if the woman doesn't want to get married she doesn't have to.

    I cannot see a reason to discriminate against people that want a polygamous marraige


  • Options
    #6653
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Daith


    macyard wrote: »
    I cannot see a reason to discriminate against people that want a polygamous marraige

    Then campaign for it.


  • Options
    #6654
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    lazygal wrote: »
    Why would you vote no? Surely polygamy has nothing to do with allowing two men or two women to marry each other? What is the Muslim 'and the likes' position on polygamy anyway? I've already pointed out your mistake regarding the LDS position.

    Given your other posts, I suspect I'm wasting my time on trying to enlighten you so I'll stop bothering now.

    Just cause you don't like is not a reason to not allow it, that is the same reason as the current no voters on SSM


  • Options
    #6655
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    Daith wrote: »
    Then campaign for it.

    I am and making sure people vote no on the marraige referendum till it's inculsive of all adults


  • Options
    #6656
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Daith


    macyard wrote: »
    Just cause you don't like is not a reason to not allow it, that is the same reason as the current no voters on SSM

    Again campaign for it.


  • Options
    #6657
    TheChizler
    Registered Users Posts: 9,431 ✭✭✭TheChizler


    macyard wrote: »
    I would vote no cause they don't allow polygamy.

    All adults should be allowed to marry and if we are going to fix marraige now we might as well fix it right, leaving out polygamy is discrimination against muslims and the likes.
    Conflating gay marriage and polygamy is a common tactic among those opposed so please forgive me as I find it it hard to take these posts seriously.

    If serious, why can't you look at this referendum on it's merits alone and campaign for a separate polygamy referendum later? Again, if you're serious, do you mean to say you don't think two people of the same gender shouldn't be allowed to marry because polygamy isn't allowed?

    Edit: Imagine there are two referenda in May, one to allow same-sex marriage and another entirely separate one to allow polygamous marriage, how would you vote on both?


  • Options
    #6658
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Daith


    macyard wrote: »
    I am and making sure people vote no on the marraige referendum till it's inculsive of all adults

    Except if you vote no you're not making it inclusive?

    Changing what sexuality can marry and the number of people who can marry are two different things. You can have polygamy be hetro only and still exclude homosexual people.


  • Options
    #6659
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    macyard wrote: »
    Just cause you don't like is not a reason to not allow it, that is the same reason as the current no voters on SSM
    You're right, I don't like it, but that's not the reason I think it shouldn't form part of the debate on gay marriage.
    I've read extensively on the history of polygamy in the LDS church as it is a subject of great interest to me. Everything I have read about polygamy as experienced by the LDS faithful has lead me to conclude that it is a harmful practice which treats women appalingly and leads to severe social, cultural and psychological difficulties for the women and their many children.
    None of this has anything to do with the referendum on extending civil marriage to gay people in Ireland. Given your other posts I strongly suspect you're a troll posting for a rise and are simply throwing in polygamy to get a rise out of other posters.


  • Options
    #6660
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    Daith wrote: »
    Except if you vote no you're not making it inclusive?

    No half measures on being inculsive, if you give some people rights now it will be harder for polygamous people to get rights later. If we give rights to all at once if will be quicker and easier


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6661
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,936 ✭✭✭Daith


    macyard wrote: »
    No half measures on being inculsive, if you give some people rights now it will be harder for polygamous people to get rights later. If we give rights to all at once if will be quicker and easier

    No, if you vote no to homosexual people being allowed to marry you can make it harder for homosexual people to marry more than one person.

    By voting no you agree with the what marriage is now. Two people, a man and woman.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement