The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[LCohen]

Given that the phrase "the Third World" was coined in the early stages of the Cold War to define countries that were not aligned with either the communist bloc or NATO you must surely consider the Republic of Ireland a third world country unless you are completely changing your tune on your earlier laughable confusion between meaning and etymology. Sad really that you are going to allow that confusion, laughable as it is to deny someone equality

[Main Street]

Many of you are getting caught up with legalities and definitions.
Marriage is an institution that was introduced  some 7,000 years ago by Shiva  into society,  primarily to protect the rights of children.
These days it doesn't legally matter that same sex unions don't conform to that religious/spiritual concept of the institution of marriage, what matters is that the same sex union enjoys the same rights in society as a male female marriage.
Seeing as we are already there or thereabouts in legal acceptance of same sex unions, what is the this particular debate about? To my mind, the debate should be about the farce of having a vote on the matter, the horse has already bolted on much of the discussion here.
Catholic doctrine on marriage has copied some parts what was already established in Indian society some 5,000 years previous.
There is no threat to that catholic doctrine in this legislation. Religions are free to constitute their own bias otherwise we would already be seeing women having the same rights as men in the catholic church.

[muppet]

Many of you are getting caught up with legalities and definitions.
Marriage is an institution that was introduced  some 7,000 years ago by Shiva  into society,  primarily to protect the rights of children.
These days it doesn't legally matter that same sex unions don't conform to that religious/spiritual concept of the institution of marriage, what matters is that the same sex union enjoys the same rights in society as a male female marriage.
Seeing as we are already there or thereabouts in legal acceptance of same sex unions, what is the this particular debate about? To my mind, the debate should be about the farce of having a vote on the matter, the horse has already bolted on much of the discussion here.
Catholic doctrine on marriage has copied some parts what was already established in Indian society some 5,000 years previous.
There is no threat to that catholic doctrine in this legislation. Religions are free to constitute their own bias otherwise we would already be seeing women having the same rights as men in the catholic church.

Good post and I especially like the rather brilliant last line.

[Old yeller]

Many of you are getting caught up with legalities and definitions.
Marriage is an institution that was introduced  some 7,000 years ago by Shiva  into society,  primarily to protect the rights of children
These days it doesn't legally matter that same sex unions don't conform to that religious/spiritual concept of the institution of marriage, what matters is that the same sex union enjoys the same rights in society as a male female marriage.
Seeing as we are already there or thereabouts in legal acceptance of same sex unions, what is the this particular debate about? To my mind, the debate should be about the farce of having a vote on the matter, the horse has already bolted on much of the discussion here.
Catholic doctrine on marriage has copied some parts what was already established in Indian society some 5,000 years previous.
There is no threat to that catholic doctrine in this legislation. Religions are free to constitute their own bias otherwise we would already be seeing women having the same rights as men in the catholic church.

Thats total bullshit, do you realise that?
If marriage was introduced for anything, it was so that men could have more control over women. Simple as.
I couldn't care less if gay men or women are allowed to get married, it wont improve or undermine my marriage to my wife. Get a grip. And bringing gods that never existed into it hardly helps

[armaghniac]

Life has survived on Earth because of change. The notion that we can stop evolving, or worse, cherrypick how we evolve is absurd.

We should pick the values we wish to incorporate in our laws and not go along with fads generated by pressure groups.

Marriage is an institution that was introduced  some 7,000 years ago by Shiva  into society,  primarily to protect the rights of children.
These days it doesn't legally matter that same sex unions don't conform to that religious/spiritual concept of the institution of marriage, what matters is that the same sex union enjoys the same rights in society as a male female marriage.

The rights of children is not a religious concept, but is a valid concern of law, even if not of interest to many posters here.

If marriage was introduced for anything, it was so that men could have more control over women. Simple as.

Marriage is as much designed to keep men around contributing to the children,

[Old yeller]

Life has survived on Earth because of change. The notion that we can stop evolving, or worse, cherrypick how we evolve is absurd.

We should pick the values we wish to incorporate in our laws and not go along with fads generated by pressure groups.

Marriage is an institution that was introduced  some 7,000 years ago by Shiva  into society,  primarily to protect the rights of children.
These days it doesn't legally matter that same sex unions don't conform to that religious/spiritual concept of the institution of marriage, what matters is that the same sex union enjoys the same rights in society as a male female marriage.

The rights of children is not a religious concept, but is a valid concern of law, even if not of interest to many posters here.

If marriage was introduced for anything, it was so that men could have more control over women. Simple as.

Marriage is as much designed to keep men around contributing to the children,

Bullshit

[Old yeller]

Its ridiculous, in this day and age, to be against gay marriage. It is a civil rights issue. Ffs, they are normal people the same as the rest of us!

[muppet]

We should pick the values we wish to incorporate in our laws and not go along with fads generated by pressure groups.

Are you serious?

Is homosexuality a fad 'generated by pressure groups'?

[armaghniac]

We should pick the values we wish to incorporate in our laws and not go along with fads generated by pressure groups.

Is homosexuality a fad 'generated by pressure groups'?

Presumably homosexuality hasn't changed much, nor have other aspects of human relationships, so there is no particular need for change of marriage.

[Milltown Row2]

We should pick the values we wish to incorporate in our laws and not go along with fads generated by pressure groups.

Is homosexuality a fad 'generated by pressure groups'?

Presumably homosexuality hasn't changed much, nor have other aspects of human relationships, so there is no particular need for change of marriage.

Better hope your kids don't get that gay disease 😆

[J70]

And if that's how you want to define marriage, should it be off limits for women or men who may be infertile, or women who want to get married in their 50s, 60s etc.?

I asked him something similar earlier in the thread with respect to fiscal benefits. No response yet...

I was watching GAA on the tele, this being GAABoard some of you could do with some interest in GAA.
I don't see that the status of individual men and women getting married is a problem for the institution of marriage, this has no connection to its extension to same sex relationships.

You are the one hanging your objections on the production of children. If couples choose to enter a relationship where children are NOT produced, then by YOUR logic and statements, they are reaping the benefits offered by the state and giving nothing in return. Society is made up of individuals. Rights are guaranteed for individuals.

Where do gay couples with children fall in your scheme? By your definition,  they are earning those benefits by producing children.

[Oraisteach]

So we should uphold long-standing traditions and not yield to fads generated by pressure groups.  Wow, with that kind of thinking we'd still have slavery and women couldn't vote. 

Same-sex marriage poses no threat to traditional marriage.  Nor does it coerce churches to perform ceremonies contrary to their belief systems.  Nor does it threaten the well-being of children.  In fact, for some children it might offer a haven from dysfunctional homes from which some of them have come, homes broken apart by domestic violence, alcoholism and so on.

And for those who cite a biblical taboo, how's life for you without your rashers, ham and shrimp cocktail.  Isn't the foremost scriptural value that of love, the same virtue that drives heterosexual couples to marry. 

In enlightened societies, as they evolve, outmoded traditions are changed.  As Martin Buber noted, and MLK restated, we should fix a system where one group treats another as lesser/inferior.  We should replace an I/it relationship with an I/thou one.  Granting same-sex couples the right to marry does that.  It is their right, a civil right.

[armaghniac]

You are the one hanging your objections on the production of children. If couples choose to enter a relationship where children are NOT produced, then by YOUR logic and statements, they are reaping the benefits offered by the state and giving nothing in return.

I said that I didn't see any need to micromanage the definition of marriage, as distinct from changing it entirely. This is a perfectly comprehensible difference to anyone not arguing for the sake of arguing.

Society is made up of individuals. Rights are guaranteed for individuals.

All individuals have an equal right to marry at present, so presumably you are happy with this.

Where do gay couples with children fall in your scheme? By your definition,  they are earning those benefits by producing children.

Gay couples do not produce children as a product of their union, but rather they separate the children from one of their parents and at best associate them with the sexual partner of one of the parents.

[J70]

You are the one hanging your objections on the production of children. If couples choose to enter a relationship where children are NOT produced, then by YOUR logic and statements, they are reaping the benefits offered by the state and giving nothing in return.

I said that I didn't see any need to micromanage the definition of marriage, as distinct from changing it entirely. This is a perfectly comprehensible difference to anyone not arguing for the sake of arguing.

Not arguing for the sake of arguing at all. You are defending your objection to gay marriage on the grounds that they shouldn't be entitled to marriage benefits because they don't produce children. I am pointing out the flaws in your objection. If you don't want to address that, that's fine!

Basically,  if marriage benefits are dished out for the purpose of child production,  then their receipt should kick in ONLY when children are produced. There is no other just way.

Society is made up of individuals. Rights are guaranteed for individuals.

All individuals have an equal right to marry at present, so presumably you are happy with this.

What an ignorant bigoted statement!

Straight people have the right to marry the person they love. Gays don't.

And its not as if they're looking for special priveleges. The right to gay marry will be extended to you too.

Where do gay couples with children fall in your scheme? By your definition,  they are earning those benefits by producing children.

Gay couples do not produce children as a product of their union, but rather they separate the children from one of their parents and at best associate them with the sexual partner of one of the parents.

A little behind on scientific news I see. Three parent babies, using mitochondrial DNA for the third parent, is looking very viable.  Its mainly aimed at curing disease, but it might not be too long till gay parents can be biological parents. What would your position be then?

But for now, if separation from a parent is such an issue, where do you stand on adoption,  surrogate mothers, sperm and egg donation etc. etc.? How about divorced parents who have remarried?  They're getting benefits,  but their kids are separated from a parent.

BTW, you still haven't outlined how gay marriage will undermine straight marriage.

[seafoid]

MS you should never be afraid to air your convictions.There is a reason why there are two sexes,and it is utterly ridiculous to elevate unnatural phenomena onto an equal plane with normal,conventional.As usual in these debates the effect on children growing up with two same sex parents is not considered.In my view it cannot be a good environment,every child needs a mother and father to nurture them through the formative years,not two mothers and no father nor vice versa.

Homosexuality is as natural as the gene for alcoholism or the proportion of beautiful women in a population.
"Everyone needs a mother and a father. "Alcoholism and trauma often take parents away from families leaving one parent to bring up kids. That is "natural" too.  But it is better than 2 women getting married ?