I also find the phrase "gay community" strange, for the same reasons.
I have a few gay friends, of both genders, and a gay family member. They couldn't be more different as people.
Marriage equality referendum - "rights" to kids etc.
- Thread starter Betsy Og
- Start date
I also find the phrase "gay community" strange, for the same reasons.
I have a few gay friends, of both genders, and a gay family member. They couldn't be more different as people.
A few years ago I would have agreed with you. But I am seeing more and more of a community aspect - there are so many different social elements and constructs. There are many sports and theatre clubs, voluntary groups, political factions, as well as the (less than a handful of) bars. So in many respects it has all of the same elements as any small town - just more geographically spread out. You can choose to be part of it - or live independently of it. And like every community there are the nice people, the not so nice people - and the downright strange people.
Fascinating thread. I do have to ask hetrosexual (obviously) people who are against this, how it actually affects them personally whether two gay people are married or not? I presume a lot of them are married already and even if they are not yet, they are hardly at risk of a forced marriage to someone of the same sex are they?
This will be like the anti-divorce crowd from years ago telling us it'll be the end of the world as we know it. We'll look back years from now and wonder what all the fuss was about!
As a father of 2 young children, I would hate if one of my children had less rights and options than the other. Live and let live!
Firefly.
This will be like the anti-divorce crowd from years ago telling us it'll be the end of the world as we know it. We'll look back years from now and wonder what all the fuss was about!
As a father of 2 young children, I would hate if one of my children had less rights and options than the other. Live and let live!
Firefly.
That's my thinking on it as well.
As Charlie McCreevy said to an irate Jonny Fox (TD for Wicklow) when homosexuality was decriminalised "Relax Jonny, we're making it legal, not compulsory."
If parentage is irrelevant and marriage is to be stripped of it gendered nature for the sake of modernity why not boil it down further to be open to any two people, then all two person relationships will be equal (and equally valid) and everyone will be happy, surely.
Which is what is being asked surely...except I'm getting a scent of the Iona Incest card.
Hmmmm, I thought that's the road they were going down as well.....I hope we are wrong.....
Yes, except relationships that are illegal such as when a party is under age or incest is involved etc.
I think you'll find they're legal for the Lannisters.
Historically, I think they'd prefer they were removed from the mother, institutionalised, used as slave labour or sold.
A much more wholesome upbringing than any gay couple could provide.
Hmmmm, I think that's pizza you scent Scoob . . I haven't read anything that Iona have to say on the matter, in fact other than this thread I have been largely tuned-out of the issue.
Incest is a separate legal issue and should be no impediment to, what might then be, the legal construct formally know as marriage (TLCFKAM) being available to ANY two mentally sound adults regardless or gender or relationship who aren't already party to a TLCFKAM.
Last edited:
Are you saying, as I can't tell from the post, that the referendum would allow incestuous marriages or that arguing for same-sex marriage is the same argument for allowing incestuous relationships or something else entirely?
That's not what I'm taking from michaelm's post at all.
It's not easy to be the only contrarian voice in these situations and while I disagree with him I think his posts have been reasonable and reasoned.
Something else, nothing to do with incest. Various posts here seems to say that parentage and gender and sexuality are irrelevant and that the 'traditional' family based on marriage is of no relative benefit to children over other ad hoc arrangements. If that is the case and we intend to extend marriage then it should be open to any two people who wish to enter that contract, including siblings and other relatives. If we only extend the current Adam and Eve model to Adam and Steve surely that discriminates against the caring and interdependent relationship of brothers Podge & Rodge, even if they don't share a bed.
.
Well, you posted that before you read the above
.No, I disagree with you but that doesn't mean you posts are inflammatory or unreasoned.Well, you posted that before you read the above
Something else, nothing to do with incest. Various posts here seems to say that parentage and gender and sexuality are irrelevant and that the 'traditional' family based on marriage is of no relative benefit to children over other ad hoc arrangements. If that is the case and we intend to extend marriage then it should be open to any two people who wish to enter that contract, including siblings and other relatives. If we only extend the current Adam and Eve model to Adam and Steve surely that discriminates against the caring and interdependent relationship of brothers Podge & Rodge, even if they don't share a bed.
Well, you posted that before you read the above
Except direct family already has a certain amount of protection in the law that a same sex couple doesn't (inhertitance, property, etc) and we aren't talking about the same type of union or contract. And it is another straw man.
Is there something special about a "traditional" marriage relationship that isn't in a same sex relationship? Assume there isn't (for the purposes of this), next is there something different in a relationship between two non-related persons (irrespective of sexuality) commiting to live together, combine income, invest together and support each other that does not exist in interdependent siblings or relatives? Yes. It is an wholly different commitment and union. Are there similarities, yes, but the similarities are greater to being equal to with a same-sex couple and "traditional" couple, unless you feel current traditional marriage is comparable to an interdepenent family relationship?
All the same, same-sex couple still have trouble in having their life-partner recognised for life insurance, still have trouble provinding for life-partners in wills, and so on and so forth. We could possibly entertain the discussion if same-sex couples had the same rights as interdependent brothers or relatives, but they don't.
Why is the "traditional" marriage afforded special status and the only union that requires incentive and recognition by the state?
I wasn't being snotty (I hope), i genuinely did not understand what point was being made. However, I do now.
Excellent post.
I know one same sex couple who are in a committed long term relationship.
I don't know them well but they are intelligent, warm and charming women and a pleasure to be around. I wish I knew them better. Maybe that's a factor in why I feel strongly about this issue, maybe because I feel it is an affront and fundamentally unjust that their loving and committed relationship is somehow less in the eyes of the state than other, far less successful relationships between heterosexual couples.
Because it has been viewed, rightly methinks, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society which provides social cohesion, and, as the best model for the upbringing of children. The tax policy of Individualisation has weakened this status and redefining marriage will weaken it further. Ultimately every ad hoc arrangement may be afforded special status, and when all are special then none will be.
Last edited: