Yes or no? Ireland decides whether to legalize gay marriage

[evadgib]

Yeah nice try no cigar trying to scapegoat gays for high divorce rates. If anything gay marriage is strengthening the institution of marriage by working so hard to be included in it it shows regard for its importance and value.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Actually I wonder about the intelligence of the homosexual community fighting so hard to be able to enter that failed institution of marriage, the biggest con on men in the western world. Women were really smart to make it so.

Like someone inferred before, it'll be interesting to see who gets the goodies when homosexuals start to get divorced- coin toss perhaps!

I wonder about your intelligence.

In any case, that's neither here nor there.

Marriage is not REQUIRED of anyone.

Gays and lesbians just want the same legal options as their fellow citizens.

Marriage will be especially important for couples that have children or want children. This might be more common among lesbians as they've got that womb thing going on.

The stats from generations to come will be interesting re the increase in numbers of children batting for the wrong side in adulthood as a result of growing up with same sex parents. To put it another way I'd be most surprised if the numbers went down.

[Jingthing]

Wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever the growing up with gay lesbian parents results in greater percentages of gay/lesbian kids.

Batting for the wrong side, which I did reply to but find the phrase obnoxious, I assume by the homophobic context that you meant gay/lesbian.

It's sad even with a great popular vote like this in Ireland that there are still so many people hard wired towards irrational bigotry against gay/lesbian people.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Jingthing

[evadgib]

The scenario in my previous post hasn't had time to be tested in significant numbers just yet.

Edited May 27, 2015 by evadgib

[Jingthing]

It hasnt been tested yet!

Wrong! There are already extensive studies about this. Children growing up with gay parents. Nothing new, dear.

[IMA_FARANG]

Imagine if 20 years ago, someone asserted that in 20 years a country like Ireland would vote OVERWHELMINGLY nationwide to approve legal gay marriage ... you would correctly thought they were insane.

Thirty years ago, when it was put forth that use of condoms prevents the spread of AIDS, Ireland balked at making them available as it was seen as a promoting contraception.

Now this. Who'da thunk?

--------------------

So maybe there is a chance of a Scotland outside of the U.K., a Britain out of the EU, and proportional representation in U.K. elections?

As the Leonard Cohen song says, "First we take London, then we take Berlin"

[sdanielmcev]

I do not have a problem if same sex couples want to be together,but if its just about equal opportunity under the law with regards to taxes,welfare etc,allowing them the same security that normal families have,well that's ok with me.But please do not allow marraiges,it lessens the value of a true family unit,that of a husband and wife,a man and a woman.

As a straight person, I can never understand how some people believe that allowing gays to marry would "lessen the value of a true family unit." Who exactly is feeling that the value of their family unit is lessened? Certainly not me. Do you feel that way about your family? Not having a go at you, but just seriously want to know how allowing gays to marry would impact straight folks at an individual level.

Conversely, most murders don't affect you, yet you would probably want some moral retribution for the act. Gay marriage perverts an existing moral value. This gay 'marriage' does no more than legislate morals.

[sdanielmcev]

Wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever the growing up with gay lesbian parents results in greater percentages of gay/lesbian kids.

Batting for the wrong side, which I did reply to but find the phrase obnoxious, I assume by the homophobic context that you meant gay/lesbian.

It's sad even with a great popular vote like this in Ireland that there are still so many people hard wired towards irrational bigotry against gay/lesbian people.

And here is where the gay 'marriage' argument fails. Children. The question always remains. Does any parent want their child to grow up and be homosexual? Notice I didn't say anything about love or support. I said want. Marriage by intent, is about the continuation of the species.

And resorting to calling someone that does not agree with you a bigot, is bigotry at its' worst.

[Jingthing]

What is the connection between most parents preferring their kids to be straight and marriage equality?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[sdanielmcev]

What is the connection between most parents preferring their kids to be straight and marriage equality?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Because marriage is for, traditionally, and until now, legally a vehicle for child upbringing.

To prevent bashing me, I have no problems we the gays.

[evadgib]

Wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever the growing up with gay lesbian parents results in greater percentages of gay/lesbian kids.

Batting for the wrong side, which I did reply to but find the phrase obnoxious, I assume by the homophobic context that you meant gay/lesbian.

It's sad even with a great popular vote like this in Ireland that there are still so many people hard wired towards irrational bigotry against gay/lesbian people.

How else could I have worded it without genuinely causing offence or resorting to politically correct gobbledygook?

As for bigotry; that seems to be a flag of convenience peddled by minorities in just about any field whenever someone with opposing views dares raise them.

The problems to which I have referred won't be apparent until the 2040's. The best we can hope in the meantime is that it isn't as bad as I suspect it might be.

Edited May 27, 2015 by evadgib

[user99]

And here is where the gay 'marriage' argument fails. Children. The question always remains. Does any parent want their child to grow up and be homosexual? Notice I didn't say anything about love or support. I said want. Marriage by intent, is about the continuation of the species.

And resorting to calling someone that does not agree with you a bigot, is bigotry at its' worst.

I'm told that a lot of people were shamed and somewhat bullied into voting yes, so I'm not sure it was really what the irish wanted.

[Jingthing]

Wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever the growing up with gay lesbian parents results in greater percentages of gay/lesbian kids.

Batting for the wrong side, which I did reply to but find the phrase obnoxious, I assume by the homophobic context that you meant gay/lesbian.

It's sad even with a great popular vote like this in Ireland that there are still so many people hard wired towards irrational bigotry against gay/lesbian people.

How else could I have worded it without resorting to politically correct gobbledygook?

As for bigotry; that seems to be a flag of convenience peddled by minorities in just about any field whenever someone with opposing views dares raise them.

Dude, just who do you think you're fooling?

If you want to say gay/lesbian, say gay/lesbian.

Instead you said WRONG side.

Like you think gay/lesbian people are INFERIOR to you.

If you were talking about RACE and the children of a mixed marriage, say black/white and you were referring to color of the children which might be black, white, or blended and you referred to black as the WRONG side color your comment would correctly be labelled as bigoted and racist.

If you don't want pushback from posting bigoted rhetoric, don't post it.

But you did and now you have a problem being called out? Again, who do you think you're fooling?

Edited May 27, 2015 by Jingthing

[evadgib]

Wrong. There is no evidence whatsoever the growing up with gay lesbian parents results in greater percentages of gay/lesbian kids.

Batting for the wrong side, which I did reply to but find the phrase obnoxious, I assume by the homophobic context that you meant gay/lesbian.

It's sad even with a great popular vote like this in Ireland that there are still so many people hard wired towards irrational bigotry against gay/lesbian people.

How else could I have worded it without resorting to politically correct gobbledygook?

As for bigotry; that seems to be a flag of convenience peddled by minorities in just about any field whenever someone with opposing views dares raise them.

Dude, just who do you think you're fooling?

If you want to say gay/lesbian, say gay/lesbian.

Instead you said WRONG side.

Like you think gay/lesbian people are INFERIOR to you.

If you were talking about RACE and the children of a mixed marriage, say black/white and you were referring to color of the children which might be black, white, or blended and you referred to black as the WRONG side color your comment would correctly be labelled as bigoted and racist.

If you don't want pushback from posting bigoted rhetoric, don't post it.

But you did and now you have a problem being called out? Again, who do you think you're fooling?

Who was it who called me 'Dear'?

Children growing up with gay parents. Nothing new, dear.

Edited May 27, 2015 by evadgib

[coulson]

And here is where the gay 'marriage' argument fails. Children. The question always remains. Does any parent want their child to grow up and be homosexual? Notice I didn't say anything about love or support. I said want. Marriage by intent, is about the continuation of the species.

And resorting to calling someone that does not agree with you a bigot, is bigotry at its' worst.

I'm told that a lot of people were shamed and somewhat bullied into voting yes, so I'm not sure it was really what the irish wanted.

What tabloid did you read that in?

[Jingthing]

Who was it who called me 'Dear'?

Totally irrelevant diversion.

I suppose for those who have LOST on this issue in Ireland and many other nations, it might be disturbing to be on the wrong side of history. At least in the civilized world.

Some places are going backwards, such as Russia, Uganda, ISISland, etc.

[evadgib]

Who was it who called me 'Dear'?

Totally irrelevant diversion.

I suppose for those who have LOST on this issue in Ireland and many other nations, it might be disturbing to be on the wrong side of history. At least in the civilized world.

Some places are going backwards, such as Russia, Uganda, ISISland, etc.

Being non Irish I haven't 'lost' anything.

As for history...

The problems to which I have referred won't be apparent until the 2040's. The best we can hope in the meantime is that it isn't as bad as I suspect it might be.

Until then you can preen on

Edited May 27, 2015 by evadgib

[Seastallion]

What is the connection between most parents preferring their kids to be straight and marriage equality?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Because marriage is for, traditionally, and until now, legally a vehicle for child upbringing.

To prevent bashing me, I have no problems we the gays.

Your assertion about marriage being the vehicle for child upbringing and the implication that thus gay marriage is pointless or redundant would also apply to post-menopausal people getting married, wouldn't it? It also would apply to hetero couples that have no intent to have children.

Ban marriages between hetero couples that are over 50? Ban marriage to any woman who has had a hysterectomy or man that has had a vasectomy?

Equal under the law is what they want, and is what they should have, whether it be a matured woman or a gay woman, a vasectomised man or a gay man.

[Jingthing]

Who was it who called me 'Dear'?

Totally irrelevant diversion.

I suppose for those who have LOST on this issue in Ireland and many other nations, it might be disturbing to be on the wrong side of history. At least in the civilized world.

Some places are going backwards, such as Russia, Uganda, ISISland, etc.

Being non Irish I haven't 'lost' anything.

As for history...

The problems to which I have referred won't be apparent until the 2040's. The best we can hope in the meantime is that it isn't as bad as I suspect it might be.

Until then you can preen on

No.

You really don't get it.

Children have been raised by gay people for a very long time.

We already know the facts ... having gay parents does not increase the chance the kids will be gay.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Jingthing

[thaibeachlovers]

Yeah nice try no cigar trying to scapegoat gays for high divorce rates. If anything gay marriage is strengthening the institution of marriage by working so hard to be included in it it shows regard for its importance and value.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Actually I wonder about the intelligence of the homosexual community fighting so hard to be able to enter that failed institution of marriage, the biggest con on men in the western world. Women were really smart to make it so.

Like someone inferred before, it'll be interesting to see who gets the goodies when homosexuals start to get divorced- coin toss perhaps!

I wonder about your intelligence.

In any case, that's neither here nor there.

Marriage is not REQUIRED of anyone.

Gays and lesbians just want the same legal options as their fellow citizens.

Marriage will be especially important for couples that have children or want children. This might be more common among lesbians as they've got that womb thing going on.

As far as messy divorces, legal gay marriage (and gay divorce) may be new in Ireland but it is not new in a number of other countries.

I suppose how divorce works out depends on national laws, but in countries where PRENUPS are possible, that's advisable for everyone.

Most western countries, I believe, have a legal alternative to marriage that could be used by homosexuals, but for some reason they want MARRIAGE. Why I don't understand, especially as it's a failed institution not worth the trouble any more. You have probably guessed by now, but I'd like to see marriage banished from the world- it's just a huge con that traps men and makes them pay and pay and pay.

[thaibeachlovers]

What is the connection between most parents preferring their kids to be straight and marriage equality?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Because marriage is for, traditionally, and until now, legally a vehicle for child upbringing.

To prevent bashing me, I have no problems we the gays.

Your assertion about marriage being the vehicle for child upbringing and the implication that thus gay marriage is pointless or redundant would also apply to post-menopausal people getting married, wouldn't it? It also would apply to hetero couples that have no intent to have children.

Ban marriages between hetero couples that are over 50? Ban marriage to any woman who has had a hysterectomy or man that has had a vasectomy?

Equal under the law is what they want, and is what they should have, whether it be a matured woman or a gay woman, a vasectomised man or a gay man.

I've got a better idea. Instead of allowing homosexuals to get married let's just ban marriage full stop for everyone. It has a 50% failure rate and is only good for lining the pockets of scum divorce lawyers.

[sdanielmcev]

What is the connection between most parents preferring their kids to be straight and marriage equality?

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Because marriage is for, traditionally, and until now, legally a vehicle for child upbringing.

To prevent bashing me, I have no problems we the gays.

Your assertion about marriage being the vehicle for child upbringing and the implication that thus gay marriage is pointless or redundant would also apply to post-menopausal people getting married, wouldn't it? It also would apply to hetero couples that have no intent to have children.

Ban marriages between hetero couples that are over 50? Ban marriage to any woman who has had a hysterectomy or man that has had a vasectomy?

Equal under the law is what they want, and is what they should have, whether it be a matured woman or a gay woman, a vasectomised man or a gay man.

I agree. Marriage has a reason, and if some want to pervert that reasoning, then ban it for those.

[boomerangutang]

I'm a bit old-fashioned on the gay marriage thing. The reason it's needing legislation is the money involvement: social security, inheritance, etc. ....and also if there are custody/kid issues involved.

I'm ok with civil union but not full-fledged marriage status. Two men or two women living together as a married couple is fine. But why give it legal status as 'marriage'? Oh, almost forgot, it's for the reasons in my opening sentence, above. I assume the same people who support gay marriage also support 'third gender' (katoy) status. Yet, once you get to officializing such things, then all parameters fly out the window.

Katoy with man. Katoy with woman. Katoy with katoy. Male-to-female katoy with female-to-man katoy. Cross-dresser with hermaphrodite, ......the list could go on and on with dozens of categories. And what of a person who makes a change, and then changes back to another gender later on. I actually know a Burmese person who went from male to female, ....then back to male years later. I've been out of touch with him/her for 10 years, but that person may have gone back to being female again.

With all respect to Bruce Jenner, let males be males and females be females. Anyone who fudges with their sexuality, whether by surgery or hormones or whatever, that's their choice. But how they're born should be the basis of their ID card.

Even if a baby is born with both types of genitals, the parents and surgeon make a decision, and the die is cast. That's the gender for that person, for life. Whatever else that baby does (body piercings or whatever) at it grows older is its decision. The alternative is the multiple mutable categories we're facing.

[Berkshire]

I do not have a problem if same sex couples want to be together,but if its just about equal opportunity under the law with regards to taxes,welfare etc,allowing them the same security that normal families have,well that's ok with me.But please do not allow marraiges,it lessens the value of a true family unit,that of a husband and wife,a man and a woman.

As a straight person, I can never understand how some people believe that allowing gays to marry would "lessen the value of a true family unit." Who exactly is feeling that the value of their family unit is lessened? Certainly not me. Do you feel that way about your family? Not having a go at you, but just seriously want to know how allowing gays to marry would impact straight folks at an individual level.

Conversely, most murders don't affect you, yet you would probably want some moral retribution for the act. Gay marriage perverts an existing moral value. This gay 'marriage' does no more than legislate morals.

You're equating murder with gay marriage? I realize it probably wasn't your intention, but when you make comparisons like that, it demonstrates a certain amount of bigoted orientation. It's like when people used to compare interracial relationships with incest and bestiality. The only way that one can believe that gay marriage "perverts an existing moral value" is if one believes that being gay is in itself wrong. Anyways, it matters not what the folks here think. The world is going in the right direction on gay rights in general and it won't be long before all the folks against it die off.

[MaeJoMTB]

I'm ok with civil union but not full-fledged marriage status. Two men or two women living together as a married couple is fine. But why give it legal status as 'marriage'? Oh, almost forgot, it's for the reasons in my opening sentence, above. I assume the same people who support gay marriage also support 'third gender' (katoy) status. Yet, once you get to officializing such things, then all parameters fly out the window.

Katoy with man. Katoy with woman. Katoy with katoy. Male-to-female katoy with female-to-man katoy. Cross-dresser with hermaphrodite, ......the list could go on and on with dozens of categories. And what of a person who makes a change, and then changes back to another gender later on. I actually know a Burmese person who went from male to female, ....then back to male years later. I've been out of touch with him/her for 10 years, but that person may have gone back to being female again.

You can't change your sex, it's decided at a genetic level.

Superficial cosmetic surgery doesn't change anyones sex, only their outward appearance.

You are either male of female, heterosexual = male + female, once you legalize homosexual marriage all possible combinations are covered.

Genetic anomalies are so rare as to be not worth considering in this discussion, and are only used (by you) to deflect the discussion.

The only reasonable choice, in these modern times, is to let any two consenting adults marry.

Job done.

Edited May 28, 2015 by MaeJoMTB

[boomerangutang]

I'm ok with civil union but not full-fledged marriage status. Two men or two women living together as a married couple is fine. But why give it legal status as 'marriage'? Oh, almost forgot, it's for the reasons in my opening sentence, above. I assume the same people who support gay marriage also support 'third gender' (katoy) status. Yet, once you get to officializing such things, then all parameters fly out the window.

Katoy with man. Katoy with woman. Katoy with katoy. Male-to-female katoy with female-to-man katoy. Cross-dresser with hermaphrodite, ......the list could go on and on with dozens of categories. And what of a person who makes a change, and then changes back to another gender later on. I actually know a Burmese person who went from male to female, ....then back to male years later. I've been out of touch with him/her for 10 years, but that person may have gone back to being female again.

You can't change your sex, it's decided at a genetic level.

Superficial cosmetic surgery doesn't change anyones sex, only their outward appearance.

You are either male of female, heterosexual = male + female, once you legalize homosexual marriage all possible combinations are covered.

Genetic anomalies are so rare as to be not worth considering in this discussion, and are only used (by you) to deflect the discussion.

The only reasonable choice, in these modern times, is to let any two consenting adults marry.

Job done.

I was referring to what is indicated on a person's ID - which is an issue which relates to the OP. In order for there to be categorizations (of sexual orientation, whatever) certain things have to be established/defined. Perhaps I'm off on a tangent here, but Thailand already implemented a provision for a person to specify "other" (or katoy or neuter or whatever) on an individual's ID. I wouldn't be surprised if the US has a similar provision. What I'm proposing, for the sake of clarity and simplicity, is each person's ID state either male or female. Once officialdom starts trying to be achingly PC, then it becomes a mish-mash of many categories for 'sex' of an individual.

Outside of the ID topic, one can then go on to clarifying a person's sexual orientation - though that too can vary - among many niches. Plus, people are mutable. They may be gay for awhile, and then change to be bi-sexual, and then get a sex-change and be seemingly straight, and then......

That brings me back to my initial premise: marriage should be between a man and a woman (predicated on their sex at birth). Alternatively, a 'civil union' (with legal ramifications) can be between any two consenting adults - can even be multiple partners, for all I care, though I might draw the line at animals. ....like the Thai woman who took a cow to bed and claimed she was married to it.

[Berkshire]

I'm ok with civil union but not full-fledged marriage status. Two men or two women living together as a married couple is fine. But why give it legal status as 'marriage'? Oh, almost forgot, it's for the reasons in my opening sentence, above. I assume the same people who support gay marriage also support 'third gender' (katoy) status. Yet, once you get to officializing such things, then all parameters fly out the window.

Katoy with man. Katoy with woman. Katoy with katoy. Male-to-female katoy with female-to-man katoy. Cross-dresser with hermaphrodite, ......the list could go on and on with dozens of categories. And what of a person who makes a change, and then changes back to another gender later on. I actually know a Burmese person who went from male to female, ....then back to male years later. I've been out of touch with him/her for 10 years, but that person may have gone back to being female again.

You can't change your sex, it's decided at a genetic level.

Superficial cosmetic surgery doesn't change anyones sex, only their outward appearance.

You are either male of female, heterosexual = male + female, once you legalize homosexual marriage all possible combinations are covered.

Genetic anomalies are so rare as to be not worth considering in this discussion, and are only used (by you) to deflect the discussion.

The only reasonable choice, in these modern times, is to let any two consenting adults marry.

Job done.

I was referring to what is indicated on a person's ID - which is an issue which relates to the OP. In order for there to be categorizations (of sexual orientation, whatever) certain things have to be established/defined. Perhaps I'm off on a tangent here, but Thailand already implemented a provision for a person to specify "other" (or katoy or neuter or whatever) on an individual's ID. I wouldn't be surprised if the US has a similar provision. What I'm proposing, for the sake of clarity and simplicity, is each person's ID state either male or female. Once officialdom starts trying to be achingly PC, then it becomes a mish-mash of many categories for 'sex' of an individual.

Outside of the ID topic, one can then go on to clarifying a person's sexual orientation - though that too can vary - among many niches. Plus, people are mutable. They may be gay for awhile, and then change to be bi-sexual, and then get a sex-change and be seemingly straight, and then......

That brings me back to my initial premise: marriage should be between a man and a woman (predicated on their sex at birth). Alternatively, a 'civil union' (with legal ramifications) can be between any two consenting adults - can even be multiple partners, for all I care, though I might draw the line at animals. ....like the Thai woman who took a cow to bed and claimed she was married to it.

You're still bringing up civil unions? That boat has sailed. It's not coming back. The conclusion is that civil unions (aka "separate but equal") does not work. It never has and never will. Time has changed, Sir, and the world has moved on.

[Jingthing]

Sometimes a first step. Thailand is likely to legalize gay civil unions within 10 years. Each country is different.

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Jingthing]

Now a message to Ireland from the U.S. Dept. of Labor, time travel division:

[CWMcMurray]

I do not have a problem if same sex couples want to be together,but if its just about equal opportunity under the law with regards to taxes,welfare etc,allowing them the same security that normal families have,well that's ok with me.But please do not allow marraiges,it lessens the value of a true family unit,that of a husband and wife,a man and a woman.

As a straight person, I can never understand how some people believe that allowing gays to marry would "lessen the value of a true family unit." Who exactly is feeling that the value of their family unit is lessened? Certainly not me. Do you feel that way about your family? Not having a go at you, but just seriously want to know how allowing gays to marry would impact straight folks at an individual level.

Sorry honey... Just learned that Mike and Steve got married...

So obviously this means I no longer love you ... Oh yeah and I'm no longer taking care of or going to act as a father to my children...

Yeah.. That seems to make sense

[thaibeachlovers]

I'm ok with civil union but not full-fledged marriage status. Two men or two women living together as a married couple is fine. But why give it legal status as 'marriage'? Oh, almost forgot, it's for the reasons in my opening sentence, above. I assume the same people who support gay marriage also support 'third gender' (katoy) status. Yet, once you get to officializing such things, then all parameters fly out the window.

Katoy with man. Katoy with woman. Katoy with katoy. Male-to-female katoy with female-to-man katoy. Cross-dresser with hermaphrodite, ......the list could go on and on with dozens of categories. And what of a person who makes a change, and then changes back to another gender later on. I actually know a Burmese person who went from male to female, ....then back to male years later. I've been out of touch with him/her for 10 years, but that person may have gone back to being female again.

You can't change your sex, it's decided at a genetic level.

Superficial cosmetic surgery doesn't change anyones sex, only their outward appearance.

You are either male of female, heterosexual = male + female, once you legalize homosexual marriage all possible combinations are covered.

Genetic anomalies are so rare as to be not worth considering in this discussion, and are only used (by you) to deflect the discussion.

The only reasonable choice, in these modern times, is to let any two consenting adults marry.

Job done.

So, if two homosexuals can get married, why can't we have legal bigamy/ multiple marriage. In this brave new world of anything goes who has the right to say I can't be married to 2, 3, 10 other people of whatever gender- certainly not homosexuals.