Cabinet to discuss same-sex marriages

[White Horse]

Adoption is the states only concern, and there are no vaild arguments against it being open to stable same-sex couples.

Of course there are valid arguments. Having a male and a female parent provides the best basis for learning how to relate to both genders in later life.

There are also valid arguments for homosexual adoption. I have no issue with homosexuals adopting. However priority should be given to male/female couples, for the reason mentioned above.

I would rather see a child adopted by a loving and stable homosexual couple than languishing in state institution.

[Gladstone]

Adoption is the states only concern, and there are no vaild arguments against it being open to stable same-sex couples.

Of course there are valid arguments. Having a male and a female parent provides the best basis for learning how to relate to both genders in later life.

There are also valid arguments for homosexual adoption. I have no issue with homosexuals adopting. However priority should be given to male/female couples, for the reason mentioned above.

I would rather see a child adopted by a loving and stable homosexual couple than languishing in state institution.

Actually the child finds male and female role models in every part of their life not just from parents, thats beeen proved long ago, but I'd leave the assessment case by case up to the adoption board and let them make their own decisions.

Since we have already established MINOR diffrences between CU and Marraige, I still do not understand your objections.

[White Horse]

Since we have already established MINOR diffrences between CU and Marraige, I still do not understand your objections.

It is about the intention.

A man and a woman entering marriage do so with a view to the marriage leading on to a family. The family is more than a partnership. Children are people too, and the family can comprise many more than two people.

Homosexual partnerships appear to be mainly mutually supportive unions of two adults.

The scope and intentions are different, hence my view that law should regard them differently.

[AndrewM]

You are perfectly entitled to pursue a God-less materialistic society if you so wish.

There are other people who recognise that Irish society contained beliefs,morals, and standards that have served us well and are worth preserving.

I believe that such opinions are equally valid.

Ultimately the Irish people will decide what type of country they want.

I don't know whether you are married and have raised a family. If not, I would be interested in whether your prespective will have changed afterwards.

How is it materialistic? Is materialism the only alternative to religion, are we incapable as a society of developing a new morality that will serve us better then what we have. I dont support same sex marriage so that loads of stuff can be bought, I support it because basing society on loving relationships is a pretty good idea and should be encouraged

What's your attachment to the morality we have and have had? Ya know, the morality that protected child molestors, allowed women to be locked up if they got pregnant and husbands to beat their wives. There's this bizarre attachedment to morality without and defence of it. Tell me, what is so good about it?

[Gladstone]

Im not conivnved of that argument, because to me that sounds like an argument that only people with kids, or where the woman is pregnent, can get married.

Intention is not enough, becaue if they don't have kids or can't have kids, then it's not a real marraige as you define it, as the only thing there is the legal contract.

[TheBear]

Very few people, if any, go into marriage knowing they will never have children.

...

Are you so heartless in your wish to punish non-homosexuals?

It is about the intention.

A man and a woman entering marriage do so with a view to the marriage leading on to a family. The family is more than a partnership. Children are people too, and the family can comprise many more than two people.

Homosexual partnerships appear to be mainly mutually supportive unions of two adults.

The scope and intentions are different, hence my view that law should regard them differently.

I am a heterosexual female, who is perfectly open to the idea of getting married (if I manage to find someone to marry me... *sigh*) but who has absolutely no intention whatsoever of ever having kids. And I don't think I'm in a minority of one here.

You say that it would be intrusive for the State to check fertility before granting a marriage licence; is it not similarly intrusive to enquire about (or even to presume) the intention to have children?

Further, as I discussed with madura way back on pages one and two of this thread, while same-sex couples can't currently procreate, it will one day be possible. Will they then be allowed to marry?

[Gladstone]

[quote=TheBear]

Very few people, if any, go into marriage knowing they will never have children.

...

Are you so heartless in your wish to punish non-homosexuals?

It is about the intention.

A man and a woman entering marriage do so with a view to the marriage leading on to a family. The family is more than a partnership. Children are people too, and the family can comprise many more than two people.

Homosexual partnerships appear to be mainly mutually supportive unions of two adults.

The scope and intentions are different, hence my view that law should regard them differently.

I am a heterosexual female, who is perfectly open to the idea of getting married (if I manage to find someone to marry me... *sigh*) but who has absolutely no intention whatsoever of ever having kids. And I don't think I'm in a minority of one here.

You say that it would be intrusive for the State to check fertility before granting a marriage licence; is it not similarly intrusive to enquire about (or even to presume) the intention to have children?

Further, as I discussed with madura way back on pages one and two of this thread, while same-sex couples can't currently procreate, it will one day be possible. Will they then be allowed to marry?[/quote:3tpxdx3y]

If they adopt or use surrogacy they can do that now, have kids.

[White Horse]

You say that it would be intrusive for the State to check fertility before granting a marriage licence; is it not similarly intrusive to enquire about (or even to presume) the intention to have children?

In my experience, I have not come across anyone getting married who intend never having children. Certainly, anyone getting married in a Catholic Chiurch must swear that they intend to have children. also think that church weddings account for the vast majority of weddings. I believe that the couples you mention are statistically immaterial and their private intentions to not ridicule marriage. There is no reason as a result for the State to pry into peoples private lives.

Further, as I discussed with madura way back on pages one and two of this thread, while same-sex couples can't currently procreate, it will one day be possible. Will they then be allowed to marry?

Cloning may well be possible as well. I hope you are not suggesting one can marry oneself. :wink:

[TheBear]

[quote=Gladstone]

Very few people, if any, go into marriage knowing they will never have children.

...

Are you so heartless in your wish to punish non-homosexuals?

It is about the intention.

A man and a woman entering marriage do so with a view to the marriage leading on to a family. The family is more than a partnership. Children are people too, and the family can comprise many more than two people.

Homosexual partnerships appear to be mainly mutually supportive unions of two adults.

The scope and intentions are different, hence my view that law should regard them differently.

I am a heterosexual female, who is perfectly open to the idea of getting married (if I manage to find someone to marry me... *sigh*) but who has absolutely no intention whatsoever of ever having kids. And I don't think I'm in a minority of one here.

You say that it would be intrusive for the State to check fertility before granting a marriage licence; is it not similarly intrusive to enquire about (or even to presume) the intention to have children?

Further, as I discussed with madura way back on pages one and two of this thread, while same-sex couples can't currently procreate, it will one day be possible. Will they then be allowed to marry?

If they adopt or use surrogacy they can do that now, have kids.[/quote:1cuq2hf8]
Yes, but I was allowing for the fact that they will actually be able to have kids, comprised entirely of their own DNA, in order to stem any such piffling counter-arguments.

[White Horse]

How is it materialistic? Is materialism the only alternative to religion, are we incapable as a society of developing a new morality that will serve us better then what we have?

Societies that move away from morality adopt consumerism are their god. I am not aware of an expample where this has not happended.

What's your attachment to the morality we have and have had? Ya know, the morality that protected child molestors......

You appear a clever guy, but this is a lazy lazy argument. I could counter your argument by saying that these clerical child molesters were disproportionally homosexual. Yet you wish to allow them to marry and adopt? However, this is not an arguement I wish to make as it is lazy and as offensive as your glib one.