Cabinet to discuss same-sex marriages

[Conor]

I would like to hear from someone who rejects civil union in favour of extending marital rights to same-sex people to explain why they do so (without repeating equality as a mantra)

Why do you hate equality?

[secularireland]

You can interfere in gay people's lives, and they can interfere in yours! Seems fair, doesn't it?

Our lives are full of external interference. Homosexual people should reflect upon the concessions that have been made to their lifestyle in recent years....

However, any attempt to equate their perversion with the sanctity of marriage will be resisted by a lot of Irish people.

Gay people should be eternally grateful to their master Whitehorse, who has allowed them certain priviledges, even though it is against his better nature. It saddens him greatly after all his kind concessions those perverted c***s are still complaining. To think! They are threatening to take the sanctity of marriage away from the divine hetrosexuals. Well, today we say not more. B******s! To the GATES ye men of God!!!!

[pinkrepublican]

I am quite happy to extend property and inheritance rights to non-married couples, whether they are sexually involved or not.

However, I am opposed to civil union ceremonies other than marriage.

The constitution compels the government to protect marriage and sponsoring homosexual circuses on State property is not compatible with this.

Circuses? God ur some gombeen...get on ur house and ride into the 21st century

[Gladstone]

I am quite prepared to support a documented union between mutually dependent couples, whether the partnership is heterosexual/homosexual/siblings/non-sexual.

The issue of sex should not come into it, and full inheritance and taxation rights should be extended.

So your pro-gay marraige in reality just not in rethoric...

I've yet to hear a valid reason for opposing it.

[TheBear]

Ability to have children together?

Is drawing a functional distinction tantamount to discrimination?

And before anyone reminds me about childless male-female couples, I'll point out that it's a contingent (and possibly alterable) reality in their case.

Same-sex couples can't currently procreate, but that's just as alterable as infertile heterosexual couples. It is perfectly conceiveable that artificial fertilisation will one day allow the merging of DNA from two ova or from two sperm.

Will you let them use the M word then?

[Gladstone]

What has this got to do with kids? Your not required to have kids to get married.

[Shepherd]

You can interfere in gay people's lives, and they can interfere in yours! Seems fair, doesn't it?

Our lives are full of external interference. Homosexual people should reflect upon the concessions that have been made to their lifestyle in recent years.

It is not so long ago that their activity was a crime. There is a sympathy towards acknowledging inheritance rights and other important (albeit technical) financial issues for homosexual couples.

However, any attempt to equate their perversion with the sanctity of marriage will be resisted by a lot of Irish people.

As a matter of interest, who do you vote for?

[madura]

Ability to have children together?

Is drawing a functional distinction tantamount to discrimination?

And before anyone reminds me about childless male-female couples, I'll point out that it's a contingent (and possibly alterable) reality in their case.

Same-sex couples can't currently procreate, but that's just as alterable as infertile heterosexual couples. It is perfectly conceiveable that artificial fertilisation will one day allow the merging of DNA from two ova or from two sperm.

Will you let them use the M word then?

True. I was going to add some proviso about the current state of reproductive science to my comment.

I will certainly reconsider my operating definition of marriage when same-sex couples can have children together.

I may continue to entertain reservations about the absence of a dual-gender environment, however.

[TheBear]

What has this got to do with kids? Your not required to have kids to get married.

Aside from the adoption question, people argue that the function of marriage is to establish a stable environment in which to raise kids. The counter-argument refers to married couples who are infertile or who choose not to have kids.

I wasn't bringing kids into the argument, but trying to answer her (silly) point without making too much of an issue of it.

Edit: Just remembered to correct for gender. Sorry.

[returning officer]

returning officer wrote:
I would like to hear from someone who rejects civil union in favour of extending marital rights to same-sex people to explain why they do so (without repeating equality as a mantra)

Why do you hate equality?


I don't hate equality, but repeating it continually as an argument in favour of a proposition does not advance it's cause. I would like to hear sound, practical/financial/public policy reasons why the State should divide on a referendum, in order to deliver marriage for same-sex people.


(With referenence to Britain's model )are there any practical differences between CP and marriage?