You go girl!!!!! And I got your back ;-) Good for you!!!

Brilliant post. My son and his husband (because that’s how I see him) are in the same boat. Their wedding was a joyous occasion and I challenge ANYBODY to come up with a valid reason why they should not be upgraded to marriage. Their relationship is as loving, as spiritually nourishing, socially important, human and valid as my marriage to my wife, my daughter’s marriage to her husband and the marriages of anyone else you care to name.

Well said!!! :)

Penguin Nation, the question should be how did affect your life. Of the answer to that is a positive one who cares what idiots think.

I agree entirely with you, but why do people put up daft names on these comments if they’re not ashamed of what they’re writing?

Why did you put up a daft name?

Michelle, I fear it’s more damaging to children to be brought up in such a closed minded environment to be honest! What’s not natural about loving someone? Nothing more natural if you ask me?

Michelle, thank you for your comment. You need not worry about my children though, they’ll be fine, happy and loved.

Actually it is extremely natural and is found throughout nature. One person’s ignorance shouldn’t affect another’s legal rights in marriage.

Michelle, homosexuality is found in hundreds of species throughout the animal kingdom. Homophobia is only found in one. Guess which it is.

Michelle and what of a straight couple? A couple who are drunks, steal, cheat. They inflict that behavior on their children. A child watching their parents on the friggen Jermey Kyle show.

Parenting doesn’t come down to what sex you happen to be.

Michelle, Really , is pedophilia common throughout the animal kingdom, Citation please. By the way I know homosexuality is , But I’ve never heard pedophilia is.

Actually Michelle the research shows the exact opposite, that gay parents may actually be better for children than straight parents.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/16/gay-parents-better-than-straights_n_1208659.html

Noel wasn’t trying to equate with animals, he was merely pointing out that your assertion that gay partnerships were not natural was incorrect. Also your use of the word CHOICE betrays your homophobia. Homosexuality is not a choice, to quote a Dusty Springfield song (she got there a long time before Lady Gaga robbed it) gay people are “born this way”.

Michelle, no, being straight may not be a choice, but adopting children and co-habituation is.

What is your actual point?

No I mean what is the difference between a straight couple adopting and “inflicting” their beliefs on a child and same sex couple adopting.

Michelle, do you truly believe that children are better off growing up in state care rather than being adopted by a loving couple who happen to be the same gender? Because there aren’t enough people willing to adopt, especially for children who are infants, to go around. If you are truly thinking of the children then wouldn’t you want to give as many of them as possible a shot at a happy childhood?

Sorry, that should read “for people who aren’t infants”

its already been well documented that changes in Family Structure does effect children , and children are at the heart of all of these issues ,

you say your parents were bigots but they overcame that , perhaps it could be the other way around , I mean if you viewed your parents as bigots for holding an alternative viewpoint to yourself , well that in itself is a form of bigotry , it works both ways , you see your way as the right way but others like myself see it differently , I dont think its natural the way life intended it to be and therefore it should not be normalised , people might not like what I have to say but we live in a democracy (or used to anyway) so I am also just as much as you entitled to express my views , whether you see them as biggoted is a difference of opinion.

Freebies, holding an alternative viewpoint is not bigotry. A bigot is “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices”, if for example you hold onto the belief that growing up in house with two parents of the same gender is bad for children, for no good reason and in spite of the mounting evidence against your belief, then that is bigotry.

John , you have no evidence to suggest it wont be bad for children , changes in family structure do effect children , studies have been done that indicate this, if you look at the london riots , most of the young rioters came from single parent families .

its historically being established that a man and woman are probably the best combination for rearing children , if its not broken , why fix it ????

I don’t really have the time to get into this this evening, but let me say this, my parents were indeed bigots, completely intolerant and full of prejudice. That changed when they realised I was gay. It was quite a long road. I accept peoples rights to have opinions I disagree with, but I do not accept that those rights should impinge on my life or my family.

In terms of family structure changing, the structure of my family is and will be the same, no change, two parents, my partner and I, with a biological child borne by one or other of us. We approached fertility in the same way as a heterosexual couple who needed help by using donor sperm. If you keep making the point against the use of assisted fertility, then you speak against people heterosexual and gay, single and married who use donor sperm, donor eggs or any other treatment.
I appreciate your opinions, and I agree that holding them is your right, but you do not have the right to seek to affect, negate or alter the way I live. Thank you.

Michelle, you being fearful of my children growing up timid is great! Thanks!! They’ll be confident, self expressive little liberals, just like their mothers :)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/abstract
Here is some evidence, took me about 2 minutes to find with google.

I voted yes because I don’t think anyone has the right to tell another that they cannot love

Does that logic also apply to incest and polygamy, Elaine?

of course you would vote yes. i dont see why same sex couples should not be allowed be as miserable as the rest of us! seriously though its a no brainer for me. homosexual people r subject to every other law in this country the same as everyone else so i dont see why they should be treated differently when it annes to marriage. no tax on your car? grand no bother your homosexual law only applies to straight people. to be fair church wont let them marry in a church ceremony and that’s their choice that’s not gonna change any time soon. but the government should listen to what the people say. either way. if the majority vote no well there is your answer for now. but i think we should at least be asked the question. know which way i would vote.

@Keith Mills Troll much?

Are you seeking Solace?

Norma, it’s a genuine question. If someone says that marriage should be given to any people that happen to love each other, then I’d like to know if they see any limit to that “logic”.

No Elaine, I’m seeking a simple yes or no answer, can you provide one?

Well, Keith, if there was a significant number of people seeking it, I’d be happy to listen to their arguments. But at the minute, there is not. There are, however, many, many couples seeking equal marriage.

@Keith,, the heading of this article is about Gays that are neither related nor in many relationship I voted yes for same sex marriages I do believe that it is unfair to tell people of same sex they cannot love or that it is wrong….. the heading did not include any other type of love.. I didn’t realise I had to elaborate,, Same sex couples should be allowed to marry and have the same rights same laws as non same sex couples ….

I’d have no problem with polygamist marriage if its genuine

Elaine, that’s a nice attempt to dodge the question, but again let me quote what you said “I voted yes because I don’t think anyone has the right to tell another that they cannot love”. So once again do you believe that where a genuine love exists in an incestuous or polygamous relationship, that that should also be grounds for marriage? Again, a simple yes or no will suffice. The reason I would like a direct answer is that if we are to change the definition of marriage, which has served society well for centuries, how far people want to go.

Nick, there are not a huge amount of people seeking “gay marriage”, in fact I know of no one who has rejected civil partnerships, in the hope of getting “gay marriage”, Don’t mistake noise for fact.

@Keith cop on,,,, yes no one has a right to tell another they cannot love it doesn’t matter what, who or how they love,,,, I’ve no right to tell you who you can love just as much as you don’t have the right to tell me who I can’t love.. Love is a wonderful thing it can also be a bitch of a thing,,, your comment is ridiculous . If you love a woman would I have the right to say any different, if you love a man would I have the right to say any different, if you loved many would I have the right to say any different or if you loved a relation would I have a right,,, Im not the one that has to live with you or put up with your ways…. Minds are like parachutes they only work when opened!

But Keith, what number would be sufficiently “huge” enough for you to consider it critical mass? I think a lot of people – my son included – took the watery civil partnership option because that’s all that was available to them at the time but fully intend to seek an “upgrade” when marriage equality comes in.

OK Elaine, I will take that as a “yes” and you have no issue with introducing marriage for polygamous and incestuous relationships. At least we now have some clarification into how far some people are prepared to re-define marriage.

@Keith while you are perfectly valid to make your opinions known I would ask you this in reference to polygamy how does a polygamist marriage fair out in equality terms for women in polygamist cultures? How many husbands can they take? Is it fair in regards to them? So ergo, if both parties entering into one of these marriages are not getting the same benefits or rights…well it’s hardly marriage equality then is it?

Chris, civil partnership is no a lower class version of marriage and to say it is is an insult to the thousands of people who have availed of it. Different relationships require different forms of recognition, if you believe that the state has a role in recognizing personal relationships( which I don’t).

As for what number should should be required to necessitate a referendum, I would say let’s look where this issue lies in te priority of a government that is removing home care packages from the vulnerable and removing Garda stations from communities. That is to say, not very high up the list.

wrong Keith Mills my partner ( of 14 years) and I have rejected civil partnership in favour of marriage and if we have to wait another 14 years for equality we will – FACT

Keith I think it’s a given that we’re referring to consenting adults. And not anyone who is being coerced or forced into anything outside their will and comprehension.
But there, it’s stated now if that makes you feel better.

The incredible mean-spiritedness of people who want to stop other people from being married when it will in no way affect them. Talk of natural definitions is fruitless – social institutions change with time – marriage used to be seen as a contract where a woman was handed from father to husband; it used to be about having children. Now it is seen more as a binding commitment between two people who love each other. Do we ban people with no intention of having children from getting married? It seems that the view of what marriage is has shifted among the vast majority of Irish people, and for the rest what right do you have to impose your own views onto others?

@Elaine Fitspatick – Whopper comeback! With regards to your initial comment, Fair play on your Appropriate answer.

@Keith Mills – Incest is wrong!
A man loving another man of a woman loving another woman is NOT!
Just line it’s NOT wrong for a Man to love a Woman and Vice Versa… Cop on indeed!

Keith nowhere does polygamous or incestuous relationships enter into the discussion in Ireland at least, we have existing laws to deal with that. When two consenting adults (of sound mind) get married it is a benefit in certain ways under the law. It should not matter if they are gay or straight, they are adult citizens. Why should a child end up in care because ONE of their parents died and the other is not legally entitled to parent them, even though they ARE their parent? I know people who were married and split, i know people who never married and are going strong, it has nothing to do with a ‘union before god’ or ‘a union for procreation’ it is for 2 adults who want to commit and avail of the societal benefits resulting from the union.

Hey Keith, if two consenting adults want to get married so be it. It mightent be what I’d prefer but whatever floats your boat you know?

@Olwyn I know it was getting painful something like banging ones head off a wall,,, couldn’t be dealing with that nonsense ;-)

i love this people like Keith mills express an opinion or ask a question that is contrary to what you all like to hear you believe his opinion is wrong and that he is bigoted in some way and judging by some of the comments it would seem because you are gay or your offspring are gay that you have the moral authority to say that you are right and how dare somebody come along and challenge this cop on people we live in a democracy we all have as much right to comment as anybody and if by any chance you make a comment that is contrary to what gay people or gay relatives believe you are automatically homophobic and therefore worse than Hitler for comments that you interpret as wrong

Thanks Lee, it never ceases to amaze me how abuse some people can get when they are asked to answer a simple question or to justify their opinions. Obviously challenging people who haven’t fully thought out their position tends to drag out their true nature, but I’m used to it by now an it is quite revealing.

Emma our existing laws (and constitution) already outlaw “gay marriage” as well as polygamy and incestuous marriage, so legally they are all on a par. The discussion about adoption is a separate one, and one I’d be more than pleased to have, but this is probably not the right place.

Shane, I’m sure you’re not alone (and I never said that you were), but I’m equally sure there are only a tiny number that share your position.

Aidan, by its nature legalising polygamy here would mean that it would be in an Irish cultural setting, so i could confer the very same rights if our legislators chose to do so. As I said when you start to interfere with the traditional definition of marriage, everything is up for grabs and that’s why I oppose it.

Keith, I opted out of a civil partnership, I refused point blank to be treated as a second class citizen in this republic, so i got married in New York.
You may think that there are not a lot of people looking for ‘Gay Marriage” but that may be that most seek ‘Marriage Equality’ same deal, same union, same laws, just open to all in a equal, fair, republic- not a special ‘gay’ one.
Those people on this earth who have been marrying down through the ages have redefined marriage down through those same centuries. It used to mean different things at different times to different societies. I don’t know many women today who would sign up to an older more traditional marriage where she was deemed the property of first her father and then her husband. Straight people have redefined marriage to now be about the love between two people, equal in a partnership together.
I think this society has come to a place where it values equality over ‘tradition’.

Nothing to do with marriage

keith where did i mention anything about adoption? If i get pregnant (the old fashioned way) and my lesbian partner and i both parent the child, one day i die she has No Right to that child under the law! You cannot put down the name of a lesbian partner on a birth cert as the ‘father’ if they aren’t biologically related they hypothetically have No RIGHT to keep the child upon my death. They also have to pay inheritance tax on anything i leave to them since they arent my ‘husband’

@Mícheál O Sé may I ask what century you live in? Marriage is NOT as you put it, “an arrangement between an initiator(Man) and reciever(Woman)” it is an equal partnership between two people, who choose to have their relationship officially recognised and authorised by the Church (I include Muslim and Jewish etc marriages in that, I’m not sure how they would put it) or by the State in a civil partnership.
I suppose in your mind, we (women) ought to be kept in the kitchen, “barefoot and pregnant”!

As I have said many times before, if your religion says you can’t have same sex marriages, that means YOU can’t marry someone of the same sex. It does not mean same sex marriage should be illegal. If your religion says you can’t watch Doctor Who on the last Friday of the month, that means YOU can’t watch Doctor Who on the last Friday of the month. It does not mean Doctor Who should not be made. So on. So forth.

To me marriage is a religious ceremony, all else is a civil partnership , which rightly should cover all loving partnerships . But marriage I think, should be a religious decision !! not a civil one !!

This world has seen many atheist states that oppressed religion. None of them ever considered that a marriage to be possible between people of the same sex.

Na Fulacht Fia Moore, I assume then you have been writing to TDs asking them to alter the 19th century laws that have allowed civil marriage, without reference to a church. Many couples have marriages in registry offices, and this will be opening up now to other locations, without any religious dimension.

So anyone who gets married for the second time after divorce are not technically married in your eyes? Give me a break! Civil marriages will be the way forward eventually, they are growing each year and I’d imagine in a few generations time will far outnumber religious ceremonies.

Na Fulacht Fia Moore, You should probably read up on the actual history of marriage before forming an opinion on what marriage actually is. But then again, that would be some form of education, and we wouldn’t want that, no would we?

There’s a theoretical and imaginary particle called marriagium and there’s only a finite amount in the universe. By allowing more people to get married there is less marriagium per marriage and as such people become “less” married.

That’s right, the more people who are married the less married those people who are married become.

Marriagium is next to Narrativium on your periodic table of the elephants.

It also plays a vital role on holding society together. If there are too many same-sex marriages, a great Plague will descend upon the land and horses will start eating each other.

That’d be awful. The Polish Beef Export Industry would be wiped out completely.

Damocles wilfully misunderstands what devaluation of marriage means.

Marriage is an arrangement between an initiator(Man) and reciever(Woman). Redefining this arrangement is at the heart of the argument.

I don’t think people know the real story in the book of Genesis. It was initially written as Adam and Steve, long story short, massive confusion in the printers and it came out Adam and Eve. Due to the popularity of this version Penguin publications went with it and had a massive PR campaign with radio, tv, magazine and viral internet videos. This has lead to the disgust in seeing same sex couples disgrace the sanctity of marriage. Thanks penguin books, homophobic bastards.

An “Initiator” and a “Receiver”? Seriously? Marriage is a loving partnership between two people. Well my marriage is, I’ll not dictate to others.

In same sex marriages both people involved can initiate and receive ;) BOOM, just made it sexy

And Michael wilfully misunderstands sarcasm me thinks?

Oh, Mícheál, you’re a card! “Marriage is an arrangement between an initiator(Man) and reciever(Woman). Redefining this arrangement is at the heart of the argument.” Please accept the award for Most Breathtakingly Sexist Comment of the Hour.

My wife (AKA ‘receiver’) would be SO pleased to see you devalue her so. I imagine many others would too. As a married man, I find your crass interpretation of marriage to be offensive and astoundingly stupid. You are the only person here to demean the concept of marriage. Damocles might have been playing word games with you but your ludicrous argument is, at best , disingenuous. You can’t come up with an actual argument against same-sex marriage, an argument that holds water and is based on truth and not distaste, can you?.

@Mícheál O Sé may I ask what century you live in? Marriage is NOT as you put it, “an arrangement between an initiator(Man) and reciever(Woman)” it is an equal partnership between two people, who choose to have their relationship officially recognised and authorised by the Church (I include Muslim and Jewish etc marriages in that, I’m not sure how they would put it) or by the State in a civil partnership.
I suppose in your mind, we (women) ought to be kept in the kitchen, “barefoot and pregnant”!

Adapted:

Being gay is not natural – we reject unnatural things (like glasses, polyester and air conditioning)

Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet.

Gay parents will raise gay children. Evidenced by straight couples only raising straight children.

Pass me the sick bucket someone!

Said sick bucket needed for Micheal O’She’s post.

The sad thing is that it’s even put to a ‘vote/poll’
I can’t believe also that so far the No almost beats the Yes here.
It’s just a sad state of affairs!

Ye sap but I get ur joke.

“Marriage is an arrangement between an initiator(Man) and reciever(Woman).”

Hmm… my wife asked me to marry her, so I guess we’re not married after all.

Except on February 29th

Oh shut up you idiot !!

If there is a marriage between two initiators, would that not show a lot of initiative?

If there is a marriage between two receivers, would that not create a very receptive society?

@ Damocles “marriagium” – love it !

@ Micheal O Se – enjoying 1957 ?

I’d take the poll result so far with a pinch of salt. If you’re motivated enough, it’s very easy to get a bunch of like-minded people to take two seconds out of their day to vote something down. They don’t even have to be in Ireland. It sometimes happens on the Journal that a poll result or even ‘thumbs up’ count on a nasty comment gets ridiculously out of kilter with the sentiments in most of the comments. It only seems to happen on stories with a religion/homosexuality/abortion aspect to them. There was a guy pontificating against marriage equality on a story here yesterday. He had an Irish name but I didn’t think his mugshot (on his twitter) looked particularly Irish. I googled it and it turns out he’s an American conservative republican who blogs and tweets in the US with a different name but with the same pic. Devious, but lazy.

Ok I will try and point out a couple of obvious legal problems here .You can not have same sex marriage under the same legal conditions as presently apply.There is a legal requirement for Consummation ,in order for a marriage contract to be valid . Now it’s physically impossible for a same sex couple to have intercourse , in a way that can fulfill the present legal obligation .So do you change the whole legal definition of all marriage ,or have separate requirements for same sex and therefore make it unequal and defeat the whole purpose ?

Jeff, if consumation is to be proved in any relationship, be it homosexual or heterosexual, you would need to place a camera in the bedroom. So if thats your only arguement against same-sex marriage, I suggest you start lobbying our legislators to put cameras in the bedrooms of our nations newly weds.

Im not against it Im simply pointing out the elephant in the room . I also suggest you go read the statute before you make idiotic comments .If pointing out a legal problem makes your tiny brain think I’m some biggot then your a moron .You can not have marriage without the legal protection ,it not just a reason for a party !

Jeff, where did I call you a bigot? If consumation is to be proven, it needs independent witnesses. I have merely offered you an insight which does not mean I have a tiny brain :-(

Consummation is only needed for an Anulment under Canon/Church Law. Church laws are not Civil laws, so your Consummation argument is totally invalid.

Mike your Wrong I suggest you do a little research mate

Regarding consummation: legally speaking, a marriage is not void if it is not consummated. It is voidable. There is a difference. Either party can avoid the marriage if the other party cannot consummate the marriage. If the marriage is avoided, it then becomes void ab initio. But unless the marriage is avoided, it remains valid. It is possible to lose the right to avoid if you enter into a marriage knowing it will not be consummated and accepting that fact. So the inability to consummate (in the sense of being unable to engage in a single act of heterosexual intercourse) should not prove to be a barrier for the marriage of same-sex couples. There is a bigger question – why does inability to consummate render the marriage voidable? Consummation need only happen once for the right to avoid to be lost. It has nothing to do with fertility. It has nothing to do with sexual fulfillment. So what purpose does it serve?

I personally dont have a problem with taking the sexual requirement out of marriage ,what I do have a problem with is a) telling people that it will not change the nature of marriage when that is patently not true and b) How do you prevent sham marriage (hetro and gay) .This is a far more complex issue that just equality .

You change the whole legal definition :-)

Jeff said: “I do have a problem with is a) telling people that it will not change the nature of marriage when that is patently not true.” At last! At last someone who can say HOW it will change marriage. Please elaborate, Jeff.

Oh, and changing the legal definition is NOT the same as undermining it.

Oh, and FYI, there have always been sham marriages – including those of gay/straight mixes for all kinds of reasons – visas, green cards, inheritance, yada yada yada. Marriage equality won’t make that any more or less of a crime.

Chris I will try to explain, a marriage contract endows not just protection for a person but also contractual obligations .Now as simply as I can make it for you ,in order to allow same sex couples you have to change those contractual obligations ,which also removes the protection said obligations give .It therefore changes the nature of the marriage , this is an obvious truth you can not deny?

Thank you, Jeff, for you kindly and condescendingly explaining things. Which protections would be removed by this earth-shattering change?

Sex is not an obligation of marriage anymore. Marital rape has been criminalised for over a decade. If a couple decides to live without sex, I’m not one to judge. The idea that there’s one standard formula for marriages of people of the opposite sex strikes me as slightly insane.

The major legal obligations that flow from marriage are an obligation to maintain one’s spouse and an obligation to house one’s spouse. Obligations arise in respect of children, but these arise as a result of the parent-child relationship, not due to marriage per se. There is no obligation to have heterosexual sex and no way of compelling a sexual relationship.

It’s amazing that so many people voted no, but didn’t comment on why they voted no (after a quick scan through the comments). Do they know that their bigotry is outdated, and they’re ashamed to make their stance public?

Jeff- Whaaaaat??!!!

Why wouldnt someone vote that way? A lot of people want to get married one day, they dont want to have the meaning of marriage reduced to simply some contract between any two parties. They are not malicious haters or anything.

The people posting here are a tiny percentage of the total population and are a “young and urbane” demographic so are not nationally representative, its refreshing to see the argument from the traditional marriage side getting through to even the folks posting here.

Interesting that you consider an expression of love and lifelong commitment to be simply “some contract between any two parties.”

Just did

Mícheál, you’ve said that marriage equality would reduce marriage to “simply some contract between any two parties” without saying HOW. No marriage that would suffer as a result. No engaged couple anywhere would decide not to marry as a result.

Are you suggesting that love and commitment would not be part of a same-sex marriage? Elsewhere, I saw same sex marriage described as a “downgrading” of the institution to “merely” a romantic contract. Yet show me a marriage not based on romantic love and I’ll show you a marriage of convenience.

I’m very open to hearing exactly HOW same sex marriage would negatively affect anyone’s future or rights. I have yet to hear an argument against same-sex marriage that is based in anything other than distaste (and, I’m sorry, but the traditionalist and religious arguments to date have lacked logic and objectivity). I’m all for people observing the tenets of their dearly-held faiths: if same-sex marriage is against your faith, don’t engage in it. Your faith is important to you but it does not trump the faith (or rights) of another person.

What arguments? Do you mean ‘traditional’ as in people who get married and end up hating each other, fighting and bringing their children up in a home where two adults increasingly despise each other?

Many traditional marriages end up in seperation or divorce. Is that the traditional you are speaking?

Michéal, I’m absolutely in favour of love-I want to get married eventually and raise a family. And you know what would make that lifestyle even more attractive to me? If my gay friends and family could do the same if that’s what they wanted. The gender of their life partner is no business of mine and they deserve all the same civil liberties I enjoy.

Micheal – you seem to regard marriage as something that would be devalued if it were more commonplace, like gold or oil or some other commodity, it’s worth would be valued by it’s abundance. Do you not suppose that such an outlook might do more to devalue marriage than extending it to same sex couples.

Chris, Your use of the term “Marriage Equality” is telling.

Anyway do you not agree that this is changing marriage from one sort of thing to another?

What will eventually happen is that Church marriage will divorce itself from the state. And you will have two forms of marriage like it or not. Under God and Under the State. Marriage A and B. What will liberals do then, shut down the churches?

What does it “tell” you, Micheal? That I’m in favour of equality? That I see it as marriage, plain and simple, not same-sex marriage or gay marriage but a marriage between two consenting adults who love each other?

The churches are doing a pretty dgood job of shutting themselves down, Michael. If you disenfranchise the punters, they tend to stay away.

Werent recent national polls showing 70% in favour. Love isnt restricted to those of opposite sex nor should marrige. Who are you to tell someone they cant get married because you dont agree with the sex of the person they love and care for?

Micheal – the church is already doing a good enough job of killing itself off. I dont see why liberals need to do anything except keep giving the church enough rope to hang itself.

The church can do what they want for all I care. What we want is for the two “different” couples to be recognised as the same under the state. At the end of the day, what you have proposed is exactly what I want, separation of church and state.

Also, which church? I’m a Quaker and our meeting would love to be able to marry Quaker couples, regardless of gender. I didn’t realise by “religious freedom” you meant only your religion. How tolerant.

The fact is that the institution of marriage was a legal/social arrangement long before the religions got their grubby hands on it! And it’s primary function was the control of female fertility. Until DNA profiling, hidden ovulation in human females meant that a man could never be sure that the child he is raising was his. All sorts of social structures were invented, marriage being one of them, to ensure, as far as was possible, that the children a man was raising, and investing in resources in, were his. That is the institution all these right wing nuts are trying to defend to their last breath. Over the years legal rights and entitlements have grown up around the institution of marriage and there is no reason on earth why everyone should not be entitled to these same rights, regardless of gender.

Chris doesnt see this changing marriage at all. No further conversation is possible because he wont deal with reality.

I agree Gavin, ye can have your “marriage” and the church will maintain its own institution. Athiests who support the standard definition of marriage as an OBVIOUS arrangement between one man and one woman will be out in the cold though :(

@Mícheál O Sé “A lot of people want to get married one day…” [citation needed]

Looks like “yes” is now taking a slight advantage. Seriously these polls are fairly meaningless as you can guarantee the Iona Institute and Youth Defence offices are working overtime right now clicking away. Michael, national polls over the past two years have shown support for same sex marriage to be anywhere from 59% – 74% and the only pattern is an increase in support for each subsequent poll. The two most recent polls have shown that every region of the country now has a clear majority in support of marriage equality.

The last poll also saw a majority backing adoption by same sex couples. I don’t believe that our constitution bans same sex marriage and many legal professionals have disagreed with the Attorney General’s office on this. However, I have no doubt that a referendum will pass by a massive majority and if thats what it takes lets have it and stop waiting around around.

If Catholics don’t want to have their marriages ratified by the state that’s their prerogative. As a liberal I really don’t care, the acknowledgement of marriage by the state should be a right, irrespective of the religious beliefs or sex of the participants. If they don’t want that acknowledgement they can withdraw from it – simple. However what you are suggesting is that the church would prevent Catholic couples from attaining that right (by threatening to invalidate the marriage in the eyes of god) and that is something I, as a liberal, would consider wrong.

Also, despite your deeply held beliefs Michael, you and the Catholic Church may believe it has a monopoly on god sanctioned marriage but many do not share that opinion with you. In fact many Catholics even disagree with the Church on this issue. If a person believes that their marriage to a person of the same-sex is sanctioned by their god(s) who are you or your church to assert otherwise? You have your opinions and they have theirs, both of which are as equally justified, and when it comes to the mind of God(s), if such a being even exists, no one has a monopoly on his/her/their opinions. For that reason no one, including the state, has a right to deny marriage to any consenting adult couple.

Well in fairness a lot of lefties are only getting up now.

Mícheál, you say “Chris doesnt see this changing marriage at all. No further conversation is possible because he wont deal with reality.” Further conversation is exactly what I asked for. I asked you to say HOW traditional marriage woudfl be affected. i *asked* for your explanation of what you see as a reality. You’re the one dodging the issue.

In many countries you have to get married twice, once in a church and once in registers office, I believe they do this in France, a county with a lot of Catholics.

For years the Catholic Church would let ppl get their marriage annulled and re marry in a church while legally being married to someone else. Who can get married in a church and who can get married in the state are already two different things. The church won’t allow ppl who been divorced re marry but the state will. Gays will countinue be another section of society that the church refuses into their churches.

The vast majority of this countries Catholics are already disagree with a lot of things Rome say. The old van guard is slowly dying away. The three younger priest that I have met would like to see the church allowing everyone to marry and to change other things.

I think one day that the church will break in two and a new Catholic Church of Ireland that welcomes every one will be formed and this church will be more important to the ppl of Ireland then Roman Catholic Church is now.

@Micheal O Se “What will eventually happen is that Church marriage will divorce itself from the state. And you will have two forms of marriage like it or not. Under God and Under the State.”
Just goes to show how little you understand about the instution you claim to be protecting. There has always been two types of marriage, religious marriage holds absolutely no legal standing. People who marry in a church aren’t married in the eyes of the state until the complete the state marriage requirment by signing the marriage register. Additionally a hetrosexual couple can choose to sign the marriage register without having a church wedding, and they will hold the same legal rights as a church married couple. I find it laughable that somebody who doesn’t even understand how marriage works, would bemoan it changing.

Pat , marriage is a legal contract with obligations just like any other contract .It was not written by a bunch of homophobic priests . So can you answer the real question ,a gay couple can not enter into the present state marriage contract because they can not fulfill the requirements of said contract .That means we can change the whole contract by removing the sexual requirements , or have different requirements for gay marriage ,thereby making it less equal .Which do you favour and why?

So, Jeff, you’re saying that it’s not sex if a penis and a vagina are not involved? Do the contracts specifically stipulate the organs required? And you think that that alone is a valid reason to deny access to marriage? You see it as a contract based purely on biology?

Chis get a grip I didn’t invent consummation . and yes there is a difference between sex and sexual intercourse and if you dont believe me ask Bill Clinton

Micheal, once we get the church completely out of state affairs it will become what it should be: an independent organisation with members that make up their own rules. What those members choose to do among themselves will not interest most people. They will of course have to comply with the law of the land as regards stuff like discrimination in recruitment and provision of services, which they currently do not. It’s either that or not be legally set up as an organisation, and just be a fellowship divested of formal structure (which is how I understand the whole thing started in the first place!)…

Pfft. As if I’d credit you with the invention of consummation. The very notion!! So, basically, if the constitutional reference to civil marriage included a clause that allowed consummation to be defined by the circumstances of the couple, we’d be home and dry? You think that kind of change would undermine marriage as an institution?

Consumation was invented as a way of showing that one man’s property had passed to another man (father to husband). It was an incredibly sexist concept and so I’m sure you can understand why women as well as LGBT couples would be insulted by your insistence upon it.

No Chris if you change the definition of sexual intercourse you have a massive knock on effect with other legal principles such as those protecting women from rape and also parental responsibility .But from what your saying ,you want different marital responsibilities and contracts. How is that then equal marriage ?

Nick 1 I’m pointing out the law not insisting on anything ,I DON’T CARE who has sex with who and your comment on consummation is so funny, seriously do you actually think that women dont like sex? or expect nasty horrible men to do there duty :)

You still haven’t answered the question of what protections would be removed. Rape is not just about penile penetration. Consummation and parenthood are two different things – with so many couples having children before marriage, I thought you’d have spotted that one. Do you really think that expanding the definition of consummation somehow creates a variety of marriage types?

No it’s not sex chris as the rectum is not a sex organ.

Sean Ryan a very naive statement.

My question is for Mícheál O Sé, but anyone can answer if they like. I have asked Mícheál O Sé this question in the past but never received a reply, so let’s try again:

Does anyone find it odd that on his twitter page Mícheál O Sé calls himself a “libertarian” and yet here on The Journal he is firmly opposed to equal rights?

Is it a case that he has different values on different sites or does he just need to brush up on his politics reading?

@Jeff

Gay people have sex. There is penetration involved. They too can ‘consummate’ their marriages.

Sorry to burst your bubble here but protection of women is irrelevant in this case as rape of a man by another man is recognised by law as being illegal. It attracts penalties under the penal code as does rape of females. So your argument that gay sex is not actually sex and no consumation takes places is invalid.

They’ll do what Sikhs and Hindus do already which is have a civil ceremony at the Registry office and then have a religious ceremony.

And he had two dads.

Thomas………I think we’re onto something here!

It all makes perfect sense now……

He really was the first Jeremy Kyle case

Maybe the whole Judas thing was something else……scorned lover? What REALLY happened at the last supper?

Makes sense, felt hard done by, Jesus cheated on him Mary magdalene. Judas told everyone she was a brasser, made him spuds with all the lads around. Tried to shift him in the garden then the soldiers took him. You should write the new de vinci code, dan brown is now sh###ing himself

I always enjoyed the idea that the immaculate conception was an immaculate cover up from a one night stand.

Joseph: You’re pregnant!
Mary: no no, you see an angel came from above and told me I would give birth to the son of god.
Joseph: so you didn’t bang Keith?
Mary: no no. Definitely god.

Something like that

Well Said!!

Those with a different view to yours must be bigots!!! And you wonder why others don’t have rights. Yes vote from me by the way.

Damn right I do Martin, what possible valid and sane reason could they have for not allowing two people in love be allowed to marry?

I don’t consider people with different opinions to myself to be uniformly bigoted. It depends of course on the view in question and the motivation for their position. In most cases, when it comes to opposition to same-sex marriages the driving factors usually include blind adherence to religious dogma and/or pure ignorance. Reaction formation (wherein the hostility towards homosexuality is rooted in the homosexual inclinations of the person denouncing it) is also remarkably common among the most vociferous opponents of same-sex relationship. Except in the latter case, hatred need not be present at all; due to a person’s deeply held religious beliefs and/or ignorance of the subject they can believe homosexual relationships are wrong. Such a person would not be a bigot – just ignorant and wrong. Of course such beliefs and ignorance can motivate hatred, or be used to excuse it, and typically underly the antipathy in the reaction formation, but really these things need to be assessed on a case by case basis.

One thing I’ve learned since I became interested in this topic however is that everyone opposed to gay marriage is wrong. I’ve looked for good arguments against it but not one argument established in opposition to it has been any good. Not a single one. Ever.

Keith Anthony, I doubt I would disagree with you on this subject but we’ll never know from the No side because the tone of a lot of comments on this page are of the “come on out bigots, we’re all waitin for ya” school of debate, there’ll be no bees caught that way. A No voter may be inclined to answer Keith Monaghan’s point. Invite the opinion of a No voter and you may get one.

Don’t forget the absolute idiot in America who married a cardboard cutout of the vampire from twilight!

Still a better love story than twilight!

Some woman married the Eiffel Tower..

Although i would be in favor of state same sex marriage ,i would also be in favor of the democratic right to vote . We can not reject something just because we fear the outcome of a vote.

Who are we to decide if people can access a right which is taken to be basic and universal by so many? What do we do if there’s a no vote? Does that give official sanction to a regime of discrimination or do we just ignore it and do what’s obviously right?

And the award for most awkwardly out of context token jab at the Government goes to Max Power – congratulations. I’ll just be off to an article about the weather or something, to see who’s moaning there

Polls on websites are never accurate because they’re easily hijacked. I wouldn’t pay any heed to the results, in fact I don’t know why websites bother having polls like this because they must know they’re completely inaccurate.

I’m also sure the bigots who voted no and wont comment are also the ones red thumbing the sane and reasonably yes comments.

But none of the no voters seem to be making any comments ?

Thought that’s what I just said, too busy hiding behind their keyboards to offer any positive valuable additions to back up the red thumbs.

This poll is being posted to some common religious accounts/forums – Basically gathering as many people as possible to vote no. It’s not reflective of a real world vote, where the overwhelming majority of the population supports marriage equality.

Sorry to bursy your bubble there Seán, but its very much reflective. Do you really think if the Irish public we’re given a vote on this tommorow it would pass? Absolutely not! The Journal is a liberal media publication, most of its readers judging by the comments are majority young liberal also and the poll hasn’t even secured a definitive yes! Ireland at heart is still a very conservative country. Personally Im in favour of Gay Civil Partnerships but I don’t believe in Gay Marriage, does that make me homophobic? I certainly don’t think so!

yes it does John F..yes it does

I think it would pass easily enough were it to be put to the people. Certainly, recent national public opinion polls have it at about 70% in favour.

John F you’re deluded. You don’t ‘believe’ in Gay marriage. Newsflash: then don’t get married to a person of the same sex then!!! Not believing in something doesn’t give you the right to deny someone else their rights.

Also why are these anti-gay marriage people so interested in what other people do with their own lives??? Smacks of insecurity if you ask me.

Socrates is a man,
All men are mortal,
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Note how the above argument doesn’t contain the words you did not wish mentioned. Note, how you also failed to specify that the argument had to be pertinent to the debate on this thread.

I’ll await my cheque in the post! :)

My two earlier posts argued against gay marriage and I never mentioned those words. Thanks that 500 will go towards my trip to gran canaria in may with my partner. Cheers

Unfortunately, that IS democracy.
But democracy and equality are not synonymous.
Democracy and justice are equally non-synonymous.

But yes, agree on the constitution. Even last KAL case ruled that the definition in Constitution was one which could be changed merely by prevailing societal attitudes (except that, apparently, that hadn’t happened at that stage). Surely the government passing a bill changing the definition is a reflection of a changed societal definition?

cue the iona red thumbs

Kathy, they are stuck back in the 1950’s,

I am an atheist myself and totally against the idea .. Of a traditional marriage that is .

Incidentally. I believe in a Judaeo Christian God. I believe in Christ. I believe He was born of the virgin and He died for our sins and that He rose and ascended to heaven where He sits at His Father’s right hand and that He loves us all.

I also believe that same gender couples should be allowed to get married.

So when you all start painting the religious with a broad brush try to remember that this makes you the bigot.

He’s being sitting by his fathers right hand for a long time now, do u think its about time he got of his almighty arse and did something

I wasn’t painting all religious with the one brush – just the ones who believe that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry!

Well if Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny say same sex marriage is wrong then it must be!!! Right?????

WRONG!!! My two best friends (same sex) are getting married next January and it will be one of my proudest moments when I do maid of honour for them. I don’t know many straight couples who are as happy and in love as they are! It’s sickening to see people still following this ridiculous aged viewpoint in this day and age!!!

Damocles… Jesus died ????…. I was reading that book…you just ruined the ending. ;)

An important point. Religious belief is multi-faceted, varying from person to person, even within large religious denominations such as Catholicism and no one set of beliefs can be claimed to represent all of them. Not all Christians oppose same-sex marriage or hold sexist views regarding women or regard the bible as literally true (e.g. regard Genesis as history). The same goes for other faiths. I try to make a distinction when talking about the official beliefs of a particular religious group and the beliefs of individual believers themselves.

Keep reading though, there’s another twist coming up…

@Damocles: Ditto!

Definitely not a fair representation, and the last poll revealed results in the 70%s that yes it should be introduced. How many cowards clicking no behind a desk just depends on the day they post it!

To be fair, I know a priest who is very much in favour of equal marriage rights. Probably more productive to focus on finding any logic behind a no argument than assuming it’s all coming from god botherers.

You could always say no and return the ring, instead of leading him on. You Willie tease!

But Willie knows I don’t like willy but willy stop tryin, willy heck!!

I’ll Willy you when I get my hands on you

Aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhh that’s really him!!!!! Howya Willie!

Not bad now thanks Chris. I’ll get you up the aisle somehow.

The only way you will get me up the aisle is when I’m wearing a wooden suit!!

Dont fight it Chris..

In fact Jenny if you believe the gospels he had three parents. His mother, his “biological?” father (God) and a hands-on dad, Joseph.

What or who are you??? The Gestapo??

Mack. The Poll by default will block recurring votes from same IP address ! Refresh your page and try vote again! Doesn’t work so your theory is flawed!
If this poll ever got to the public the yes side would be annihilated! Old people vote in the largest numbers in this country! I think we’re doing pretty well to have same sex unions in one of the most conservative countries in europe, gay marriage is a bridge too far!

Not true. Delete your cookies and refresh the page.. Then you can vote again.
Use a different browser. Then you’ll be able to vote again.
Vote from the app and then from the PC..

There are many ways to get around what you suggested keeps these polls true. This is why I don’t give the polls all that much credence. Someone else explained it a lot better than I could on another poll. I tried it once, and guess what – it’s true..

It’s actually quite easy to vote more than once, delete browsing history and cookies from pc or smartphone and there ya go, a second vote or red/green thumb.

I would say that lots of ppl have now deleted their cookies to vote again

John F your IP address argument is incorrect. If I have 3 browsers (which I do) I can vote 3 times. Also when I cleared my browser data in Chrome I could vote again and I’m sure the same applies to IE and Firefox.

I see since reporting that little piece of information Shanti the yes vote has increased considerable…

Which validates the point being made: These polls are not reliable.

It is irrelevant however To deny someone the right to be held as equal in the eyes of the law is wrong.
It would be the exact same as saying someone of a certain race may not have the same rights, or someone may not have the same rights because they are older. It’s seeking to demean and control people that they see themselves as superior to.

To all those who oppose equality – I got news for you. You aren’t any better than anyone else, get over it.

Unfortunately Jason, if the people of this country were so forward thinking, they probably wouldn’t have elected his government in the first place.