Gay Civil Partnership on Q & A RTE1 now

4red

Middle Ireland's favourite current affairs talk show discusses....

PS John Bowman stop calling us 'gays' - we're 'gay people'.

Marshy

4red wrote: »

PS John Bowman stop calling us 'gays' - we're 'gay people'.

I myself wouldn't get too worried about that.

There was nothing really that profound being discussed, all the usual arguments made. David Norris spoke well but it just seems from listening to this and following the dedates of late that Ireland wouldn't be ready for same-sex marriage and adoption.

The Civil Partnership legislation may be inadequate but its certainly better than nothing. Now its just time for the government to stop arsing around and to get the Bill sorted...

DubArk

Marshy wrote: »

I myself wouldn't get too worried about that.

There was nothing really that profound being discussed, all the usual arguments made. David Norris spoke well but it just seems from listening to this and following the dedates of late that Ireland wouldn't be ready for same-sex marriage and adoption.

The Civil Partnership legislation may be inadequate but its certainly better than nothing. Now its just time for the government to stop arsing around and to get the Bill sorted...

I agree it was so old hack the whole debate. The same old clap trap coming from the same old people. David did his best to put the argument across that we are, second class citizens, getting second class legislation.

But at least it’s a start and once in the door is open we can really fight for equal rights.

ateam

David Quinn has a particular problem with gay marriages. He frequently writes about it. Extremely irritating man.

who is this

Marshy wrote: »

Ireland wouldn't be ready for same-sex marriage and adoption.

Correction: politicians of Ireland. Debates don't represent public opinion.

The politicians (in particular FF) are just so concerned about trying to please everyone (even conservative bigots) that they wouldn't dare do anything that might cost them a single vote, even if it might gain several more. So instead they've come up with this "compromise" which pleases no one. You have:
1. these FF martyrs, who are "defending" marriage by protesting the bill's existance
2. most moderates attacking the bills shortcomings,
3. liberals and gay rights supporters also protesting its existance (as "equal but seperate" is never equal).

No one is happy. But FF wouldn't dare do anything more or less, lest they lose a vote from someone who'll be dead in a few years anyway. No consideration of the fact that younger people (with longer to live and vote) are more likely to support same-sex marriage.
The thing about it is though, are they so blind that they don't see that it is inevitable? And not inevitable like us reaching Pluto on a manned mission is inevitable: inevitable like within some of their lifetimes.

And don't start me on anyone with a connection to that "Irish Catholic" rag. The factual and even grammatical errors in that and that other conservative piece of trash, "Alive!". Worse than tabloids those two.

Bottle_of_Smoke

ateam wrote: »

David Quinn has a particular problem with gay marriages. He frequently writes about it. Extremely irritating man.

IS he the guy who argues against Atheism all the time in the independent? Utter tool.

who is this wrote:

The politicians (in particular FF) are just so concerned about trying to please everyone (even conservative bigots) that they wouldn't dare do anything that might cost them a single vote, even if it might gain several more. So instead they've come up with this "compromise" which pleases no one. You have:

To be honest I think the general public opinion is to support civil unions but not marriage & adoption. I myself have no problem with gay marriage as long as religious organisations wouldn't be required to support them. I disagree with gay adoption.

ixoy

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

To be honest I think the general public opinion is to support civil unions but not marriage & adoption.

I think that a slim majority might favour gay marriage but not of those who vote. It would carry if we say restricted the vote to under 35 or so, which is a generation that grew up far more comfortable with homosexuality, but the older generation are more likely to turn it down. That's my feeling anyway.

Weidii

What's the argument against gay civil partnership?

ateam

Straight men 18 upwards(particularly over 40), women over 50 and rural Ireland won't have gay marriage. I think that means the gay side would lose.

I think once people in the small minded category see that gay civil unions won't wreck society like they think it will, they will eventually warm to the idea of gay marriage and then later adoption for gay couples. But Senator Norris is right, gay people shouldn't have to wait for this.

who is this

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

To be honest I think the general public opinion is to support civil unions but not marriage & adoption. I myself have no problem with gay marriage as long as religious organisations wouldn't be required to support them. I disagree with gay adoption.

Thinking is the problem . We have many polls by numerous organisations which show support for marriage. Last two put it in the 60s. Of course the government disagrees. If the polls were 60/40 against, then the government would be throwing it around like nobody's business. But because they don't have any polls supporting their views they say "A referendum would fail." No rationale. No research to back it up. Nothing

ateam wrote:

I think once people in the small minded category see that gay civil unions won't wreck society like they think it will, they will eventually warm to the idea of gay marriage and then later adoption for gay couples. But Senator Norris is right, gay people shouldn't have to wait for this.

Of course. But there is also the issue that there will be some people who now support marriage would start to think "Civil partnerships are enough. You don't need to do anymore". The pressure would be off politicians as well who can equally claim "Well we've done something", and doubtless wouldtry to convince supporters of marriage there isn't a need anymore. I think as well to say "Straight men 18 upwards" is a bit extreme though. I'd say maybe 30+ before you could safely generalise and even then it would be a bit wishy-washy. Too bad there's no surveys which break down by demographic.

L1011

ateam wrote: »

Straight men 18 upwards(particularly over 40), women over 50 and rural Ireland won't have gay marriage.

Might want to change the 18 to 25 or even higher - attitudes have changed A LOT in the past ten years or so.

Rural - probably true. I'm from West Donegal, though... theres often a live and let live (but begrudge everything) attitude in rural Ireland.

DubArk

Same sex marriage (Civil partnership) is a basic right!


Why should people get to vote on it?

I didn’t hear of people voting in the 60’s in the USA on civil rights for Blacks or the same in South Africa again on Blacks Civil rights. Nor in the UK on the women’s vote.

As far as the church I personally couldn’t give two hoots what they think, as their organisations rules are theirs and it has nothing to do with me. I’m Not a member nor want to be.


Weather Mary in Donegal age 60 disagrees or Paul 22 in Dublin agrees; is not the Debate!

Civil Rights for all in Ireland; not something that people should be able to hand out like sweets to one group and not another. :mad:

I’m sick of been treated like a second Class citizen in Ireland with second Class laws.

philologos

DubArk wrote: »

Same sex marriage (Civil partnership) is a basic right!


Why should people get to vote on it?

If there is constitutional uncertainty it should be brought to referendum if it is putting a definition of marriage out there. What's wrong with civil partnerships instead of naming it marriage? Many, including myself would regard a marriage as the union between a man and a woman and I'd be on the younger end of the scale. I think it's only right that the people should have a say in what they want their country to be like. Changing the idea of marriage would be a major change.

ateam

who is this wrote: »

Thinking is the problem . We have many polls by numerous organisations which show support for marriage. Last two put it in the 60s. Of course the government disagrees. If the polls were 60/40 against, then the government would be throwing it around like nobody's business. But because they don't have any polls supporting their views they say "A referendum would fail." No rationale. No research to back it up. Nothing


Of course. But there is also the issue that there will be some people who now support marriage would start to think "Civil partnerships are enough. You don't need to do anymore". The pressure would be off politicians as well who can equally claim "Well we've done something", and doubtless wouldtry to convince supporters of marriage there isn't a need anymore. I think as well to say "Straight men 18 upwards" is a bit extreme though. I'd say maybe 30+ before you could safely generalise and even then it would be a bit wishy-washy. Too bad there's no surveys which break down by demographic.

Suppose it is a generalisation but it's an educated one. We all know that a lot of straight men have a problem with gay people whether they be 18 or 80. I think the vast majority of straight men over 40 would vote no and I think the majority of those under 40 would also vote no. There would be less of a majority but still a majority.

philologos

ateam wrote: »

Suppose it is a generalisation but it's an educated one. We all know that a lot of straight men have a problem with gay people whether they be 18 or 80. I think the vast majority of straight men over 40 would vote no and I think the majority of those under 40 would also vote no. There would be less of a majority but still a majority.

Why must the attitude be that people who oppose marriage for homosexuals are against homosexuals? That isn't true in the slightest. However, people obviously feel that they want to keep marriage between a man and a woman, and to propose an alternative civil partnerships for homosexual couples who want to receive the same financial recognition that married couples do. I see that as a fair agreement, but I also think that we need to keep marriage, as it is intact. That's not that I'm against homosexuals, it's that marriage has always had a special position in my beliefs, and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

That's not that I'm against homosexuals, it's that marriage has always had a special position in my beliefs, and I'd prefer to keep it that way.

What special position is that, then?

The Iona Institute bang on about marriage equalling a union to produce children, but its not denied to infertile, sterilised or otherwise unable couples (too old, etc), even by the Catholic Church who's views they say they're upholding. While I'm not implying this is your position I'd be interested to know what is.

philologos

Marriage has always had the special position of a man and a woman coming as one before God in my view, this is what I understand by marriage. I don't uphold the Catholic view on marriage merely being there to allow for the birth of children. I understand that homosexual couples are experiencing difficulties in the current system, and I hope that the civil partnerships bill will allow for any further progression needed.

diddley

What if straight couples get married but Not before God? What damage would it do to your potential future marriage if there were same sex marriages? I don't understand your viewpoint like. Are all marriages in the world important to you? Do you take serious offence if you hear of domestic abuse in marriages?
Tbh I really can't see how anyone would oppose gay marriages unless they're personally being harmed (and in the case of many I think all that's being disrupted is their own sexual insecurities).

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

Marriage has always had the special position of a man and a woman coming as one before God in my view, this is what I understand by marriage.

So do you disagree with the state offering civil marriages to heterosexuals?

philologos

MYOB wrote: »

So do you disagree with the state offering civil marriages to heterosexuals?

I believe the current scheme the State is looking to put forward is adequate. There is no need to refer to it as marriage.

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

I believe the current scheme the State is looking to put forward is adequate. There is no need to refer to it as marriage.

That doesn't answer my question.

Do you disagree with the state offering civil marriages to heterosexuals?

philologos

If it's marriage yes, if it's a civil partnership no.

L1011

So, you disagree with the fundamental legel tenet that provides any protection to those that get church marriages, then? Right so.

philologos

MYOB wrote: »

So, you disagree with the fundamental legel tenet that provides any protection to those that get church marriages, then? Right so.

I don't quite get where you are coming from? Please elaborate?

L1011

You said you are opposed to heterosexual civil marriages. The legal principle of a religious marriage in this country is just a civil marriage where the registrar is a member of the clergy - nothing more.

diddley

I'm relieved to hear, being young like yourself Jakkass , (18), that your prejudice stems from religion anyway. *Breathes sigh of relief. Thankfully young people of your mindset are very rare today.

philologos

diddley wrote: »

I'm relieved to hear, being young like yourself Jakkass , (18), that your prejudice stems from religion anyway. *Breathes sigh of relief. Thankfully young people of your mindset are very rare today.

I'd argue that it isn't a prejudice, I'm rather supportive of the civil partnership measures, I can see no reason why we should have to alter what is understood as marriage to get there though.

ixoy

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd argue that it isn't a prejudice, I'm rather supportive of the civil partnership measures, I can see no reason why we should have to alter what is understood as marriage to get there though.

I'm assuming you see marriage primarily as one of the seven sacraments of the Church and thus you believe it should be governed under the principles of the Church?
In that case a couple of questions for you:
1) Do you think the State was wrong to allow marriage through a registry office and bypass the Church aspect?

2) Do you believe that heterosexual couples who marry through a registry office would be, in theory, as intrinsically false a marriage (spiritually or whatever) as a gay couple marrying in a registry office?

3) What differences would there be between a civil union couple and a married one in terms of State-sanctioned rights, etc?

philologos

1) No, I don't. I would consider the Church as a place for those who believe in Christianity to get married, as I would consider the Synagogue for a Jew, or the Mosque for Muslims. Perhaps the "under God" part confused you. God is present outside of a church in my view.

2) I don't consider marriages outside a church to be false.

3) It's not a difference in rights that I am discussing, although I hear the State are putting forward civil partnerships with slight differences to marriages, such as in adoption, and in their dissolution, I just object to the term "marriage" being used.

L1011

How can you reconcile your point 2 with the fact that in post 22 you said you didn't agree with civil marriages for heterosexuals?

philologos

Apologies, I glanced over your post very quickly when replying, I thought it was homosexuals instead of hetereosexuals. I merely said I disagreed with defining the union between two members of the same sex as marriage. If it were defined as a civil partnership, that's fair enough. Traditionally marriage is the union of a man and a woman, I'd personally prefer to keep it that way. The Government have addressed most if not all concerns in their Civil Partnership bill, and I think that's decent of them to do so.