Gay Civil Partnership on Q & A RTE1 now

L1011

I posted it twice.... did you 'glance over' both of them?

You initially said your opposition was due to marriage being the union of a man and woman before God. You've now dropped the before God bit and brought it back to just the union of a man and woman - and claim you're not against homosexuals.

Can you not see the logical fallacy there, considering that is the sole argument you're still holding on to?

philologos

I'm supportive of the governments new measures, so how exactly could I be against homosexuals? Homosexuals are just as much a part of society as any other human being, I don't think I'd be alone to say that the union of homosexuals isn't the same as marriage. However, you can describe me as homophobic if you wish.

Jakkass wrote:

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.

How exactly did I drop the before God bit? ^^

L1011

A civil marriage is not 'before God' in the eyes of the law - its before the state. Simple as. I doubt many atheist couples would be too appreciative of you asserting that their marriage was a religious one.

Annasopra

Jakkass wrote: »

Marriage has always had the special position of a man and a woman coming as one before God

And yet it hasn't always been defined that way OR had this position that you seem to put forward

When the constitution of Ireland was framed in 1937 -12 year old girls could marry - surely you don't consider 12 year olds to be women?

Marriage existed long before the chuch decided that it should regulate it and there is also evidence to suggest that the church hundreds of years ago actually supported and celebrated same sex couples

philologos

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Marriage existed long before the chuch decided that it should regulate it and there is also evidence to suggest that the church hundreds of years ago actually supported and celebrated same sex couples

I would very much appreciate it if you could direct me to said evidence, I will then consult it with an open mind. However, I do support the current legislation being put forward by the Government, however I don't agree it should be defined as a marriage.

4red

Well said, JohnnyMcG

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

I would very much appreciate it if you could direct me to said evidence, I will then consult it with an open mind. However, I do support the current legislation being put forward by the Government, however I don't agree it should be defined as a marriage.

...because you're taking a narrow, Christianity-defined view of what the word 'marriage' is; when it is in fact a legal term in this country.

If Johnnymcg doesn't dig up that evidence, I will - was in an issue of GT or Attitude fairly recently IIRC.

Annasopra

Jakkass wrote: »

I would very much appreciate it if you could direct me to said evidence, I will then consult it with an open mind. However, I do support the current legislation being put forward by the Government, however I don't agree it should be defined as a marriage.

There's a book by a historian: John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe which provides the evidence

Anyway whether you disagsree or same sex couples marriages are recognised in Canada, Norway, Belgium, Spain, America and Israel - this list will only increase in the future. Where same sex couples can get register their partnership - the media do actually define this as a marriage

philologos

Johnnymcg wrote: »

There's a book by a historian: John Boswell, Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe which provides the evidence

I will see if I can get a hold of said book, thanks again.

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Anyway whether you disagsree or same sex couples marriages are recognised in Canada, Norway, Belgium, Spain, America and Israel - this list will only increase in the future. Where same sex couples can get register their partnership - the media do actually define this as a marriage

The media define a lot of things certain ways. However civil partnerships are at the minute different from marriages in several countries. I don't think just because certain countries have recognised it as marriage that it must be the same way in Ireland, don't you think that view is a bit simplistic?

DubArk

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

Tell me how your country is going to change if my partner and I, who’ve been with each other for 24 yrs, get married in a registry office?

We’ve been living as a couple for that length of time and to my knowledge your country is still holding together!
By the way it’s our country too. I have little or no interest in any church or organised religion and therefore seek no permission from these institutions.

I only ask for the same civil rights as any other heterosexual in our country.

who is this

Jakkass wrote: »

The media define a lot of things certain ways.

I'm sure they do. I hear dictionaries do as well.

But seriously, I don't see how, whether opposed to it or for it, anyone could be so blind as to think it will never happen. It will happen in Ireland at some stage. End of discussion. If you disagree with me, don't waste your time trying to debate it -- I will not be swayed. If it is to never ever ever happen, then may I be struck down by any god in existence, right now.

Jakkass wrote:

I'm supportive of the governments new measures, so how exactly could I be against homosexuals?

Because for one thing, they're entirely inadequate. The Labour bill, now 2 years old if I'm not mistaken, had more provisions. So the government managed to introduce a bill (late, I'll add) which has less provisions than one drafted two years prior? They even ignored several of the DoJ's own studies and reports. Is this the new definition of progress? If the government were genuinely concerned about the Labour bill's constitutionality, they would not have voted it down. They would have amended it. It stands to reason -- why draft a whole new bill, when you can amend the one before you? They voted it down because they didn't like it.

And to echo DubArks' words, I defy anyone to give me an example of a negative effect same-sex marriage would have on anyone. And not something wish-washy like "it would weaken the institution of marriage". Something tangible -- something we would be able to see, measure, touch, hear, smell, or define.

Of course if someone can define what "weakening the institution of marriage" would be, or explain how we could measure it, please do so.

shewasoctober

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

I can see why people want to separate civil partnerships/unions from marriage. It is the same issue in the US. And, I don't see an issue with it as long as the law is equal for both. Hell, you can call it whatever you like as long as homosexual couple are given the same right. Whether people like it or not, there is standing religious tradition with the term marriage, which is seen as sacred and defined as being between a man and woman. If it makes people happy not to use the term "marriage" and in stead use the term "civil partnership" for homosexual couples, that is fine. What it comes down to are the rights associated with both. As long as both marriage and civil unions give the same rights to the couples, with the only difference being that one is church related, that is what is most important.

I don't know. I believe people think too much on one topic sometimes and it makes things worse. Everyone has a right to have a life-long partnership with all the legal rights that should come with it. As for adoption, I don't see why that shouldn't be allowed as well. There are many children in the world who would give anything to have a loving family. Why should they have to remain orphans/foster children if there is a loving family willing to adopt them?

who is this

shewasoctober wrote: »

Whether people like it or not, there is standing religious tradition with the term marriage, which is seen as sacred and defined as being between a man and woman.

Your general stance is fine, up until this point. Whether people "like it or not" is absolute bull. I can't call it anything else.

Ireland is not a theocracy. It is a democracy.
The US is not a theocracy. It is a democracy.

At least by name anyway.

The people have said in many a survey (in Ireland) they support same-sex marriage. I will not quote them again because it just seems the same people ask for them over and over (I don't mean you). Last Time's one put it at 63%.
So yes. This is a "whether we like it or not" at the moment. But it should not be so.

A democracy is defined as: "Rule by the people". The people say "Yes". That's all that should matter. The church can say what they want but unless they can convince the people (which they're evidently failing to do) then tough.

To clarify, I'm not attacking you. I'm pointing out the logical flaws in your statement

Although I do commend the fact that you were frank about the whole "like it or not" attitude most naysayers have - if opinion polls went their way they'd be flaunting them left right and centre.

Phototoxin

imho marrage = religous so probably limited by the religon to man + woman.

civil partnership (ie count 2 people as 1 more or less) should be fine. say 2 unmarried brothers want to share land or something then it should be ok for them to become civil partners even if they are not gay.

anyways thats my 2p

shewasoctober

who is this wrote: »

Your general stance is fine, up until this point. Whether people "like it or not" is absolute bull. I can't call it anything else.

Ireland is not a theocracy. It is a democracy.
The US is not a theocracy. It is a democracy.

At least by name anyway.

The people have said in many a survey (in Ireland) they support same-sex marriage. I will not quote them again because it just seems the same people ask for them over and over (I don't mean you). Last Time's one put it at 63%.
So yes. This is a "whether we like it or not" at the moment. But it should not be so.

A democracy is defined as: "Rule by the people". The people say "Yes". That's all that should matter. The church can say what they want but unless they can convince the people (which they're evidently failing to do) then tough.

To clarify, I'm not attacking you. I'm pointing out the logical flaws in your statement

Although I do commend the fact that you were frank about the whole "like it or not" attitude most naysayers have - if opinion polls went their way they'd be flaunting them left right and centre.

Oh, believe me, I understand both places are democracy, though I don't believe that it is always run like that.

I probably should have not used the phrase "like it or not." I'm glad the the polls show the majority are in favour. This is where the democracy falls apart. Even though there is a good chance of legislation for gay-marriage getting passed, will the people ever have the opportunity to vote?

While neither are run by their religion, religion always seems to play a factor. It shouldn't, but unfortunately, it does. It tends to relate more to history and tradition. Traditions change people, and history, we should be learning from it.

I'm all about gay-marriage, but in the end, the politician can call it what they like, within reason, as long as it offers the same rights to same-sex couples as it does to couples of the opposite sex. For me, this would include adoption.

L1011

Phototoxin wrote: »

imho marrage = religous so probably limited by the religon to man + woman.

"civil marriage" by its very definition isn't religious. This has been offered in this country since the foundation of the state.

Marshy

This topic was discussed again in tonight's edition of Questions & Answers following Sean Brady's recent comments.

I find it so frustrating to listen to. It almost seems now that because there's little chance of full same-sex marriage being considered that the religious organisations are trying to attack the proposed bill as much as possible. This is despite the fact it is civil marriage that is at stake, something that is non-religious.

Now the government will probably be pressured into having even more watered-down legislation. On a positive note though, I'm glad its being debated again. I was worried the economic situation would force it into obscurity...

Amnesiac_ie

The bigotry and hippocracy of the catholic church truly knows no bounds. What right does Sean Brady have to try and impose his biggoted views on a secular state? Would it not be more worthwhile for him to work on addressing the many, many problems within his own church? I would be interested to know what the reaction and response on Q&A to his most recent threats was like last night.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Civil partnership is the right step to take. AFAIK same sex marriage would require constitutional change. I said on this thread a few months back a motion to change would be defeated and I still think it would.

People are saying polls say otherwise but these are polls without a scare campaign funded by the RCC. They'd play the gay adoption card and most people are against that. I was myself up until very recently.

If it is defeated now it will be a very long time before another referendum, best waiting until more younger people can win the vote.

DubArk

Amnesiac_ie wrote: »

The bigotry and hippocracy of the catholic church truly knows no bounds. What right does Sean Brady have to try and impose his biggoted views on a secular state? Would it not be more worthwhile for him to work on addressing the many, many problems within his own church? I would be interested to know what the reaction and response on Q&A to his most recent threats was like last night.

Yes I read the views of Cardinal Sean Brady and how he advised Brian Cowen's government that it should not award 'marriage rights' to cohabiting couples.

I believe the crux (excuse the pun) of his argument is that the children of non-traditional families "do worse at school, suffer poorer health, and are more likely to face problems of unemployment, drugs and crime". He also claimed that 'marriage rights should not be given to cohabiting couples because any legal recognition would "promote cohabitation" which he believes is to the detriment of children too.

I too find that the hypocrisy of this church to now put children at the top of their agenda and start preaching from their blessed pulpit on the best way to bring up children and the sanctity of a relationship too beyond amusing.

Firstly I think most of the Irish population will never trust the catholic church every again with their children, let alone take advise from people who were wilfully unable to take care of their own affairs in relation to the safety and health of children. More children have been pushed to the sides of society, later on in their lives by the deeds of some priests then can be comprehended, then by the love of a parent or parents in a loving family situation.

Secondly it’s still hard to believe that these priests who have in most cases never had a partner or any sort of relation (Fr Michael Cleary's and Co exempt of course) feel it necessary to convey to the rest of us lowly parishioners and people who don’t give two hoots about their church; on the values of marriage in civil law. Grant us patience!

Brady your words fall on deaf ears these days

rainbow kirby

Just watched it, the entire thing, and David Quinn in particular, made my brain hurt.

And who the hell do the Catholic Church think they are trying to influence civil matters? Civil matters should have NOTHING to do with religion.

The_Minister

Amnesiac_ie wrote: »

The bigotry and hippocracy of the catholic church truly knows no bounds. What right does Sean Brady have to try and impose his biggoted views on a secular state? Would it not be more worthwhile for him to work on addressing the many, many problems within his own church? I would be interested to know what the reaction and response on Q&A to his most recent threats was like last night.

What threats?
Seperation of church and state doesn't mean that people with religious views go away and sit in a dark corner somewhere. They are perfectly entitled to state their views publically, and lobby politicians accordingly.
As are you.

jady88

The_Minister wrote: »

What threats?
Seperation of church and state doesn't mean that people with religious views go away and sit in a dark corner somewhere. They are perfectly entitled to state their views publically, and lobby politicians accordingly.
As are you.

Of course but to try and impose religious values on the state through the ballet box is wrong.

The_Minister

jady88 wrote: »

Of course but to try and impose religious values on the state through the ballet box is wrong.

Impose?
The will of the people does not IMO, count as an imposition (yes, tyranny of the majority etc) on the state, unless it threatens
1) The basic rights of the people of the state
2) Threatens the existance of the state

Gay marraige isn't a basic right, since IMO, a basic right is something so obvious that no large section of the population can deny it's existance.
Since the choice here isn't between gay marriage and nothing, but is in fact gay marriage or civil partnership, the question then becomes does gay marriage - civil partnership = a set of rights so basic that the will of the people cannot deny them?
Since the differences are mainly small, and nebulous in practical terms, and merely cosmetic in terms of principle (you just want the name), then the answer is clearly no.

The fact is the people of California do not want gay marriage, and have said so.
It wasn't like the Lisbon treaty where lies were being thrown around, everyone knew exactly what they were voting for.

Cabbage Brained

The_Minister wrote: »

Impose?
The will of the people does not IMO, count as an imposition (yes, tyranny of the majority etc) on the state, unless it threatens
1) The basic rights of the people of the state
2) Threatens the existance of the state

Gay marraige isn't a basic right, since IMO, a basic right is something so obvious that no large section of the population can deny it's existance.
Since the choice here isn't between gay marriage and nothing, but is in fact gay marriage or civil partnership, the question then becomes does gay marriage - civil partnership = a set of rights so basic that the will of the people cannot deny them?
Since the differences are mainly small, and nebulous in practical terms, and merely cosmetic in terms of principle (you just want the name), then the answer is clearly no.

The fact is the people of California do not want gay marriage, and have said so.
It wasn't like the Lisbon treaty where lies were being thrown around, everyone knew exactly what they were voting for.

LOL. That is the stupidest definition of what a right is that I have ever come across. Lets just extrapolate for a second to see how ridiculous your argument is; let's say that 10% of the population are black, and 90% are white. If the white 90% believe that the blacks should have no rights, then by your reasoning slavery would be re-instated. Do you think that homosexuals in Iran should be executed, because a majority of the population there believes they should be? How about the persecution of the Jews in WW2? Was that OK because a majority of the population thought it was?

The very reason we have human rights is to safeguard us against bigotry, racism, and persecution. They are particularly important when such bigotry is the majoritive opinion.

Rev Hellfire

Lets face it, you can take one of two approaches to the problem of gay 'marriages'.

A more accompanying one which fits into the current legislative framework and positions you on the road to your ultimate goal aka via Civil Unions or you try and rail road your views onto what is at present an unreceptive audience thus guaranteeing maximum resistance and the distinct possibility of failure.

Right or wrong don't come into it (they're arbitrary values at best anyway), rather having a pragmatic approach is the best solution.
The logical step for those who want to legal recognition of their partnership (which is all marriage is anyway) would be to secure civil unions first, once you have that you can then proceed to right any perceived slights you may feel.

DubArk

The_Minister wrote: »

Impose?
The will of the people does not IMO, count as an imposition (yes, tyranny of the majority etc) on the state, unless it threatens
1) The basic rights of the people of the state
2) Threatens the existance of the state

Gay marraige isn't a basic right, since IMO, a basic right is something so obvious that no large section of the population can deny it's existance.
Since the choice here isn't between gay marriage and nothing, but is in fact gay marriage or civil partnership, the question then becomes does gay marriage - civil partnership = a set of rights so basic that the will of the people cannot deny them?
Since the differences are mainly small, and nebulous in practical terms, and merely cosmetic in terms of principle (you just want the name), then the answer is clearly no.

The fact is the people of California do not want gay marriage, and have said so.
It wasn't like the Lisbon treaty where lies were being thrown around, everyone knew exactly what they were voting for.

Human rights refer to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."[1] Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood”. —Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I wasn’t under the impression such rights were on you and your so called majority to hand out like confetti when the whim took you, only landing on the chosen few.
This country is as much mine, as it yours and every other man, women and child, of what ever creed or race, that reside here.
The right to the same civil laws to protect my family IMO is as important as your rights. I only ask for what is my entitlement under the United Nations Declaration of Human rights Article 1.


On Proposition 8 that was taken to a vote in California, the majority of voters in favour of the ban were noted by The Associated Press, to be of ethnic origin with the most support coming from the black community having a big impact on the ban being reinstated. The results were close, but in the end the measure was passed with a vote of 52% in favour.

Ironically in that very same vote Barack Obama won California overwhelmingly on his 24-point victory and it was the largest winning margin of any presidential candidate in modern times. Im personally delighted with this outcome, not just because Obama is black but that due to civil rights, imposed throughout the US back in the 60’s this could happen in 2008.
This is clearly a reason that people should not be allowed to give or take away basic human rights and freedoms form other citizens on majority vote. Im sure if they were allowed to vote on blacks’ right to the vote back in the 60’s, a clear majority would have denied the blacks from such rights and we would never have seen President Elect Barack Obama heading for the White House.

All of us have a right to contribute in society to our fullest and no one should be allowed to take this away from us or not grant our freedoms from the onset.


Barack Obama in his speech on winning said:

It's the answer spoken by young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled. Americans who sent a message to the world that we have never been just a collection of individuals or a collection of red states and blue states.
We are, and always will be, the United States of America.”
Barack Obama is clearly opposed the Proposition 8 and summed it very well in his letter to:

The Alice B. Toklas LGBT Democratic Club

http://www.calitics.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6307

Amnesiac_ie

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Lets face it, you can take one of two approaches to the problem of gay 'marriages'.

A more accompanying one which fits into the current legislative framework and positions you on the road to your ultimate goal aka via Civil Unions or you try and rail road your views onto what is at present an unreceptive audience thus guaranteeing maximum resistance and the distinct possibility of failure.

Right or wrong don't come into it (they're arbitrary values at best anyway), rather having a pragmatic approach is the best solution.
The logical step for those who want to legal recognition of their partnership (which is all marriage is anyway) would be to secure civil unions first, once you have that you can then proceed to right any perceived slights you may feel.

Seán Brady is threatening to take legal action against the legislation granting "civil partnerships"; the government has no plans to grant gay people the right to call their unions civil "marriage" at present anyway. This legislation is merely extending some of the rights and priviliges that the heterosexual majority enjoy to gays and lesbians. It is not perfect; it is not equality, but it is a start and something I support completely. It does not impact negatively on heterosexuals, it does not use the term "marriage" which some religious types seem to worship so much and as such I do not think the leader of a corrupt church which for decades has systematically abused and raped innocent children and protected the monsters who perpetrated this abuse has any place trying to impose his biggoted narrowminded archaic views on non catholics in a secular state.

Rev Hellfire

Amnesiac_ie wrote: »

Seán Brady is threatening to take legal action against the legislation granting "civil partnerships";

It's Sean Bradys legal right to challenge the legislation, I'm not sure how this is an issue. It remains to be seen if his challenge will succeed or not.

Amnesiac_ie wrote:

it does not use the term "marriage" which some religious types seem to worship so much and as such I do not think the leader of a corrupt church which for decades has systematically abused and raped innocent children and protected the monsters who perpetrated this abuse has any place trying to impose his biggoted narrowminded archaic views on non catholics in a secular state.

Personally I fail to see how comments such as the above will advance your position in any meaningful manner.

DubArk

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It's Sean Bradys legal right to challenge the legislation, I'm not sure how this is an issue. It remains to be seen if his challenge will succeed or not.


Personally I fail to see how comments such as the above will advance your position in any meaningful manner.

What sort of twisted religious "morals" could justify the Church protecting Father Brendan Smyth and Co, the paedophile priests, carrying out sexual assaults on hundreds of children over a period of forty years, with the full knowledge of the Catholic Church?
This isn’t up for debate, this is what happened and the Church have been found wanting in their handling of so many cases.

Amnesiac_ie has every right to point this out in his argument, you may not like to hear the truth, and neither did the Church for that matter.

How can we listen to a Church, which permitted paedophilia not to be questioned over many years, to be allowed to direct us on civil matters?

I agree it is Sean Bradys legal right to challenge the legislation as Mr Brady but he not just Mr Sean Brady is he? :rolleyes:

He is challenging with all the backing of his job and the Church’s money, money that should have been paid out long ago to the persons that this same church allowed systematic rape of. Money that does not belong to Mr Brady?

We all have every right to question Brady and his bunch, on anything they purport to lead us on in civil matters or at best advise our government from their privileged sidelines.

As far as his religious beliefs, he can keep them in his Church but to attempt to impose them on those of us, that are not a member of his gang – shame on him.

Brady needs to keep his big Catholic nose right out of Irish civil law and clean up his own house first.