Gay Civil Partnership on Q & A RTE1 now

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.

Rev Hellfire

DubArk wrote: »

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.

The point is its of no importance when it comes to achieving your goal.

DubArk wrote:

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.

Personally I couldn't care less about gay marriages as long as it doesn't effect me I'm not bothered.
I'm simply saying that a more pragmatic less highly strung approach will succeed as opposed to emotionally charged diatribes that will alienate those who may potentially assist you.

but its all imho etc...

DubArk

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The point is its of no importance when it comes to achieving your goal.


Personally I couldn't care less about gay marriages as long as it doesn't effect me I'm not bothered.
I'm simply saying that a more pragmatic less highly strung approach will succeed as opposed to emotionally charged diatribes that will alienate those who may potentially assist you.

but its all imho etc...

If you really dont care then why the post to start with?

No one said to Martin Luther King and Nelcon Mandela, Emmeline Pankhurst and Mahatma Gandhi; that if they were" more pragmatic less highly strung" rather then "emotionally charged", that you an others may potentially assist them!! Gee Wizz-Big Deal

No assistance required, thank but no thanks for the offer!

4red

If you're angry at the biased coverage on Q & A or David Quinn just 'hurt your head', feel free to complain to RTE complaints@rte.ie

They actually tally all complaints and refer to them in editorial meetings you know...

Rev Hellfire

DubArk wrote: »

If you really dont care then why the post to start with?

It must be because I'm a big hearted humanitarian.

DubArk

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

It must be because I'm a big hearted humanitarian.

A big something!

Marshy

4red wrote: »

If you're angry at the biased coverage on Q & A or David Quinn just 'hurt your head', feel free to complain to RTE complaints@rte.ie

They actually tally all complaints and refer to them in editorial meetings you know...

Thanks for that, I sent them an email about that. Apparently its been forwarded to senior management at RTÉ and the editor of Q&A...

jady88

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.

Thats lovely so because it is a minority it isn't a civil right but if it were the majority it would?

No the fact is that the civil rights of a minority were taken away by a very slim margin and there were lies being thrown around and plenty of them.

Red Sleeping Beauty

There's a shotgun debate going on here if anyone's interested..

Aldee84

This whole s**t in California is an absolute joke, Americans are right biggots I tell ya. Not that Ireland is much better may I add but hearing this on the news makes me sick, I am a gay guy with my partner for last 3 and half years and we cannot take our relationship any further and why should it be a debate for the population to vote on when it is really none of there business in the first place. Life is a bitch and then you are not allowed to marry one. I give up

The_Minister

Aldee84 wrote: »

Life is a bitch and then you are not allowed to marry one.

Actually, you are.

What you want is to marry the dog.:)

Rev Hellfire

Aldee84 wrote: »

why should it be a debate for the population to vote on when it is really none of there business in the first place.

If it alters statutes which effect them (and changes to marriage laws potentially do), then they of course have a right to vote.
And even if it didn't by virtue of it been a democracy they are still entitled too, you can't suspend democracy to ensure you get the result you want.

shay_562

Rev Hellfire wrote:

If it alters statutes which effect them (and changes to marriage laws potentially do), then they of course have a right to vote.

Two thoughts. First, I'm still not clear on how allowing gay marraige has any negative repurcussions for heterosexual marraige. Marraige isn't an excludable goood, or the 'property' of any one body - it's not as if there's now less marraige to go around, or as if this in any way affect any religion's ability to sanction marraiges within their church in whatever way they see fit. But marraige in its most secular form, being basically a contract between two people in the eyes of the state and no one else, isn't a commodity that any one group of people can 'own' or that any group loses out on by extending it to more people. The only case I've ever heard put forward is "It devalues religious marraige to allow this", which I don't buy since (a) by that logic any non-religious marraige undermines religious marraige, and thus atheist marraiges should be outlawed and (b) as stated above, religious bodies still have the power to grant whatever religious benefits they see fit over marraiges within their own churches. They just don't have the right to lay claim to all marraiges, including the secular ones.

But even if there is a valid argument for how gay marraige harms heterosexual marraige, the notion that you should get to vote on something because you feel it affects you negatively is clearly ludicrous. By that logic, the laws banning miscegination should have been put to public vote, which is clearly a bad idea, since the majority can't always be relied upon to give rights to the minority - that's why most Western countries are republics or federations rather than pure majoritarian democracies, because sometimes the state and the judiciary needs to step in to ensure equitable treatment for minorities. A law ensuring that immigrants are given access to basic healthcare, or that they get paid a minimum wage, is always going to fall if put to the majority (c.f. our own anti-immigrant referendum a few years back). Because of this, even though it can clearly be shown to have negative economic repurcussions for the entire state if passed, the majority don't get to vote on it, and instead the elected government makes an executive decision to overrule the probable majoritarian view in favour of doing something that's more fair, more equitable and more right.

Rev Hellfire

tbh I agree with most of what you've posted. But it is worth keeping in mind that we are not talking about creating a new totally separate legal contract here, but rather extending an existing one. There's nothing in it that I see personally that heterosexuals should object to, but I disagree with the idea that they should not be allowed have a vote on it.

As for the second argument that a republic somehow protects minorities, that's incorrect I believe. Since ultimately if the majority feel strongly enough about denying a right, they can simply vote in a party which will match their particular outlook. Minorities get rights through the sufferance of the majority and that applies to western democracies as well.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Gay and lesbian people getting married doesn't affect straight people get married.
Get over it.

Rev Hellfire

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

Gay and lesbian people getting married doesn't affect straight people get married.
Get over it.

Nothing to get over.

jady88

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

tbh I agree with most of what you've posted. But it is worth keeping in mind that we are not talking about creating a new totally separate legal contract here, but rather extending an existing one. There's nothing in it that I see personally that heterosexuals should object to, but I disagree with the idea that they should not be allowed have a vote on it.

As for the second argument that a republic somehow protects minorities, that's incorrect I believe. Since ultimately if the majority feel strongly enough about denying a right, they can simply vote in a party which will match their particular outlook. Minorities get rights through the sufferance of the majority and that applies to western democracies as well.

I agree I mean we live in democratic state and and all this crap about since when did we vote on civil liberties that poured out of people when the result was clear was just nonsense we have always voted on civil rights I mean we voted the constitution in so it makes no sense at all. I am aware of course that they were talking about America and not Ireland but the principles of democracy are pretty much the same everywhere i thought.

Arathorn

The most recent survey, carried out in 2008, showed that 84% of Irish people supported civil marriage or civil partnerships for gay and lesbian couples, with 58% (up from 51%) supporting full marriage rights in registry offices. The number who believe homosexuals should only be allowed to have civil partnerships fell in the same period, from 33% to 26%.[31] A later Irish Times online poll, put support for same-sex marriage at 63%, up a further 5%.

jady88

Arathorn wrote: »

The most recent survey, carried out in 2008, showed that 84% of Irish people supported civil marriage or civil partnerships for gay and lesbian couples, with 58% (up from 51%) supporting full marriage rights in registry offices. The number who believe homosexuals should only be allowed to have civil partnerships fell in the same period, from 33% to 26%.[31] A later Irish Times online poll, put support for same-sex marriage at 63%, up a further 5%.

An actual referendum and it's not entirely certain whether one would be required would be far closer than that, research has shown that support for progressing gay rights tends to fall when things flare up.

Red Sleeping Beauty

jady88 wrote: »

An actual referendum and it's not entirely certain whether one would be required would be far closer than that, research has shown that support for progressing gay rights tends to fall when things flare up.

But why would support fail in this instance if a referendum on the issue took place ? In Ireland that is.

jady88

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

But why would support fail in this instance if a referendum on the issue took place ? In Ireland that is.

I don't know probably because scaremongering would intensify? Instead of being largely silent on the issue the Catholic Church might start prattling on about it at mass and many people would be panicked into voting no. I've only once had the misfortune of sitting at mass listening to a priest bang on about the "family" being under attack and then saying in a "ladish" way "You know who I am talking about!" and making the limp wrist gesture much to the delight of certain parts of the congregation... I was so angry. The funny thing was I was sitting up in the choir after doing the readings for the mass, time is not on their side.

Red Sleeping Beauty

jady88 wrote: »

I don't know probably because scaremongering would intensify? Instead of being largely silent on the issue the Catholic Church might start prattling on about it at mass and many people would be panicked into voting no. I've only once had the misfortune of sitting at mass listening to a priest bang on about the "family" being under attack and then saying in a "ladish" way "You know who I am talking about!" and making the limp wrist gesture much to the delight of certain parts of the congregation... I was so angry. The funny thing was I was sitting up in the choir after doing the readings for the mass, time is not on their side.

For my 2cents I think the anti-gay campaign would hammer home the issue of gays adopting and they'd be saying "if you let them marry now then they'll be adopting" or something to that effect. Or perhaps even more cloak and daggery like we saw on this Q&A programme , where the arguement was "hetro marriage is under attack" etc. Em, just like you said. There's people in power in this country that can push through their agenda if they wish and referendums don't really stop them. So just like we'll get a second Lisbon treaty referendum that will be passed I think that there would be a good chance that a referendum on this issue would lead towards the anti-gay side of things.

I'm probably wrong though

jady88

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

For my 2cents I think the anti-gay campaign would hammer home the issue of gays adopting and they'd be saying "if you let them marry now then they'll be adopting" or something to that effect. Or perhaps even more cloak and daggery like we saw on this Q&A programme , where the arguement was "hetro marriage is under attack" etc. Em, just like you said. There's people in power in this country that can push through their agenda if they wish and referendums don't really stop them. So just like we'll get a second Lisbon treaty referendum that will be passed I think that there would be a good chance that a referendum on this issue would lead towards the anti-gay side of things.

I'm probably wrong though

Agreed, thought it wouldn't really be marriage if adoption rights were not being included so they would definitely be harping on about it. I'd love to tell these idiots hetros kill hetro marriage not homos.

DubArk

Sorry to harp on but referendums should not be held on basic Human Rights!

They didn’t ask the whites in South Africa if it was alright if they had a vote, to see if the blacks had a right to vote!

Just repeating myself, “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.”

jady88

DubArk wrote: »

Sorry to harp on but referendums should not be held on basic Human Rights!

They didn’t ask the whites in South Africa if it was alright if they had a vote, to see if the blacks had a right to vote!

Just repeating myself, “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.”

Well thats a rather idealistic stance and rather impractical. We live in a democratic society governed by the rule of law and the very highest law in the land is the Constitution. If gay marriage is thought to be incongruent with the constitution then there is simply no other way, and to be frank it's not that big a price to pay for the privilege of living in a civilized society.

Comparing gay marriage to apartheid is a little ridiculous.

DubArk

jady88 wrote: »

Well thats a rather idealistic stance and rather impractical. We live in a democratic society governed by the rule of law and the very highest law in the land is the Constitution. If gay marriage is thought to be incongruent with the constitution then there is simply no other way, and to be frank it's not that big a price to pay for the privilege of living in a civilized society.

Comparing gay marriage to apartheid is a little ridiculous.

It may appear ridiculous to you but to me they are on par!

You’re glib remarks that only through constitutional change that this can be achieved is to me, lazy politics.
Where im coming from is that all are inclusive of the very same laws; not that they belong to the chosen few, therefore you're not getting rid of a law but applying it to all!

I find your other remark that it’s impractical and somewhat naive of me to expect that I can live in my own country as a complete and empowered citizen insulting. That in your civilized society im not included because quite frankly it's not that big a price to pay for YOU to leave me out of your civilized society!!

Who’s paying the price? ME!!

Get down off your high horse and remember that this very society that you seem to hold up as the ideal is only your IDEAL!

In any democracy you’ll find that change should be embraced and not stifled by stagnant, dormant 20th century political principles that went out with the ark.

Quite frankly, as you so well put it, it’s a huge price for me and mine to pay just to keep you in your privileged position in OUR civilized society.

If you dont want to join in move aside :rolleyes:

jady88

DubArk wrote: »

It may appear ridiculous to you but to me they are on par!

Well in that case you are simply wrong, comparing the lack of legal recognition for gay marriages to apartheid is plainly wrong but to suggest they are were on a bar is just reprehensible.

DubArk wrote: »

You’re glib remarks that only through constitutional change that this can be achieved is to me, lazy politics.
Where im coming from is that all are inclusive of the very same laws; not that they belong to the chosen few, therefore you're not getting rid of a law but applying it to all!

I've not said that constitutional reform was the only way of introducing gay marriage, in fact in a recent post in this thread I clearly stated that there was debate as to how gay marriages might be introduced a larger number of differing opinions from legal experts and others on the matter. Have you studied constitutional law?

DubArk wrote: »

I find your other remark that it’s impractical and somewhat naive of me to expect that I can live in my own country as a complete and empowered citizen insulting. That in your civilized society im not included because quite frankly it's not that big a price to pay for YOU to leave me out of your civilized society!!

Who’s paying the price? ME!!

Get down off your high horse and remember that this very society that you seem to hold up as the ideal is only your IDEAL!

Firstly you know nothing of me so don't make assumptions that are based on a victim complex. I'm gay, I want gay marriage to be introduced so you can stop with that crap about me leaving you out of society. i never suggest that you were naive in that regard I said your position was naive and impractical, naive because it ignores the reality that we have been voting on people's civil rights since forever ever heard of divorce or abortion? And impractical because it was ignoring the reality that if the Supreme Court found that a bill attempting to introduce gay marriage by the Dail was unconstitutional there would be no other way to bring about the necessary change.

DubArk

jady88 wrote: »

Well in that case you are simply wrong, comparing the lack of legal recognition for gay marriages to apartheid is plainly wrong but to suggest they are were on a bar is just reprehensible.



I've not said that constitutional reform was the only way of introducing gay marriage, in fact in a recent post in this thread I clearly stated that there was debate as to how gay marriages might be introduced a larger number of differing opinions from legal experts and others on the matter. Have you studied constitutional law?



Firstly you know nothing of me so don't make assumptions that are based on a victim complex. I'm gay, I want gay marriage to be introduced so you can stop with that crap about me leaving you out of society. i never suggest that you were naive in that regard I said your position was naive and impractical, naive because it ignores the reality that we have been voting on people's civil rights since forever ever heard of divorce or abortion? And impractical because it was ignoring the reality that if the Supreme Court found that a bill attempting to introduce gay marriage by the Dail was unconstitutional there would be no other way to bring about the necessary change.

First of all I couldn’t care if you’re gay or straight that’s not the point and again you’re the one jumping to conclusions not me, by even presuming that I have a victim complex!!!

I have reread your remarks and your right that I have misinterpreted your post and in particular
“If gay marriage is thought to be incongruent with the constitution then there is simply no other way, and to be frank it's not that big a price to pay for the privilege of living in a civilized society.”

For that; please except my full apology, im sorry that I didn’t read it properly, as I should have done to start with.


Well in that case of the lack of legal recognition for gay marriages was compared to apartheid being reprehensible, is you just going overboard!!


Please read some of my posts on this subject in the past or on this post. I think i came over much better on these, maybe its friday and im not on full power.

Thank you for your responce.:)


Walks away

Red Sleeping Beauty

Emotions shouldn't be brought in to a debate or discussion and legal decissions shouldn't be made based on any emotion.
Just my thought for today.

jady88

DubArk wrote: »

First of all I couldn’t care if you’re gay or straight that’s not the point and again you’re the one jumping to conclusions not me, by even presuming that I have a victim complex!!!

Excuse me when did I jump to any conclusions, at least before my last post? And I don't think that it was an entirely unfair conclusion to reach based on the rantings in your post preceding my response

DubArk wrote: »

it's not that big a price to pay for YOU to leave me out of your civilized society!!

Who’s paying the price? ME!!

Get down off your high horse and remember that this very society that you seem to hold up as the ideal is only your IDEAL!

In any democracy you’ll find that change should be embraced and not stifled by stagnant, dormant 20th century political principles that went out with the ark.

Quite frankly, as you so well put it, it’s a huge price for me and mine to pay just to keep you in your privileged position in OUR civilized society.

As for keeping emotions out of a debate it's a lovely ideal but not altogether practical when emotive issues are at stake.

ixoy

Calm down people... It's an emotive issue for all of us but let's try and not snipe at one another.

DubArk

jady88 wrote: »

Excuse me when did I jump to any conclusions, at least before my last post? And I don't think that it was an entirely unfair conclusion to reach based on the rantings in your post preceding my response



As for keeping emotions out of a debate it's a lovely ideal but not altogether practical when emotive issues are at stake.

Did i not say sorry!? Dont go to town on me. Kick a man when he's down why dont you.