Full rights for the LGBT community.

aloyisious

junder wrote: »

How about you answer the question I put to you about staying in a Muslim run b&b, should I demand ( and haven these demands met ) to eat non halal meat or pork and have my partner wear next nothing ( as long as its still decent or at least what western society still deems as decent) as is our right or should I be respectful of the religious beliefs of the Muslim hosts?

In Rome, do what Romans; do within the law of the land. Ditto applies to the country you are living-in/visiting.

token56

junder wrote: »

So that's the caveat then, if I'm running a b&b if I make it a private members b&b ( membership included in the booking) I can be selective in who I allow to stay?

Based on the ruling made by the district court in the case with Portmarnock Golf Club, clubs are afford the right to exclude certain types of members only if the club promotes activity for a specific group. The subsequent hight counrt ruling muddies the waters even further but I'm not sure how it would apply in such a private members b&b as you described above. I really have no idea regarding the legality of creating such an establishment.

oscarBravo

junder wrote: »

How about you answer the question I put to you about staying in a Muslim run b&b, should I demand ( and haven these demands met ) to eat non halal meat or pork and have my partner wear next nothing ( as long as its still decent or at least what western society still deems as decent) as is our right or should I be respectful of the religious beliefs of the Muslim hosts?

You have a choice about what you eat or wear. You don't have a choice about your sexual orientation. I'm not aware of any equality legislation covering your desire to eat pork.

Now, about that contraception question?

token56

aloyisious wrote: »

In Rome, do what Romans; do within the law of the land. Ditto applies to the country you are living-in/visiting.

Exactly, you do what is within the public policy of the country you are staying in, and the establishment you are obtaining a service off should afford you those rights. If public policy of the country is that you must obey Muslim law, then you should do so.

junder

oscarBravo wrote: »

You have a choice about what you eat or wear. You don't have a choice about your sexual orientation. I'm not aware of any equality legislation covering your desire to eat pork.

Now, about that contraception question?

You are correct I have a choice, but that's not really the point is it, the point is does the Muslim owners of the imaginary b&b have the right to refuse to meet my demands. As for contraception, I my faith it's not seen as a sin, so your point is not really relevant. However if what I heard on the news is correct, this couple would have refused my right to share a room with my partner because we are not married regardless of how long we have been together and the fact we have a child together. Had my custom been refused on that grounds then I would have taken my custom else where

token56

junder wrote: »

does the Muslim owners of the imaginary b&b have the right to refuse to meet my demands.

What country is this imaginary b&b in? In Ireland, no they shouldn't, in another country they may well have that right.

rodento

Is the proposed referendum dealing with marriage or full equal rights including adoption of children

junder

token56 wrote: »

What country is this imaginary b&b in? In Ireland, no they shouldn't, in another country they may well have that right.

Well I would have said the uk but the republic would do as a setting as well. What about my responsibility that goes along with my rights, surly I have a responsibility to respect the religious beliefs of these Muslim owners of this imaginary b&b

Nodin

rodento wrote: »

Is the proposed referendum dealing with marriage or full equal rights including adoption of children

Marriage alone. Adoption will be brought in beforehand, afaik.

28064212

junder wrote: »

You are correct I have a choice, but that's not really the point is it, the point is does the Muslim owners of the imaginary b&b have the right to refuse to meet my demands.

Of course they do. You seem to be missing the fundamental issue here. The B&B owners did not refuse to meet the gay couples' demands. They refused to provide a service to them that they do provide to others based purely on their sexual orientation. Your halal comparison is completely irrelevant

Nodin

junder wrote: »

Under European human rights legislation a gay couple could take a church to court for refusing to marry them......

There's no grounds to believe that at all. Gay marriage is to allow gays to marry, not force churches to do so.

SoulAndForm wrote:

My stated opinions on what exactly? You might find it weird but Ulster folk on both sides of the fence dont have in majority the same PC views on homosexuality that southerners have-"gay bashing" (which I condemn as evil) has its UK capital in Derry. Infact the pro-homosexual/anti-Christian extremism of many in the south is making me re-think my views on the border; maybe for all the nightmare we would be better off and safer within the UK (my views on British militarism and that Loyalism=fascism will not be changing though). ......

Gay marriage in NI is inevitable. Keeping the North as some holdout of undeveloped attitudes enshrined in law is no longer tenable in the modern world.

token56

junder wrote: »

Well I would have said the uk but the republic would do as a setting as well. What about my responsibility that goes along with my rights, surly I have a responsibility to respect the religious beliefs of these Muslim owners of this imaginary b&b

Unless by not respecting their beliefs you are disobeying any other law or public policy, you do not have a responsibility to obey such religious beliefs. I do not know if it is public policy or within law to allow such restrictions on food and clothing be placed.

Of course if such a place were to exist and it was requested by the owners that people do not each food etc, it would be nice to think that people would do that, knowing it has been asked before you make the choice to stay there. But you cannot be forced.

junder

28064212 wrote: »

Of course they do. You seem to be missing the fundamental issue here. The B&B owners did not refuse to meet the gay couples' demands. They refused to provide a service to them that they do provide to others based purely on their sexual orientation. Your halal comparison is completely irrelevant

They also would not provide the service to me and
My unmarried partner

28064212

junder wrote: »

They also would not provide the service to me and
My unmarried partner

Except this couple are married. Or rather, they have a civil partnership, which, in the UK, can not legally be treated differently to a marriage for a number of purposes, including discrimination

token56

junder wrote: »

They also would not provide the service to me and
My unmarried partner

But they allow it for married heterosexual couples. Once its allowed for one set of individuals it must be allowed for all others within the realms of public policy. And different equality legislation you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.

In your hypothetical halal example, no one is being allowed eat such meats therefore is it not a fair comparison. I am still not sure on the legality of such a scenario anyway.

SoulandForm

Nodin wrote: »

Gay marriage in NI is inevitable. Keeping the North as some holdout of undeveloped attitudes enshrined in law is no longer tenable in the modern world.

Gay marriage exists in Northern Ireland- a perfect example of London Imperialism. That isnt the point though- the people of Ulster (Im including all nine counties) reject your views that committing homosexual deeds is the same as being a particular race. Gay marriage doesnt exist in the Free State and yet Staters have swallowed a view of homosexuality that would be considered surreal by anyone in 1950.

Nodin

SoulandForm wrote: »

Gay marriage exists in Northern Ireland- a perfect example of London Imperialism. That isnt the point though- the people of Ulster (Im including all nine counties) reject your views that committing homosexual deeds is the same as being a particular race. Gay marriage doesnt exist in the Free State and yet Staters have swallowed a view of homosexuality that would be considered surreal by anyone in 1950.

Civil partnership exists, not gay marriage.

All people reject it? 100% of them? Fascinating. Tell me, if 100% of the catholic population south of the border decided it was ok to discriminate against protestants, would that make it a valid and right thing to do?

I'm not sure what this "free state" is supposed to be. The only one I'm aware of ceased to exist some time ago.

I'm also not sure what significance the year 1950 is supposed to hold either. Various rights now accorded to women, racial minorities and individuals would be considered surreal by many then as well. Whats your point?

SoulandForm

Nodin wrote: »

Civil partnership exists, not gay marriage.

All people reject it? 100% of them? Fascinating. Tell me, if 100% of the catholic population south of the border decided it was ok to discriminate against protestants, would that make it a valid and right thing to do?

I'm not sure what this "free state" is supposed to be. The only one I'm aware of ceased to exist some time ago.

I'm also not sure what significance the year 1950 is supposed to hold either. Various rights now accorded to women, racial minorities and individuals would be considered surreal by many then as well. Whats your point?

Nodin for a supporter of the Provisionals Im surprised that you dont know that they refused to recognize southern courts until the late 80s- why was that?

Nodin

SoulandForm wrote: »

Nodin for a supporter of the Provisionals Im surprised that you dont know that they refused to recognize southern courts until the late 80s- why was that?

I'm fully aware of that. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

If 100% of the catholic population south of the border decided it was ok to discriminate against protestants, would that make it a valid and right thing to do?

SoulandForm

Nodin wrote: »

I'm fully aware of that. It has nothing to do with this discussion.

If 100% of the catholic population south of the border decided it was ok to discriminate against protestants, would that make it a valid and right thing to do?

You are fully aware of that now that I mentioned it-were you before? Have the Provisionals ever actually recognized the Free State's legitimacy properly?

Things absolutely incomparable. Islam has an evil side attached to it but its not essentially evil, same with Protestantism and indeed Roman Catholicism. Therefore discrimination unless its against the evil side is unjust- discrimination against members of pseudo-Protestant organizations might well be just though. Compare like with like.

Nodin

SoulandForm wrote: »

Things absolutely incomparable. Islam has an evil side attached to it but its not essentially evil, same with Protestantism and indeed Roman Catholicism. Therefore discrimination unless its against the evil side is unjust- discrimination against members of pseudo-Protestant organizations might well be just though. Compare like with like.

You seem to be missing the point. If a majority decide to discriminate against a minority, is that automatically right because the majority decide to do so?

SoulandForm

Nodin wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point. If a majority decide to discriminate against a minority, is that automatically right because the majority decide to do so?

Is discriminating against cocaine users wrong by making cocaine use illegal?

Should persecute B and Bs that dont allow drug use? Or smoking cigars?

Nodin

SoulandForm wrote: »

Is discriminating against cocaine users wrong by making cocaine use illegal?

Should persecute B and Bs that dont allow drug use? Or smoking cigars?

We aren't talking about anything that's illegal, or harmful. Please answer the question.

junder

28064212 wrote: »

Except this couple are married. Or rather, they have a civil partnership, which, in the UK, can not legally be treated differently to a marriage for a number of purposes, including discrimination

But it's still seems as I sin in accordance to thier faith as is my 'living in sin' with my partner

Scofflaw

Soulandform wrote:

Nodin for a supporter of the Provisionals Im surprised that you dont know that they refused to recognize southern courts until the late 80s- why was that?

This discussion is heated enough without adding this kind of deliberate baiting.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Annasopra

junder wrote: »

Under European human rights legislation a gay couple could take a church to court for refusing to marry them

That's news to me. What legislation?

Annasopra

SoulandForm wrote: »

Gay marriage exists in Northern Ireland- a perfect example of London Imperialism. That isnt the point though- the people of Ulster (Im including all nine counties) reject your views that committing homosexual deeds is the same as being a particular race. Gay marriage doesnt exist in the Free State and yet Staters have swallowed a view of homosexuality that would be considered surreal by anyone in 1950.

When did you survey all 100% of the 9 counties citizens?

28064212

junder wrote: »

But it's still seems as I sin in accordance to thier faith as is my 'living in sin' with my partner

As do Muslims, and Hindus, and anyone who hasn't had a Christian marriage. They don't have the right to discriminate against those couples either

NuMarvel

junder wrote: »

Under European human rights legislation a gay couple could take a church to court for refusing to marry them.

Then that means any couple could take a church to court for refusing to marry them. The marriage equality is about getting the same marriage rights as everyone else, not any additional rights. In general, churches are free to refuse to marry anyone. That hasn't changed in any of the European countries that permit same sex marriage, and it won't change here in Ireland.

rodento wrote: »

Is the proposed referendum dealing with marriage or full equal rights including adoption of children

Gay people can already apply to adopt like any other unmarried person. In other words, any child that is placed with an unmarried couple only has a legal relationship with the person who applied to adopt. The child has no legal relationship with the other person, no matter how active that other person is in the raising of the child.

When gay people can marry, then they will be treated like any other married couple under the Adoption Act, i.e. they will be able to adopt jointly. The Adoption Act is gender neutral when it talks about the adopting parents, so I can't see any reason for it to be changed after same sex marriage is permitted.

So to answer your question, the referendum will be about marriage itself, but one of the benefits marriage brings is being able to apply to adopt jointly. Gay and lesbian couples will still have to apply as normal and be subjected to the usual assessments, checks, etc.

There will be separate legislation brought in, sometime next year, to address other family issues, again not just for gay and lesbian couples. It will put a mechanism in place to automatically make an unmarried father a guardian of their children, it will allow people who act as a child's parent to apply for guardianship or custody, it will simplify the adoption process for a parent who marries and wants their spouse to be recognised as their child's legal parent, and it will set up a legal framework for the parentage of children born through surrogacy or assisted human reproduction. There is also talk of legislation to allow unmarried couples, same sex or opposite sex, to apply to adopt jointly, but no details have been released about that yet.

Manach

The referendum will be about the dismantling the traditional Western definition of marriage which has a solid Christian roots and pandering to a small minority who wish to continue on their quest to overturn the traditional form of morality. Inspite of the constant liberal mantra that normative historian notions of family are outmoded, this will be a chance given to the Irish electorate to rollback the excesses of relativism which was never given to many other European countries.
With the result that broken families that are depending on the state are at historic highs.
Any guarantees that freedom of religious sensibilities will be respected will be cast away by the same lies that the political class issue will be overturned in the same way that they are now seeking to destroy the ethos of religious schools.

Corkfeen

It seems pretty silly to force religious definitions of morality into state law if it has no logical basis. By this logic, we should go back to making sodomy illegal. There is no rational reason to prevent gay people from marrying. Preventing it would be old prejudices guiding rights.

NuMarvel

Manach wrote: »

The referendum will be about the dismantling the traditional Western definition of marriage which has a solid Christian roots and pandering to a small minority who wish to continue on their quest to overturn the traditional form of morality. Inspite of the constant liberal mantra that normative historian notions of family are outmoded, this will be a chance given to the Irish electorate to rollback the excesses of relativism which was never given to many other European countries.
With the result that broken families that are depending on the state are at historic highs.
Any guarantees that freedom of religious sensibilities will be respected will be cast away by the same lies that the political class issue will be overturned in the same way that they are now seeking to destroy the ethos of religious schools.

Or...

This referendum is about extending the rights, responsibilities and protections of marriage to gay and lesbian couples. It's about taking another step towards treating all citizens as equals and about showing our children that regardless of our differences, we all have the right to be treated equally. It's about recognising the diversity of families that exist in our society, and will continue to exist in any case, and making sure they have the same chances and opportunities as every other type of family.

A Yes vote takes nothing away from the marriages of heterosexual couples. There is no dismantling. They will be as married the day after the referendum as they were the day before.

Nor will there be any additional infringements on religious freedoms. Churches will be no more required to marry gay or lesbian couples in the future as they are currently required to marry divorced people. Which is to say, they are not required to do so at all.

I'm confident that the Irish people will back the proposal. I'm confident that the Irish people will see through arguments of "dismantling traditional marriage", and claims of liberals agendas, and see that the gay and lesbian people in their lives deserve the same rights as everyone else.

Nodin

Manach wrote: »

The referendum will be about the dismantling the traditional Western definition of marriage which has a solid Christian roots..

So solid the church was in existence for over a millennia and a half before coming up with the form we know today.

Manach wrote: »

and pandering to a small minority who wish to continue on their quest to overturn the traditional form of morality. ..

Why should minorities be discriminated against?

Beating ones wife was entirely moral, traditionally.

Manach wrote: »

Inspite of the constant liberal mantra that normative historian notions of family are outmoded, this will be a chance given to the Irish electorate to rollback the excesses of relativism which was never given to many other European countries.
With the result that broken families that are depending on the state are at historic highs..

Dubious linkage.

mrkiscool2

Man, I wish people would wake up and smell the coffee. Ok, let's spell this out in bright clear letters for anyone who doesn't understand

Why do we have Referendums?
We have referendums when we believe the constitution should be amended or a particularly controversial bill is sent to the people to vote on. In the first instance it is to give people rights, liberties and freedoms that up until now has not been afforded to them by the constitution. However, it cannot infringe upon any existing articles or amendments in the constitution as that is a violation of the rights, liberties and freedoms given to each and every citizen of the state.

Why Gay Marriage is correct under the Constitution
With between 8-12% of the Irish population identifying as LGBT, there is a clear and present need to address the inequalities they face. At present, there are 55 different legal and tax differences between a "Civil Union" which LGBT people can currently obtain and hetero "marriage". As is written in the UN and European Charter of Human Rights (which Ireland is legally bound by) "all people are born equal, shall be equal under the eyes of the law and shall have equal rights" and "a person is free to marry whomever they wish and should be afforded the same rights as any other married couple". This is addressing this problem in the State at the moment

So, if we look at that we can clearly see that
a. This will have no effect whatsoever on "traditional" marriage. In fact it makes it stronger
b. Denying people their fundamental human rights is a crime against humanity. You are entitled to think what you want, but not allowing anyone equal rights to you under any level of discrimnation is in clear violation of the EU and UN Charter for Human Rights (I know, a bit OTT but good to point it out nonetheless!)
c. Voting Yes or No won't make the slightest bit of difference to you if you're straight, but it could make two LGBT people extremely happy. Are you going to be that person who crushes there hopes and dreams?

aloyisious

Manach wrote: »

The referendum will be about the dismantling the traditional Western definition of marriage which has a solid Christian roots and pandering to a small minority who wish to continue on their quest to overturn the traditional form of morality. Inspite of the constant liberal mantra that normative historian notions of family are outmoded, this will be a chance given to the Irish electorate to rollback the excesses of relativism which was never given to many other European countries.
With the result that broken families that are depending on the state are at historic highs.
Any guarantees that freedom of religious sensibilities will be respected will be cast away by the same lies that the political class issue will be overturned in the same way that they are now seeking to destroy the ethos of religious schools.

Religious marriage existed long before Christianity. The issue is about Civil Marriage. It'll be debated, white-billed, brought to a vote and maybe then enacted into law. The High and Supreme Courts are also there for the citizen to take a case against any law they see as damaging their rights under the constitution (excepting vexatious cases).

As for the loss of "normative notions of marriage" and "broken families" I reckon people see that that cannot be laid at the door of Male and Female Same-Sex couples. As for the destruction of the ethos of religious schools, if by that you mean that includes discriminating against teachers because of their sexuality, and not because they are teaching something which is totally against a school's curriculum or ethos, then you are as wrong as anyone discriminating against you because they might think you might be of Christian belief.

Iwasfrozen

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Man, I wish people would wake up and smell the coffee. Ok, let's spell this out in bright clear letters for anyone who doesn't understand

Why do we have Referendums?
We have referendums when we believe the constitution should be amended or a particularly controversial bill is sent to the people to vote on. In the first instance it is to give people rights, liberties and freedoms that up until now has not been afforded to them by the constitution. However, it cannot infringe upon any existing articles or amendments in the constitution as that is a violation of the rights, liberties and freedoms given to each and every citizen of the state.

Why Gay Marriage is correct under the Constitution
With between 8-12% of the Irish population identifying as LGBT, there is a clear and present need to address the inequalities they face. At present, there are 55 different legal and tax differences between a "Civil Union" which LGBT people can currently obtain and hetero "marriage". As is written in the UN and European Charter of Human Rights (which Ireland is legally bound by) "all people are born equal, shall be equal under the eyes of the law and shall have equal rights" and "a person is free to marry whomever they wish and should be afforded the same rights as any other married couple". This is addressing this problem in the State at the moment

So, if we look at that we can clearly see that
a. This will have no effect whatsoever on "traditional" marriage. In fact it makes it stronger
b. Denying people their fundamental human rights is a crime against humanity. You are entitled to think what you want, but not allowing anyone equal rights to you under any level of discrimnation is in clear violation of the EU and UN Charter for Human Rights (I know, a bit OTT but good to point it out nonetheless!)
c. Voting Yes or No won't make the slightest bit of difference to you if you're straight, but it could make two LGBT people extremely happy. Are you going to be that person who crushes there hopes and dreams?

Take it to the European Court of Human Rights.

jank

Why is the world obbsessed about this topic when it only affects less than 1% of the population?

jill_valentine

jank wrote: »

Why is the world obbsessed about this topic when it only affects less than 1% of the population?

Leaving that dubious percentage where it is, why would it possibly be okay to treat somebody like sh*t based purely on how many or how few people there are like them? What is your logic there?

You say it only matters to a small number. But I can't help but observe that while it wouldn't affect you, it seems to matter to you a great deal.

aloyisious

jank wrote: »

Why is the world obbsessed about this topic when it only affects less than 1% of the population?

Religious/ly-guarded perspective?

renegademaster

thank god for the legion of mary eh

aloyisious

Annoy the **** out of the LoM, tell them it is blasphemy to say, state or imply that Satan had power equal to God, their Creator; the ability to make living creatures.

Iwasfrozen

aloyisious wrote: »

Annoy the **** out of the LoM, tell them it is blasphemy to say, state or imply that Satan had power equal to God, their Creator; the ability to make living creatures.

Where did they say Satan made living creatures?

jank

jill_valentine wrote: »

Leaving that dubious percentage where it is, why would it possibly be okay to treat somebody like sh*t based purely on how many or how few people there are like them? What is your logic there?

You say it only matters to a small number. But I can't help but observe that while it wouldn't affect you, it seems to matter to you a great deal.

I am not saying it is OK or not OK. You clearly didn't read my post. What I said is why is the world obsessed about this issue. For the amount of air time this issues gets compared to the amount of people actually affected, totally out of kilter. This issue is mainly brought up so lefties came indulge in a group superiority complex circle jerk. Personally speaking people can marry who they want so long the rights of private individuals to offer or deny a service due to their religious beliefs are not trodden over or religious institutions are forced to marry gays.

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

For the amount of air time this issues gets compared to the amount of people actually affected, totally out of kilter.

I hear ya. I saw a story on the news recently about some bloke that had been murdered. I mean, fecksake, it was only one bloke - why all the fuss?

hansfrei

jank wrote: »

Why is the world obbsessed about this topic when it only affects less than 1% of the population?

Could be 5%.

Think it comes down to European policy above all else. Dressing this up as a rights campaign is nonsense. Gateway referendum IMO. I can see a time when all the cheap Labour in Europe runs out and then we'll need to imoprt it from Asia and Africa. We might as well run a debate for polygamy too. Its more common in the African and Asian countries.

jill_valentine

jank wrote: »

I am not saying it is OK or not OK. You clearly didn't read my post. What I said is why is the world obsessed about this issue. For the amount of air time this issues gets compared to the amount of people actually affected, totally out of kilter.

So if I'm reading you right, you think gay people should have full and equal marriage rights, you're just tired of hearing about it.

Why then are you a constant in threads about gay marriage rights? Yourself and Hansfrei? It reads as a kind of massive intellectual dishonesty. If you're so tired of hearing about LGBT inequality, it seems to me that the obvious solution would be to support LGBT equality, so they can put down their signs and marry each other and go about their business happy out.

Instead, harping on about how sick you are of hearing about the discussion of it, as if that's somehow worse than the actual problem they're talking about, the thing that actually affects people, reads as a kind of passive aggressive tactic to try and undercut discussion without having to nail your colours to the mast and defend them. This is reinforced by your insistence on using the lowest percentage number you can find anywhere, despite the fact that to my knowledge no credible study has ever replicated it.

If something is bad, it's bad. It doesn't matter how many or how few people it's bad to. And if those people point out that it's bad, complaining that they're making too much noise is just preposterous. Nobody in their right mind would expect somebody to endure unfair treatment indefinitely without making a peep, or chide them for speaking up, as if articulating their unfair treatment is more of an affront than the difficulty being imposed on them. Because that would be ridiculous.

Both of these things are immediately apparent to any reader.

So frankly, pretending that's your issue here, is a dog that won't hunt.

hansfrei

jill_valentine wrote: »

So if I'm reading you right, you think gay people should have full and equal marriage rights, you're just tired of hearing about it.

Why then are you a constant in threads about gay marriage rights? Yourself and Hansfrei? It reads as a kind of massive intellectual dishonesty. If you're so tired of hearing about LGBT inequality, it seems to me that the obvious solution would be to support LGBT equality, so they can put down their signs and marry each other and go about their business happy out.

Instead, harping on about how sick you are of hearing about the discussion of it, as if that's somehow worse than the actual problem they're talking about, the thing that actually affects people, reads as a kind of passive aggressive tactic to try and undercut discussion without having to nail your colours to the mast and defend them. This is reinforced by your insistence on using the lowest percentage number you can find anywhere, despite the fact that to my knowledge no credible study has ever replicated it.

If something is bad, it's bad. It doesn't matter how many or how few people it's bad to. And if those people point out that it's bad, complaining that they're making too much noise is just preposterous. Nobody in their right mind would expect somebody to endure unfair treatment indefinitely without making a peep, or chide them for speaking up, as if articulating their unfair treatment is more of an affront than the difficulty being imposed on them. Because that would be ridiculous.

Both of these things are immediately apparent to any reader.

So frankly, pretending that's your issue here, is a dog that won't hunt.

The pros and cons of this have been done. And done over and over again I suspect through time. Why did we end up then with this version of marriage? And whats wrong with it exactly? Its a given that the rights bestowed on a homosexual couple could easily be included in civil partnership legisltion without the need for marriage. And further still, that any attempt to change legislation around marriage should realistically include polygamy if "gay" marriage is to be introduced.

Annasopra

hansfrei wrote: »

Could be 5%.

Think it comes down to European policy above all else. Dressing this up as a rights campaign is nonsense. Gateway referendum IMO. I can see a time when all the cheap Labour in Europe runs out and then we'll need to imoprt it from Asia and Africa. We might as well run a debate for polygamy too. Its more common in the African and Asian countries.

Yeah yeah yeah "what about incest", "what about a man marrying his horse", "what about a man marrying his brother"

We can all do whataboutery with non arguments.

Polygamy is nothing to do with this discussion.

hansfrei

mango salsa wrote: »

Yeah yeah yeah "what about incest", "what about a man marrying his horse", "what about a man marrying his brother"

We can all do whataboutery with non arguments.

Polygamy is nothing to do with this discussion.

Says who? Who made you the expert on marriage? What have you contributed so far? I want, I want, I want. Thats no contribution at all.


If youre going to ask people to vote at least outline the reasons with some degree of logic.

Annasopra

hansfrei wrote: »

Says who? Who made you the expert on marriage? What have you contributed so far? I want, I want, I want. Thats no contribution at all.


If youre going to ask people to vote at least outline the reasons with some degree of logic.

But you see there is no logic to your arguments at all.

You are introducing non issues in a bid to change the discussion into issues that it is not about.