Full rights for the LGBT community.

28064212

hansfrei wrote: »

Why did we end up then with this version of marriage?

Which version exactly are you referring to? Christian? Hindu? Muslim? Humanist? Civil? The Civil version with or without divorce? With or without the possibility of rape within a marriage? Marriage has always been evolving and changing.

hansfrei wrote: »

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.

So do it. Give homosexual couples every right bestowed on married couples, and call it whatever you want. It seems nonsensical to have two identical sets of legislation for exactly the same thing though

aloyisious

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Where did they say Satan made living creatures?

Just thinking of the "Child of God" quote, making a distinction between Non-gays and Gays. It seem's to me that there is (at least) an implication that Gays are NOT children of God, with all that that implies.

There is the occasional "you're an abomination" or similar quote, letting one know that, in the O/P's opinion "You are not a creation of God, God wouldn't create something like you". As you are a living breathing person, there's a clearly stated implication that your existence is due to some other agency.

I respond with the "blasphemy" bit to them, asking them to examine the implication of their statement, hoping to make them realise that their statements are a comment on their God.

NuMarvel

hansfrei wrote: »

Its a given that the rights bestowed on a homosexual couple could easily be included in civil partnership legisltion without the need for marriage.

Actually, it's not a given. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry is the only way to ensure they get the same rights as married heterosexual couples. A separate system will always offer less than marriage, because of the position of marriage in the Constitution.

What is a given is that the Government doesn't have to hold a referendum to change the law. All that's required is the deletion of one line in the Civil Registration Act 2004, something that could be done tomorrow if they wished. After that, same sex couples could marry in exactly the same way as heterosexual couples, and have exactly the same rights and protections.

Annasopra

NuMarvel wrote: »

Actually, it's not a given. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry is the only way to ensure they get the same rights as married heterosexual couples. A separate system will always offer less than marriage, because of the position of marriage in the Constitution.

What is a given is that the Government doesn't have to hold a referendum to change the law. All that's required is the deletion of one line in the Civil Registration Act 2004, something that could be done tomorrow if they wished. After that, same sex couples could marry in exactly the same way as heterosexual couples, and have exactly the same rights and protections.

No

It really is not that simple.

Firstly there is genuine disagreement on the need for a referendum so it is not a given that one is not needed.

Secondly it most definitely is not as simple as deleting one line in law. Much more that would be needed.

aloyisious

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.

The "I want, I want, I want" (as you put it in reference to having an equal right to Civil Marriage under state law) doesn't sound too extreme to me as it is referring to the equality that the constitution is supposed to confer on ALL citizens, regardless of their attitude to religion.

Re your request for an explanation as to why people should be asked to vote on the issue of extending Civil Marriage rights to Gay citizens, (where the rights already exist for other citizens) my response is: what is the logic and reason behind the refusal to extend that existing right to Gay Citizens?

It seem's to me that allowing ONE religion hold sway over the wording of the constitution gives an improper advantage to any member of that particular religion over those from other religions and also to those citizens who don't believe-in or follow any religion.

It also seem's to me that that is the attitude applied by the elders of the various religions around the world to the adherents of other religions and practices, eg: Christian to Jew, Jew to Muslim, Muslim to Christian, in states where one religion holds sway over the others in state governance and laws.

hansfrei

NuMarvel wrote: »

Actually, it's not a given. Allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry is the only way to ensure they get the same rights as married heterosexual couples. A separate system will always offer less than marriage, because of the position of marriage in the Constitution.

What is a given is that the Government doesn't have to hold a referendum to change the law. All that's required is the deletion of one line in the Civil Registration Act 2004, something that could be done tomorrow if they wished. After that, same sex couples could marry in exactly the same way as heterosexual couples, and have exactly the same rights and protections.

We're having a constitutional change if passed by way of referendum. All I'm asking flr.is some reasonable debte as to waht should or should.not be included. The pros and cons of each outcome discussed.

Why did this version of marriage last a thousand years? Whats wrong with it? Why change it some way and not another?

The "rights" debate has been hijacked by "me feiners" interested only in theselves, not in society or societies' future.

NuMarvel

mango salsa wrote: »

Firstly there is genuine disagreement on the need for a referendum so it is not a given that one is not needed.

The view of the legal experts during the course of the Constitutional Convention seemed to be that having a referendum was better in the long run, but I don't think anyone has said that the law definitely can't be changed without one.

My sense is that the Constitution doesn't oblige a Government to provide for same-sex marriage, but it doesn't specifically bar it either. I think if there were a Supreme Court case, the judgement would be that it's up to the Government of the day to decide what to do.

I can see why a referendum is better in the long run, and when I say it's simple to change the law, I'm talking about the actual act of changing the law. I have no doubt that without a referendum there would be lengthy legal challenges if it were changed via legislation instead of a referendum.

mango salsa wrote: »

Secondly it most definitely is not as simple as deleting one line in law. Much more that would be needed.

Can I ask what else is needed? As far as I'm aware, that's the bar on same-sex marriage. Once that line is changed, I can't see any other impediment to letting gay or lesbian couples marry.

Any of the other issues that I'm aware of are relating to children being raised by a non-biological parent. To me, that isn't directly related to the right to marry, because it affects just as many heterosexual couples, married or not. It's a separate issue in many respects, because whether same sex marriage is introduced or not, the problems will still need to be resolved.

NuMarvel

hansfrei wrote: »

We're having a constitutional change if passed by way of referendum. All I'm asking flr.is some reasonable debte as to waht should or should.not be included. The pros and cons of each outcome discussed.

In terms of why we're not talking about other types of marriage, I can't add anything new to my previous reply on this subject:

The question on the ballot paper will relate to marriage for same-sex couples. There's no point talking about other types of marriage here because that's not what we'll be asked about on the day.

There's nothing, absolutely nothing, stopping you from starting a new thread to discuss the pros and cons of other types of marriage. You've clearly given the issues some thought, so it's surprising you haven't done this already. Just go the appropriate forum, and click the New Thread button.

hansfrei wrote: »

Why did this version of marriage last a thousand years? Whats wrong with it? Why change it some way and not another?

The current version of marriage, man and woman as equal partners in a legally recognised union, is not a thousand years old. It's about half a century, give or take a decade. Marriage today bears little resemblance to marriage of a thousand years ago. The marriageable age is older for one, and women's rights in a marriage have improved dramatically. And let's not get into the modern idea of marrying for romantic love.

I can understand the urge to believe that marriage has been static for all of history, but that's not the reality of the situation. Allowing same sex couples to marry is just another change in an ever changing institution.

hansfrei

NuMarvel wrote: »

In terms of why we're not talking about other types of marriage, I can't add anything new to my previous reply on this subject:








The current version of marriage, man and woman as equal partners in a legally recognised union, is not a thousand years old. It's about half a century, give or take a decade. Marriage today bears little resemblance to marriage of a thousand years ago. The marriageable age is older for one, and women's rights in a marriage have improved dramatically. And let's not get into the modern idea of marrying for romantic love.

I can understand the urge to believe that marriage has been static for all of history, but that's not the reality of the situation. Allowing same sex couples to marry is just another change in an ever changing institution.

Its about a thousand years old. It is about romantic love. I never said there was anything static about marriage. I never mentioNed a marriage of equals.

For a thousand years we've had an institution at the centre point of society. Theres nothing wrong with that. Marriage has served us well. Why change then?

NuMarvel

hansfrei wrote: »

For a thousand years we've had an institution at the centre point of society. Theres nothing wrong with that. Marriage has served us well. Why change then?

How will same-sex marriage change that? Why shouldn't gay and lesbian couples become part of that centre point?

Nodin

hansfrei wrote: »

We're having a constitutional change if passed by way of referendum. All I'm asking flr.is some reasonable debte as to waht should or should.not be included. The pros and cons of each outcome discussed.

Why did this version of marriage last a thousand years? Whats wrong with it? Why change it some way and not another?

The "rights" debate has been hijacked by "me feiners" interested only in theselves, not in society or societies' future.

Nothing is being changed about marriage. It is being made available to same sex couples.

jill_valentine

hansfrei wrote: »

The "rights" debate has been hijacked by "me feiners" interested only in theselves, not in society or societies' future.

....

wat?

hansfrei

NuMarvel wrote: »

How will same-sex marriage change that? Why shouldn't gay and lesbian couples become part of that centre point?

I dont know tbat they will or they won't. No one can tell the future in that regard. But you are asking me to take aa punt on one minorities position and not another. Thats whats happening.

The Religeous case for allowing gay marriage is outlined well here.

http://www.joshyuter.com/2011/05/26/culture/law-culture/why-orthodox-jews-should-not-oppose-legalizing-same-sex-marriage/

Its society that will have the most to lose or gain. I'm married. I get to vote on an issue which will change the society I live in. More doesn't always equal better. Esp when we ignore another minority just to please a smaller minority.

NuMarvel

hansfrei wrote: »

I dont know tbat they will or they won't. No one can tell the future in that regard. But you are asking me to take aa punt on one minorities position and not another. Thats whats happening.

The Religeous case for allowing gay marriage is outlined well here.

http://www.joshyuter.com/2011/05/26/culture/law-culture/why-orthodox-jews-should-not-oppose-legalizing-same-sex-marriage/

Its society that will have the most to lose or gain. I'm married. I get to vote on an issue which will change the society I live in. More doesn't always equal better. Esp when we ignore another minority just to please a smaller minority.

On one hand you say no one can tell the future, but then you claim letting gay and lesbian couples marry will change society. Clearly you think something will change, so what is it? How will letting gay and lesbian couples marry change things?

There are 14 countries and numerous states in North and South America that let them marry, so it's not as if you don't have something to refer to.

hansfrei

NuMarvel wrote: »

On one hand you say no one can tell the future, but then you claim letting gay and lesbian couples marry will change society. Clearly you think something will change, so what is it? How will letting gay and lesbian couples marry change things?

There are 14 countries and numerous states in North and South America that let them marry, so it's not as if you don't have something to refer to.

Of course society will change. How is the question. That I cant answer. The government is essentially rewarding married couples for raising the next generation. Holding their marriage as a special relationship important to the state at the heart of society. Essentially making families responsie for the future of the country.
In comparison, what is the advantage for the inclusion of gay/trans people to this set up. And why just them? They're a smaller minority in the scale of minorities looking to get in on the marriage laws.

NuMarvel

hansfrei wrote: »

Of course society will change. How is the question. That I cant answer.

Have you looked to see how other societies changed after marriage equality? If you don't know how society will change, have you explored the possibility of it being a positive change before deciding how to vote?

hansfrei wrote: »

The government is essentially rewarding married couples for raising the next generation. Holding their marriage as a special relationship important to the state at the heart of society. Essentially making families responsie for the future of the country.
In comparison, what is the advantage for the inclusion of gay/trans people to this set up.

Firstly, the right to marry isn't based in any way on raising children. No one is asked about their plans or suitability to raise kids when they speak to the marriage registrar, and I'd say a court would quickly overturn a refusal to grant a marriage licence on the grounds of children.

Secondly, heterosexual couples aren't the only couples raising children. Gay and lesbian couples have been doing it since at least before homosexuality was decriminalised. Transgender people too are raising children, and are doing so despite the absence of anything resembling gender recognition laws.

So the question becomes, why shouldn't gay and lesbian couples get the same rewards? Those families will exist in any case, so why shouldn't they get the same protections and rights as everyone else.

hansfrei wrote: »

And why just them? They're a smaller minority in the scale of minorities looking to get in on the marriage laws.

I look forward to your thread on other types of marriage. You're clearly bursting at the seams to say something on the topic.

Nodin

hansfrei wrote: »

Of course society will change. How is the question. That I cant answer. The government is essentially rewarding married couples for raising the next generation. Holding their marriage as a special relationship important to the state at the heart of society. Essentially making families responsie for the future of the country.
In comparison, what is the advantage for the inclusion of gay/trans people to this set up. And why just them? They're a smaller minority in the scale of minorities looking to get in on the marriage laws.

Why not include them? You haven't presented any grounds not to, save that it hasn't been done before.

Corkfeen

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. 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.

Eh, to get society to grow the hell up, one is required to be heard. Many people have friends that are part of the LGBT community or are themselves LGBT. The very fact that Ireland has progressed so much since the overtly homophobic society that once existed is also a fairly good reflection upon the country tbh so the country's history motivates people to support such a campaign. I can't really see how someone could find an issue with the existence of such a campaign for equality.

hansfrei wrote: »

Of course society will change. How is the question. That I cant answer. The government is essentially rewarding married couples for raising the next generation. Holding their marriage as a special relationship important to the state at the heart of society. Essentially making families responsie for the future of the country.
In comparison, what is the advantage for the inclusion of gay/trans people to this set up. And why just them? They're a smaller minority in the scale of minorities looking to get in on the marriage laws.

You should totally recind the right of old people,the infertile plus those who don't intend to procreate to marry so. Society will only be positively affected by recognising that LGBT people are equal to straight people. The people who come out of the woodwork to object,raise eyebrows when they claim that their objections are logical when they have no actual logical argument to prevent it. Just vague promises of negative effects that have not been seen in any country. :rolleyes:

hansfrei

Nodin wrote: »

Why not include them? You haven't presented any grounds not to, save that it hasn't been done before.

Lol. Has been done before. And over and over again as I said earlier.


We returned to its current state a thousand years ago. Marriage in this guise has gotten us where we are today. Theres nothing wrong with that.

Its not broke, don't try to fix it. Or on the other hand fix it completely and stop messing about with it.

NuMarvel

hansfrei wrote: »

Lol. Has been done before. And over and over again as I said earlier.


We returned to its current state a thousand years ago. Marriage in this guise has gotten us where we are today. Theres nothing wrong with that.

Its not broke, don't try to fix it. Or on the other hand fix it completely and stop messing about with it.

Same sex couples are barred from marriage for no good reason. I'd call that something that needs to be fixed. If there are groups that want to make other changes to marriage, they can still make their case through the usual avenues.

jill_valentine

hansfrei wrote: »

Lol. Has been done before. And over and over again as I said earlier.


We returned to its current state a thousand years ago. Marriage in this guise has gotten us where we are today. Theres nothing wrong with that.

Its not broke, don't try to fix it. Or on the other hand fix it completely and stop messing about with it.

So, once again, you're trying to sell us the pup that the reason you oppose LGBT equality is "just in case."

You're trying to say that you think it's important that a significant chunk of the population continue to be mistreated just in case treating them fairly incurs some terrible problem that you have yet to even attempt articulating, and has not been observed anywhere to date.

You can't describe what you're afraid of, can't point to an example of it, can't back it up logically. You cannot offer any reason whatsoever that might outweigh the benefits or justify the damage currently done to your fellow Irish citizens and families for no good reason.

"If it ain't broke" is all well and good, but it is broke, which is what all those pesky noisemakers have been patiently explaining to you for decades now. "We should do it this way because we've been doing it this way for a while now" is no argument. If we were to hold to that notion, I wouldn't be permitted to vote or hold property.

28064212

hansfrei wrote: »

Its about a thousand years old. It is about romantic love. I never said there was anything static about marriage

There's nothing static about it, but it's a thousand years old? You might want to explain that

hansfrei

28064212 wrote: »

There's nothing static about it, but it's a thousand years old? You might want to explain that

Jewish law changed about a thousand years ago effecting Europe and the Middle East. You could Google that.

Its not marriage reform or marriage rights but revolution. Something that changes.

Nodin

hansfrei wrote: »

Lol. Has been done before. And over and over again as I said earlier.


We returned to its current state a thousand years ago. Marriage in this guise has gotten us where we are today. Theres nothing wrong with that.

Its not broke, don't try to fix it. Or on the other hand fix it completely and stop messing about with it.

Could you please explain the above?

Turtwig

hansfrei wrote: »

Its about a thousand years old. It is about romantic love. I never said there was anything static about marriage. I never mentioNed a marriage of equals.

For a thousand years we've had an institution at the centre point of society. Theres nothing wrong with that. Marriage has served us well. Why change then?

Where was this institution based geographically? If you're referring to Europe then in general marriage was a property thing. Love rarely came into it. It wasn't until the 17th century that romance became an idea that a marriage should possibly share. Even then in many areas marriage was still regarded as a legal contract whereby the woman had given full bodily consent to the man. Even then, it wasn't until the 19th century that this type of traditional marriage where love isn't perceived as a threat came about in our "time" and location. And in general, in human times this "tradition" was incredibly rare. The exception almost never the rule by which all humans were governed. Marriage, as most of us would imagine it today, was a disgustingly alien concept. The marriage you would likely get 1000 years ago would likely be regarded as repulsive to you now.

(And look how much I had to generalise. Depending where you were marriage meant different.)

hansfrei

Jernal wrote: »

Where was this institution based geographically? If you're referring to Europe then in general marriage was a property thing. Love rarely came into it. It wasn't until the 17th century that romance became an idea that a marriage should possibly share. Even then in many areas marriage was still regarded as a legal contract whereby the woman had given full bodily consent to the man. Even then, it wasn't until the 19th century that this type of traditional marriage where love isn't perceived as a threat came about in our "time" and location. And in general, in human times this "tradition" was incredibly rare. The exception almost never the rule by which all humans were governed. Marriage, as most of us would imagine it today, was a disgustingly alien concept. The marriage you would likely get 1000 years ago would likely be regarded as repulsive to you now.

(And look how much I had to generalise. Depending where you were marriage meant different.)

The outline of marriage changed. More akin to what were discussing now. Nothing to do with contracts. Just Jews in Europe outlawing homosexual marriage and polygamy.

NuMarvel

hansfrei wrote: »

The outline of marriage changed. More akin to what were discussing now. Nothing to do with contracts. Just Jews in Europe outlawing homosexual marriage and polygamy.

That's a history lesson*, not a reason to grant equality to same sex couples.

You talk about the benefits of marriage, but you haven't said why gay and lesbian couples can't share in those benefits. At most you've said it will change society, but you haven't shown any indication of looking to see how other societies changed after introducing it.

*And as an aside, I'm not sure it's an accurate one. Europe in the Middle Ages was dominated by the Christian faith, and Jews of that time were marginalised to a large degree. Christianity's teachings are very clear on homosexuality in general, never mind marriage, so I don't think Christian leaders needed another faith to have the law reflect Christian doctrine.

28064212

hansfrei wrote: »

Jewish law changed about a thousand years ago effecting Europe and the Middle East. You could Google that.

Its not marriage reform or marriage rights but revolution. Something that changes.

Today's marriage is absolutely unrecognisable to someone from a thousand years ago. Today's marriage is absolutely unrecognisable to someone from 500 years ago. Divorce completely revolutionised the concept of marriage. It is not a static institution, and it is nonsense to claim it is.

And: Which version exactly are you referring to? Christian? Hindu? Muslim? Humanist? Civil? The Civil version with or without divorce? With or without the possibility of rape within a marriage?

Annasopra

NuMarvel wrote: »

The view of the legal experts during the course of the Constitutional Convention seemed to be that having a referendum was better in the long run, but I don't think anyone has said that the law definitely can't be changed without one.

My sense is that the Constitution doesn't oblige a Government to provide for same-sex marriage, but it doesn't specifically bar it either. I think if there were a Supreme Court case, the judgement would be that it's up to the Government of the day to decide what to do.

I can see why a referendum is better in the long run, and when I say it's simple to change the law, I'm talking about the actual act of changing the law. I have no doubt that without a referendum there would be lengthy legal challenges if it were changed via legislation instead of a referendum.

Can I ask what else is needed? As far as I'm aware, that's the bar on same-sex marriage. Once that line is changed, I can't see any other impediment to letting gay or lesbian couples marry.

Any of the other issues that I'm aware of are relating to children being raised by a non-biological parent. To me, that isn't directly related to the right to marry, because it affects just as many heterosexual couples, married or not. It's a separate issue in many respects, because whether same sex marriage is introduced or not, the problems will still need to be resolved.

It's unclear if a referendum is needed - there is no legal certainty on the issue at all

Deleting that line would remove the impediment to equal marriage but legislating to change everything that refers to husband/wife/spouse etc etc would be much much onerous

Nodin

hansfrei wrote: »

The outline of marriage changed. More akin to what were discussing now. Nothing to do with contracts. Just Jews in Europe outlawing homosexual marriage and polygamy.

I fail to see the relevance of this. Please explain.

jank

oscarBravo wrote: »

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?

You would have a point if the same murder made the news time and again, year after year the world over....
I take it you are a fan of the Irish Labour Parties approach to this issue. "The civil rights issue of our time!!!" Pandering populism to young voters where the elders of Labour want you to sign up to their party. You are better than that i think.

jank

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.

I am tired of it being aired by people with an agenda, usually political.

jill_valentine wrote: »

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.

Am I? I have not posted in one of these threads in ages. Care to point to some recent examples of say the past 3 months?

jill_valentine wrote: »

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.

Can you care to come up with a better number, a number of people affected here today in Ireland by not being able to marry?

jill_valentine wrote: »

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.

Bad... in your opinion. Other people think its bad to let Gay people marry. I don’t care either way tbh as I don’t think the state should involve itself into this question, yet here we are... amazing that everyone is always blind to see that their cause is THE just cause…

jill_valentine wrote: »

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.

Thanks for the session Dr. Jill. Where will I send the invoice to?

In a more serious tone, what I am tired of is this issue being a political card that is played out to just throw mud at an opponent. Obama being the classic case. He was against it, then was for it, then against it, now for it again. I am sure if a focus group told him that politically it was unwise for him to be for it he would change his mind again and the left would still love him, regardless such as they are. It was lefty hero Bill Clinton that amended the constitution that stated a marriage in the US is between a man and a woman, yet the left seem to forget this when we talk about this issue. If it were a Bush you would hear all about it, no doubt. I hear he has horns, a tail and cloven feet on the huffington post!

Closer to home for me in Australia Julia Gillard (an unmarried woman and atheist) was against gay marriage (probably holding back a switch for a time to be for it to garner youth support come election time), Kevin Rudd ousted her months before the election for various other factors and declared 4 weeks before the general election that he has changed his mind about gay marriage even thought all his political life he was against it....hmmmm OK!

That is what I am sick off. People in the public sphere talking about this issue yet they don’t give an actual crap about marriage or gay marriage. Yet people fall for it hook line and sinker cause they may care a little about the issue even if most don't. For me, I just sit back and see it all for what it is. Politicians on both side peddling for votes, stirring up fear and doubt. Being divisive on the issue rather than unifying. The issue of gay marriage is a perfect example is what is wrong with western democracy imo. The state prying its fingers into a private individual matter and ‘public servants’ well.. being public servants about the issue.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Bad... in your opinion. Other people think its bad to let Gay people marry. I don’t care either way tbh as I don’t think the state should involve itself into this question, yet here we are... amazing that everyone is always blind to see that their cause is THE just cause…
...........

....but they did. As a result a certain section of society is prevented from enjoying the same rights as the rest.

jank

Nodin wrote: »

....but they did. As a result a certain section of society is prevented from enjoying the same rights as the rest.

So why cow down and engage in the usual bolloxology that polticans get up to so? Why not take a step back and tell the state to get out of our private lives full stop rather than pick matters close to our heart and ignore others that we disagree with? Both sides are guilty of using the state to impose their version of morality on people (the so called left are winning this lately) and you love to engage in that 'war' yourself.

So I will leave you all to it to carry on your precieved fights against injustice and enjoy a slightly more stress free life myself. {Que a respone akin to "your a monster cause you dont care about gay rights.. you homophobe.."}

hansfrei

Nodin wrote: »

....but they did. As a result a certain section of society is prevented from enjoying the same rights as the rest.

Certain sections. Plural.

Do you think it would be better for society to allow other kinds of marriage than the one we have now? If so, why.

oscarBravo

jank wrote: »

You would have a point if the same murder made the news time and again, year after year the world over....

...and, as we all know, no murder case has ever been mentioned more than once in the news.

I take it you are a fan of the Irish Labour Parties approach to this issue. "The civil rights issue of our time!!!" Pandering populism to young voters where the elders of Labour want you to sign up to their party. You are better than that i think.

I have no interest in the Labour Party. This is a civil rights issue.

Nodin

jank wrote: »

So why cow down (.........).. you homophobe.."}

Evidently you're angry about something so I'll leave you to it.

Nodin

hansfrei wrote: »

Certain sections. Plural.

Do you think it would be better for society to allow other kinds of marriage than the one we have now? If so, why.

That's outside the scope of the thread. We're talking about full marriage rights for the LGBT community. On that issue I believe that marriage should be available to persons of any persuasion, or any gender.

What are your objections to this?

RDM_83 again

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.

To be fair the issue does receive an awful lot of media attention in comparison to the amount of people directly effected, thats not a homophibic or reactionary thing to point out or is it suggesting that people effected should stop making noise about the issue.

A decent example of this was the civil partnership bill of 2010, this bill which conferred civil partnership to cohabiting heterosexual couples after a certain period of time unless they specifically opt out received extremely limited attention in relation to its potential impact on a very significant number of people (I would hazard that it could actually effect more people than the gay marriage bill), I think the only attention this bill received was a few very small articles in the Irish Times and a threads or two here and in the Gentlemans Club, and this bill initially was going to automatically confer civil partnership after only 2 years (this was thankfully changed)

Annasopra

RDM_83 again wrote: »

To be fair the issue does receive an awful lot of media attention in comparison to the amount of people directly effected, thats not a homophibic or reactionary thing to point out or is it suggesting that people effected should stop making noise about the issue.

A decent example of this was the civil partnership bill of 2010, this bill which conferred civil partnership to cohabiting heterosexual couples after a certain period of time unless they specifically opt out received extremely limited attention in relation to its potential impact on a very significant number of people (I would hazard that it could actually effect more people than the gay marriage bill), I think the only attention this bill received was a few very small articles in the Irish Times and a threads or two here and in the Gentlemans Club, and this bill initially was going to automatically confer civil partnership after only 2 years (this was thankfully changed)

You seem to completely misunderstand the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. It most certainly does not confer civil partnerships on unmarried cohabiting heterosexual couples.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/cohabiting_couples/rights_of_unmarried_couples.html

RDM_83 again

mango salsa wrote: »

You seem to completely misunderstand the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitants Act 2010. It most certainly does not confer civil partnerships on unmarried cohabiting heterosexual couples.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/cohabiting_couples/rights_of_unmarried_couples.html

No i haven't in terms of its potential impact, read section (e) Qualified cohabitants onwards on this website
http://www.lawyer.ie/family-law/a-guide-to-civil-partnership-and-cohabitation

Annasopra

RDM_83 again wrote: »

No i haven't in terms of its potential impact, read section (e) Qualified cohabitants onwards on this website
http://www.lawyer.ie/family-law/a-guide-to-civil-partnership-and-cohabitation

You're completely missing the point.

It's a bit necessary to repeat myself. The law does not confer civil partnerships on unmarried cohabiting heterosexual couples.

Civil Partnership and Qualified Cohabitants are entirely separate. They are not the same thing at all so no that law does confer civil partnership on unmarried heterosexual couples.

Civil partnership only exists for same sex couples and is completely separate from the idea of qualified cohabitants.

They are part of the same Act in law but they are not the same thing.

RDM_83 again

mango salsa wrote: »

You're completely missing the point.

It's a bit necessary to repeat myself. The law does not confer civil partnerships on unmarried cohabiting heterosexual couples.

Civil Partnership and Qualified Cohabitants are entirely separate. They are not the same thing at all so no that law does confer civil partnership on unmarried heterosexual couples.

Civil partnership only exists for same sex couples and is completely separate from the idea of qualified cohabitants.

They are part of the same Act in law but they are not the same thing.

Ah my apologies your completely correct, however I don't think it invalidates my point that this portion of the act focussing on Qualified Cohabitants has a potential to have a major impact to probably a larger amount of people than same-sex civil partnership and received little to no media attention.

Annasopra

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Ah my apologies your completely correct, however I don't think it invalidates my point that this portion of the act focussing on Qualified Cohabitants has a potential to have a major impact to probably a larger amount of people than same-sex civil partnership and received little to no media attention.

Yes of course that point is correct

aloyisious

Donal Ogue's brother comes out. I'm not sure if he think's he's Bi or simply slowly getting around to being entirely queer.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/former-hurler-follows-brother-donal-og-cusack-by-revealing-he-is-gay-29955089.html

aloyisious

Homophobia hasn't gone away, you know..... http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gaa-star-subjected-to-homophobic-abuse-after-alleged-appearance-in-gay-adult-video-30151103.html

Iwasfrozen

aloyisious wrote: »

Homophobia hasn't gone away, you know..... http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gaa-star-subjected-to-homophobic-abuse-after-alleged-appearance-in-gay-adult-video-30151103.html

He would have been subject to the same abuse if he appeared in a straight adult video...

aloyisious

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

He would have been subject to the same abuse if he appeared in a straight adult video...

It's quite possible he'd get slagging for an appearance in a "straight porn video, it's also possible he'd get a "nod" of recognition from straight males. There's this in today's Belfast Telegraph... http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/gaa-fraternity-rallies-round-troubled-tyrone-star-cathal-mccarron-after-gay-sex-video-surfaces-30153180.html

NuMarvel

aloyisious wrote: »

It's quite possible he'd get slagging for an appearance in a "straight porn video, it's also possible he'd get a "nod" of recognition from straight males. There's this in today's Belfast Telegraph... http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/northern-ireland/gaa-fraternity-rallies-round-troubled-tyrone-star-cathal-mccarron-after-gay-sex-video-surfaces-30153180.html

A GAA player from Wexford did a porn film with a woman a few years back and while it caused a bit of a stir at the time, the main reaction was "well done lad". As he said himself in the Indo at the time: "But he said his friends are giving him a pat on the back. "My friends are all saying 'fair play' -- and I got a few pound," he said."

http://www.wexfordsupporters.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=1386

Manach

aloyisious wrote: »

Homophobia hasn't gone away, you know..... http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/gaa-star-subjected-to-homophobic-abuse-after-alleged-appearance-in-gay-adult-video-30151103.html

It being such a convenient label to hurl at people no matter what their level of support of traditional cultural that its certainly not going away anytime soon. Given as well its extension in ensuring one's browser is worked on only by people deemed of political correct backgrounds URL="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/04/03/mozilla_brendan_eich_ceo_quits/"]link to Register[/URLit is the tag that keeps on giving to ensure that there is no deviation from this exclusive version of tolerance :rolleyes: