Bishops have asked that our elected representatives follow a different road

dvpower

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The rules should change when there is a clear sustained majority in favour of change, be that tomorrow, 5, 10 or 50 years time.

Clear and sustained? I thought a simple majority sufficed.

oppenheimer1

dvpower wrote: »

Clear and sustained? I thought a simple majority sufficed.

50% +1 and such opinion is not found to be transient. A one off poll showing a majority is not a basis for change. I'm all for giving the people what they want when it comes to social issues. I'm against forcing the wants of a minority over the will of the majority and that works both ways.

Nevyn

prinz wrote: »

Stones and glass houses springs to mind.

If catholic think that same civil unions are immoral no one is forcing them to take part in one.

prinz

Thaedydal wrote: »

If catholic think that same civil unions are immoral no one is forcing them to take part in one.

Side stepping the issue.

It's a bit meaningless to try and paint one person in a bad light as being ok with denying rights to a group of the population in one case when others do the same in other cases with apparent equal ease.

Nevyn

How is granting the right of civil unions to those in same sex relationships denying the rights of others?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

[/B]

Until such time shouldn't the status quo remain? This is a democracy after all, majority rules.

Therein lies the probably with democracy. Democracy elected George W. Bush, remember. Once legally.

The problem with the older generation is it's refusal to accept any kind of change or liberal ideas, despite the country becoming a more liberal and accepting place.

Essentially, we're talking basic human rights here: two people making a legally-bound commitment to each other. Where does religion come into it? Where does sexual-orientation come into it? It could be a man and a woman in a registry office. Why would someone oppose it?

The other interesting issue is how the traditional rural/elderly FF voters will vote if FF themselves are in favour of the idea, which it seems politicans are. Do they vote blindy along party lines, as per usual (which, again, ****s up any notion of democracy) or go with the church?

prinz

Thaedydal wrote: »

How is granting the right of civil unions to those in same sex relationships denying the rights of others?

Not to take this too far off topic but not long ago I made a case that men and women should have an equal say in something that affects them both. Your answer was 'tough, men don't get an equal say because they are men'. Correct me if I'm wrong but you have no issue denying rights to men when it suits, and then you come on and try to undermine other people for denying rights to others...

It's far from the notion of equal rights for all, I'm afraid. Some people have differing opinions on where the line of rights is situated on different issues.

PeterIanStaker

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The other interesting issue is how the traditional rural/elderly FF voters will vote if FF themselves are in favour of the idea, which it seems politicans are. Do they vote blindy along party lines, as per usual (which, again, ****s up any notion of democracy) or go with the church?

I wonder, are the older generation opposed to homosexuality simply because the RCC told them to?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

I wonder, are the older generation opposed to homosexuality simply because the RCC told them to?

Most of them wouldn't even know what homosexuality was if the RCC hadn't told them.

Nevyn

prinz wrote: »

Not to take this too far off topic but not long ago I made a case that men and women should have an equal say in something that affects them both. Your answer was 'tough, men don't get an equal say because they are men'. Correct me if I'm wrong but you have no issue denying rights to men when it suits, and then you come on and try to undermine other people for denying rights to others...

That is a very nice strawman, you can play with him all you want and but again you have not answered the question but to you.

How is granting the right of civil unions to those in same sex relationships denying the rights of others?

Nevyn

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

I wonder, are the older generation opposed to homosexuality simply because the RCC told them to?

Most of the older more devote generations would have the same view on homosexuality as preached from the pulpit.

prinz

Thaedydal wrote: »

That is a very nice strawman, you can play with him all you want and but again you have not answered the question but to you

It's not a strawman. It's you denying rights to one section of society in one scenario and then playing the equal opportunities card by trying to portray another poster as wanting to deny rights to a section of society in another.

Consistency?

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Most of them wouldn't even know what homosexuality was if the RCC hadn't told them.

Nice and condescending. That's up there with the 'there was no sex in Ireland before the Late Late Show' farce. Ironic.

dvpower

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

50% +1 and such opinion is not found to be transient. A one off poll showing a majority is not a basis for change. I'm all for giving the people what they want when it comes to social issues. I'm against forcing the wants of a minority over the will of the majority and that works both ways.

I thinnk I can assure you that no legislation has ever been introduced in this country based on the result of an opinion poll
(except, of course, an opinion poll carried out in the Dail, where a one off poll showing a majority certainly is a basis for change)

Nevyn

Always love how when people arent getting there way in a debate the go down the route of dragging a topic in which will side track the whole discussion, this is not a discussion on abortion, this is about the right to marry form a civil partnership.

Again you have not answered the question.

How is granting the right of civil unions to those in same sex relationships denying the rights of others?

oppenheimer1

Thaedydal wrote: »

That is a very nice strawman, you can play with him all you want and but again you have not answered the question but to you.

How is granting the right of civil unions to those in same sex relationships denying the rights of others?

Is it not denying the majority the right to live in a society shaped by their ideas and beliefs?

I didn't know you were an anti-democracy Theadyal?

Dr. Baltar

Thaedydal wrote: »

How is granting the right of civil unions to those in same sex relationships denying the rights of others?

DESTROYING TRADITIONAL FAMILY TURNING CHILDREN GAY TO HELL HURRR DURR

prinz

Thaedydal wrote: »

Always love how when people arent getting there way in a debate the go down the route of dragging a topic in which will side track the whole discussion, this is not a discussion on abortion, this is about the right to marry form a civil partnership.

Love it.

Maybe I should put it in bold... you don't have the basis to claim the high moral ground about rights being denied, when it suits your own point of view to do exactly likewise.

Either be for it or against it, but pulling this care of 'boo hoo you want to deny rights' is redundant. Everyone has issues on what should and shouldn't be done and sometimes to see those wishes come true rights are denied.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

Nice and condescending. That's up there with the 'there was no sex in Ireland before the Late Late Show' farce. Ironic.

There's wasn't. There was only procreational intercourse.

My point being that any group of people who blindly accept any viewpoint or attitude from the Church - or any hierarchic group - without question, without any attempt to counter and without any attempt to find knowledge from another source; and that ridicules others that do; is not going to be particuarly intelligent or knowledgeable.

Dr. Baltar

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Is it not denying the majority the right to live in a society shaped by their ideas and beliefs?

I didn't know you were an anti-democracy Theadyal?

This is the fundamental problem with democracy. 51% of the people get to control 49% of the people. If we were to live by these standards, then everyone in the country would live the lives of a white, Irish catholic.

We need to accept that there are many different types of people in this country now, and it is wrong fro a majority to force a minority to do things their way.

oppenheimer1

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Therein lies the probably with democracy. Democracy elected George W. Bush, remember. Once legally.

The problem with the older generation is it's refusal to accept any kind of change or liberal ideas, despite the country becoming a more liberal and accepting place.

Essentially, we're talking basic human rights here: two people making a legally-bound commitment to each other. Where does religion come into it? Where does sexual-orientation come into it? It could be a man and a woman in a registry office. Why would someone oppose it?

The other interesting issue is how the traditional rural/elderly FF voters will vote if FF themselves are in favour of the idea, which it seems politicans are. Do they vote blindy along party lines, as per usual (which, again, ****s up any notion of democracy) or go with the church?

There was nothing wrong with the election of GW Bush. Sure he might not have been popular here, but he is what the American people chose according to their system. It is very condescending towards the american people if you don't think they made a considered choice with their vote. Who are you to tell them whats right and wrong?

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

I wonder, are the older generation opposed to homosexuality simply because the RCC told them to?

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Most of them wouldn't even know what homosexuality was if the RCC hadn't told them.

What makes you think you are wiser than the generations that have gone before? You really have no respect for the opinions of your fellow countrymen, who rather ironically you accuse of having no respect for your own.:rolleyes:

Sulmac

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Is it not denying the majority the right to live in a society shaped by their ideas and beliefs?

I didn't know you were an anti-democracy Theadyal?

So, by that logic, segregation in the southern US was grand because the majority supported it? That's not "democracy", in any shape or form - it's "majority rule". Although to some they're one in the same, they're really not.

Democracy is not only holding elections, etc., it's providing equal rights and equal services to all citizens - regardless of gender, age, race, sexuality, etc.

Also, a series of polls have shown support for same sex marriage to be around the 58-63% mark - not just one. And a huge 80+% have shown support for civil unions.

Nevyn

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Is it not denying the majority the right to live in a society shaped by their ideas and beliefs?

I didn't know you were an anti-democracy Theadyal?

I am anti the oppression of what are considered minorities in this country, time and time again people have had to go to the European courts to force the hand of the government here who is too scared to implement peoples rights.

Homosexuality would still be illegal if not for the eu courts and the equal pay act would not have happened either if not for the eu courts.

How do we cherish all children as equal when later on in life they get told tough shít if you fall in love with someone the same gender you can't get your rights as a couple recognised under law.

Dr. Baltar

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

What makes you think you are wiser than the generations that have gone before? You really have no respect for the opinions of your fellow countrymen, who rather ironically you accuse of having no respect for your own.:rolleyes:

I think you're missing the main point. If civil marriage were to be legalised tomorrow, how would this affect your life negatively? (assuming you are straight).

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Is it not denying the majority the right to live in a society shaped by their ideas and beliefs?

I didn't know you were an anti-democracy Theadyal?

In this case, society is not effected by same-sex unions. If it is, how? "Having a society" automatically accepting those who may disagree with you. And why should everything be shaped by "their ideas and beliefs"? That's just selfish.

Nevyn

prinz wrote: »

Love it.

Maybe I should put it in bold... you don't have the basis to claim the high moral ground about rights being denied, when it suits your own point of view to do exactly likewise.

Either be for it or against it, but pulling this care of 'boo hoo you want to deny rights' is redundant. Everyone has issues on what should and shouldn't be done and sometimes to see those wishes come true rights are denied.

If you want to start another thread on that I will answer it there I refuse to help you derail this one.

oppenheimer1

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

This is the fundamental problem with democracy. 51% of the people get to control 49% of the people. If we were to live by these standards, then everyone in the country would live the lives of a white, Irish catholic.

We need to accept that there are many different types of people in this country now, and it is wrong fro a majority to force a minority to do things their way.

Is it not more wrong if 49% control 51% of the people. The majority (albeit slim) do not want gay marriage so it should not be forced. The trend is towards liberalism so the gays will get what they want eventually. I simply do not see the point in antagonising the majority of the population, when to be frank there are far far more important things to worry about, than some social issue.

If they wait they won't have to push for it and will get all they want without a social issue dividing the country yet again.

Nevyn

Why do you think this is about the tail wagging the dog?
This isn't about "The Gays" as you put it, there are plenty of people who are not Gay or Bi who think that people who end up in a couple with a person of the same gender should have thier rights as a couple protected by law.

Dr. Baltar

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Is it not more wrong if 49% control 51% of the people. The majority (albeit slim) do not want gay marriage so it should not be forced. The trend is towards liberalism so the gays will get what they want eventually. I simply do not see the point in antagonising the majority of the population, when to be frank there are far far more important things to worry about, than some social issue.

If they wait they won't have to push for it and will get all they want without a social issue dividing the country yet again.

Firstly, you will find that the majority of Irish people support civil marriage and secondly, you are avoiding my previous question: If same-sex marriage was legalised tomorrow, how would this affect your life negatively?

Also "some social issue" - how offensive! This legislation is badly needed to protect the children of same-sex families that live in Ireland NOW. The parents of those kids do not have the right to take custody of their children after the death of the biological parent, and they also are not protected with inheritance/ect. without civil marriage.

Civil marriage isn't some silly issue about "we're gay and we're kicking up a fuss about not being equal" this is a serious issue designed to protect kids and parents alike who have no rights at the moment.

oppenheimer1

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

I think you're missing the main point. If civil marriage were to be legalised tomorrow, how would this affect your life negatively? (assuming you are straight).

It probably wouldn't, I'm not against Gay marriage per-se. I would like to see a referendum on the issue but I know it would divide the country east-west. Although at an individual level it doesn't affect me personally, it will change and shape the society I live in, and should I ever be so lucky raise a family in.

It is a social issue which I believe everyone should have a say in. Anb open honest internal debate, free from the interference of international advocacy groups should be had in Ireland. Following that a question should be put to the people. Their answer is final.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Is it not more wrong if 49% control 51% of the people. The majority (albeit slim) do not want gay marriage so it should not be forced. The trend is towards liberalism so the gays will get what they want eventually. I simply do not see the point in antagonising the majority of the population, when to be frank there are far far more important things to worry about, than some social issue.

If they wait they won't have to push for it and will get all they want without a social issue dividing the country yet again.

You do realise we're NOT talking about gay marraige here, don't you??

Also, why should anyone get to control anyone? If that;s what this boils down to then we can kiss eguals rights goodbye.

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

Firstly, you will find that the majority of Irish people support civil marriage and secondly, you are avoiding my previous question: If same-sex marriage was legalised tomorrow, how would this affect your life negatively?

I, too, would like an answer to this question.

dvpower

dvpower wrote: »

The free vote is not all the bishops have asked for. They are also looking for a faith opt-out



Personally, I'm a bit conflicted on this.
Certainly, after the bill is passed, I think any future registrars should have to carry out all the functions of the office, but I have a little bit of sympathy for any existing registrar who had some kind of religious objection to officiating at a same sex partnership.

I wouldn't go as far as an opt out, but they might put some processes in place where another registrar would officiate (so long as it was practicable and it didn't discommode the couple in any way).

The registrars don't ask the catholic couples if they've abstained til marriage or use contraception, presumably.
If they don't want to do their jobs anymore, they can leave.

Dr. Baltar

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It probably wouldn't, I'm not against Gay marriage per-se. I would like to see a referendum on the issue but I know it would divide the country east-west. Although at an individual level it doesn't affect me personally, it will change and shape the society I live in, and should I ever be so lucky raise a family in.

It is a social issue which I believe everyone should have a say in. Anb open honest internal debate, free from the interference of international advocacy groups should be had in Ireland. Following that a question should be put to the people. Their answer is final.

I would love to see a referndum on the issue also. I have full confidence that Irish people would pass civil marriage tomorrow.

oppenheimer1

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

You do realise we're NOT talking about gay marraige here, don't you??

Also, why should anyone get to control anyone? If that;s what this boils down to then we can kiss eguals rights goodbye.



I, too, would like an answer to this question.

Well in the system we have so designed, the majority rules 50%+1. One has to expect the majority to be enlightened in a country such as our own. What constitutes enlightenment is a personal definition though.

No we're talking about civil partnerships, which a clear and sustained majority support, so it should and probably will pass. I can't see the problem in calling for a free vote as in a representative democracy, surely the majority opinion will be carried. In a free vote the TD's will vote in accordance to their constituents wishes, not their own.

You lot are very anti-democratic even when you are getting your own way. It shows the gay rights lobby up for exactly what it is.

Dr. Baltar

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Well in the system we have so designed, the majority rules 50%+1. One has to expect the majority to be enlightened in a country such as our own. What constitutes enlightenment is a personal definition though.

No we're talking about civil partnerships, which a clear and sustained majority support, so it should and probably will pass. I can't see the problem in calling for a free vote as in a representative democracy, surely the majority opinion will be carried. In a free vote the TD's will vote in accordance to their constituents wishes, not their own.

You lot are very anti-democratic even when you are getting your own way.

If TDs really did what their constituents wanted, there would be a general election tomorrow.
Can you please explain who "you lot" are? How we are anti-democratic, and how things are going our way?

dvpower

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I can't see the problem in calling for a free vote as in a representative democracy, surely the majority opinion will be carried. In a free vote the TD's will vote in accordance to their constituents wishes, not their own.

You lot are very anti-democratic even when you are getting your own way. It shows the gay rights lobby up for exactly what it is.

Free votes are not the usual way that the Dail operates. Changing the procedures for one vote but not for others is anti-democratic.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Well in the system we have so designed, the majority rules 50%+1. One has to expect the majority to be enlightened in a country such as our own. What constitutes enlightenment is a personal definition though.

I would not call the majority "enlightened". Sheep, yes, but not enlightened.

Laws get passed that don't suit the majority. NAMA did not suit the majority, but it's law. An issue where people can take it and leave it, should not require a majority.

This boils down to the simple case that people who do not want it, are not effected by it. If they were, I would agree - referendum. But they're not.

You lot are very anti-democratic even when you are getting your own way.

Oh, I personally don't deny this. Plato, in his Republic, saw it as a corruption of the perfect state, because the representatives vote for what's best for them personally, and not what's best for the State as a whole. Mind you, this was after seeing his mentor put to death because said representatives accused him of teaching the youth to think for themselves, but that's going off topic.

If I'm in the minority, by democratic standards, I have to submit to the will a majority, who are pretty much only looking out for themseves and selfishly denying the happiness of others because of their own fears and insecurites. Or, more to the point, the fears and insecurites passed onto them by the "authorites".

There. Back on topic.

prinz

This is entertaining. Selective reasoning ftw.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

This is entertaining. Selective reasoning ftw.

Elaborate, please?

Actually, point out who is doing the elective reasoning first, then eleaborate.

Cabaal

The bishops need to stick to their make believe god and its belief system, they have no place in modern day Ireland and politics.

This is not 1950's Ireland!

Cabaal

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Is it not denying the majority the right to live in a society shaped by their ideas and beliefs?

Now how did you come to this conclusion?

So because the bishops say its wrong you think all Catholics think its wrong for somebody to be gay? Many many many Catholics have no problems with anyone who is gay.

So until you go around to ask everyone in this country then don't assume that the majority believe are in anyway against this law.

The bishops have old twisted views, in fairness these are the same idiots who are against sex before marriage yet its something the vast majority of the population do. See how the bishops view does not reflect reality?

Cabaal

bluewolf wrote: »

The registrars don't ask the catholic couples if they've abstained til marriage or use contraception, presumably.

As fact I can tell you they do not in anyway ask people this, they don;t care if people have sex before hand or not.

Priests also don't ask such a question in anyway

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Elaborate, please?
Actually, point out who is doing the elective reasoning first, then eleaborate.

It's fairly clear if you follow the last couple of pages. I just find it hysterically funny when people happily discriminate on basis of gender on the one hand and then try to belittle someone else who may/may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation at the same time. The same people who are equally as selective as to who is and isn't worthy of having rights recognised by the state. Apparently it's off-topic to question that kind of reasoning.

Thou shall not discriminate against anyone...(unless it's the following who I feel like discriminating against......)

Apogee

prinz wrote: »

I just find it hysterically funny when people happily discriminate on basis of gender on the one hand and then try to belittle someone else who may/may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation at the same time.

As opposed to the RCC who discriminate both on the basis of gender and sexual orientation.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

It's fairly clear if you follow the last couple of pages. I just find it hysterically funny when people happily discriminate on basis of gender on the one hand and then try to belittle someone else who may/may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation at the same time. The same people who are equally as selective as to who is and isn't worthy of having rights recognised by the state. Apparently it's off-topic to question that kind of reasoning.

Thou shall not discriminate against anyone...(unless it's the following who I feel like discriminating against......)

Ah so it was Htaedydal. Fair enough. Sounds like there's history there I'm not aware of, so I'm staying out of that one.

It just followed my post, so I thought you meant me.

spurious

easyeason3 wrote: »

They are entitled to have an opinion on it however ridiculous it may be.
But the fact of the matter is the church is completely seperate from the state & one does not dictate to the other, even though they might have gotten away with it years ago.

Sadly, while they own almost all the primary and second-level schools and can legally discriminate against emplyees who do not reflect the school's 'ethos', this is not true.

Cabaal

Cabaal wrote: »

As fact I can tell you they do not in anyway ask people this, they don;t care if people have sex before hand or not.

Priests also don't ask such a question in anyway

Yeah I wouldn't have thought so - it's just this "religious objection" crap is shown up for the sheer hypocrisy that it is. Either apply all the rules if you're going to be fussy about your religion, or don't.

prinz

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah I wouldn't have thought so - it's just this "religious objection" crap is shown up for the sheer hypocrisy that it is. Either apply all the rules if you're going to be fussy about your religion, or don't.

It's a clutching at straws argument that has no real merit.

ballsymchugh

Cabaal wrote: »

As fact I can tell you they do not in anyway ask people this, they don;t care if people have sex before hand or not.

Priests also don't ask such a question in anyway

frank stapleton??! :pac::pac:

Nevyn

I would love to know how many of the devote registrars have preformed civil ceremonies where one or more of the people getting married is divorced, which is after all against the morals and law of the RCC. And if they didn't preform them how many objected to do their job.