Bishops have asked that our elected representatives follow a different road

prinz

Interesting to note that the Ombudsman and Information Commissioner Emily O'Reilly has repeatedly condemned 'party voting' in the Dáil and recommended that T.D.'s be allowed more leeway to pursue free voting. Where was the controversy then?

Biggins

prinz wrote: »

Interesting to note that the Ombudsman and Information Commissioner Emily O'Reilly has repeatedly condemned 'party voting' in the Dáil and recommended that T.D.'s be allowed more leeway to pursue free voting. Where was the controversy then?

Probably still with the bishops and perverted priests!

oppenheimer1

Dr. Baltar wrote: »

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?

The economic crisis associated legislation and a social bill are two very different animals. Todays government will pay for their mistakes at the next general election, however if a general election were called every time an unpopular but necessary piece of economic legislation needed to be passed, nothing would ever get done. Social bills are entirely different.

dvpower wrote: »

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

The procedure has not changed, still requires 50%+1

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

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

How condescending, can you see us from up there in your ivory tower?

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.

I don't agree with that at all, its incredibly undemocratic. Who decided that this rule doesn't affect the majority?

Well I'm afraid they are. Comparing this to NAMA is a red herring and you know it. NAMA is a very complex institution whos workings are beyond the grasp of understanding of most people, unless most people are economists and bankers.

Gay marriage, and the question on the other hand is quite simple. "Do you want the gays to be allowed to marry?"

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.

Are you suggesting the people of Ireland cannot think for themselves?

Cabaal wrote: »

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?

I never said all Catholics were against the proposal. I'm not going to ask everyone in the country the question either, its not my duty.

The Bishops views are old and twisted in your opinion, but it is one which many of your fellow countrymen share. Indeed the last poll I looked at showed that a slight majority were against gay marriage. Its a highly divisive, a distracting and unnecessary debate to be having.

oppenheimer1

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

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

Are you actually for real? Sorry to burst your bubble but their was recreational sex in Ireland for as long as humans have been on the Island, it just wasn't talked about in public.

I suppose teenage hormones, and the desires and urges of men and women were invented in the fifties and sixties as well??:rolleyes:

Mike 1972

Galvasean wrote: »

None of the 'Catholics' I know (and there are lots of them) believe in transubstanciation, the immaculate conception or Papal Infalibility, !

A lot of the "Catholics" I know dont even know what any of those things mean...........

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

How condescending, can you see us from up there in your ivory tower?

People are sheep. People follow. Look at tabloids, football teams, Big Brother, Pop idol. There is no enlightment. What the **** are you talking about?

I don't agree with that at all, its incredibly undemocratic. Who decided that this rule doesn't affect the majority?

You have been asked repeatedly by me and others and have never answered, so one more time: HOW DOES ALLOWING SAME-SEX CIVIL UNIONS AFFECT OTHERS?? Why is it even any of their business?

Well I'm afraid they are. Comparing this to NAMA is a red herring and you know it. NAMA is a very complex institution whos workings are beyond the grasp of understanding of most people, unless most people are economists and bankers.

And this is a very simple straight forward issue? Stop hiding. What makes one issue majority-rules and the other issue not? And DO NOT claim scale again.

Gay marriage, and the question on the other hand is quite simple. "Do you want the gays to be allowed to marry?"

How many times have you been told that we are NOT TALKING ABOUT GAY MARRAIGE?
(sorry to go for the big size text, but I want to make sure you actually read it this time)

Are you suggesting the people of Ireland cannot think for themselves?

Slightly different: a lot of people choose not to think for themselves. Example, how many people vote along family lines rather than getting to know politicians and policies?

That said, it's a human thing not specific to Ireland

The Bishops views are old and twisted in your opinion, but it is one which many of your fellow countrymen share. Indeed the last poll I looked at showed that a slight majority were against gay marriage. Its a highly divisive, a distracting and unnecessary debate to be having.

What are we NOT talking about again??

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Are you actually for real? Sorry to burst your bubble but their was recreational sex in Ireland for as long as humans have been on the Island, it just wasn't talked about in public.

That was my point.

It's the same with homosexuality. Unless someone had first hand knowledge or experience, and no one talked about it, how were they going to find a fair and unbalanced opinion as to what homoesexuality meant? From the church?

I suppose teenage hormones, and the desires and urges of men and women were invented in the fifties and sixties as well??:rolleyes:

See answer above.

If you reply to this, please state that you acknowedge that we are talking about civil unions and not gay marraiges.
Gay marraiges = church say
Civil unions = no church say

dvpower

bluewolf wrote: »

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.

Fair point.
I would say that when existing registrars took up their positions they did so in the knowledge of what the job entailed. Arguably the new law introduces a change to their jobs.
I wouldn't have much time for people who oppose this change but we do need social change in this country so I don't mind making some concessions if it helps to get change through.

dvpower

prinz wrote: »

Interesting to note that the Ombudsman and Information Commissioner Emily O'Reilly has repeatedly condemned 'party voting' in the Dáil and recommended that T.D.'s be allowed more leeway to pursue free voting. Where was the controversy then?

It's fine for her to raise the general issue (it would make for an interesting seperate thread). Looking for a free vote specifically for one single bill is a different thing altogether.
I don't see the people who ofter call for free votes on social issues calling for free votes on the budget or the Finance bill.

oppenheimer1

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

People are sheep. People follow. Look at tabloids, football teams, Big Brother, Pop idol. There is no enlightment. What the **** are you talking about?

You advocate freedom on one hand yet judge the behaviour of others

You have been asked repeatedly by me and others and have never answered, so one more time: HOW DOES ALLOWING SAME-SEX CIVIL UNIONS AFFECT OTHERS?? Why is it even any of their business?

It will alter the fabric of society, indeed could be seen as a stepping stone to gay adoption.

And this is a very simple straight forward issue? Stop hiding. What makes one issue majority-rules and the other issue not? And DO NOT claim scale again.

Its much more straightforward than NAMA anyway. I'm not hiding, if anyone is its you. Economic matters are different, and you know it.

How many times have you been told that we are NOT TALKING ABOUT GAY MARRAIGE?
(sorry to go for the big size text, but I want to make sure you actually read it this time)

You can keep your faux apologies. It is gay marriage really, it extends all the benefits of marriage to the holders. Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?

Slightly different: a lot of people choose not to think for themselves. Example, how many people vote along family lines rather than getting to know politicians and policies?

That said, it's a human thing not specific to Ireland

Well it is their choice, people assign different importance to different things. One might believe getting the local road repaired is the most important issue another employment others social issues.

If you reply to this, please state that you acknowedge that we are talking about civil unions and not gay marraiges.
Gay marraiges = church say
Civil unions = no church say

What is the difference apart from the name?

prinz

dvpower wrote: »

It's fine for her to raise the general issue (it would make for an interesting seperate thread). Looking for a free vote specifically for one single bill is a different thing altogether.
I don't see the people who ofter call for free votes on social issues calling for free votes on the budget or the Finance bill.

Agreed. Then again looking for it is a different thing altogether to demanding or getting it.

oppenheimer1

dvpower wrote: »

It's fine for her to raise the general issue (it would make for an interesting seperate thread). Looking for a free vote specifically for one single bill is a different thing altogether.
I don't see the people who ofter call for free votes on social issues calling for free votes on the budget or the Finance bill.

Would anything ever get done if the whip was not used in relation to the finance bills?

I agree that the free vote should be used more often, especially on social/family and other justice issues. Fostering cooperation on this front might lead to more united approaches on others.

prinz

Mike 1972 wrote: »

A lot of the "Catholics" I know dont even know what any of those things mean...........

That's right. Although Galvasean himself didn't have a great grasp on Papal Infallibility not too long ago.

dvpower

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Would anything ever get done if the whip was not used in relation to the finance bills?

I agree that the free vote should be used more often, especially on social/family and other justice issues. Fostering cooperation on this front might lead to more united approaches on others.

The budget and Finance bill are the biggest social/family/justice issues of the year. I don't understand the case for a free vote on this bill but not on others.

I would say that there shouldn't be a free vote on any legislation that was agreed on a programme for Government.

dvpower

prinz wrote: »

That's right. Although Galvasean himself didn't have a great grasp on Papal Infallibility not too long ago.

But he's not a catholic!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You advocate freedom on one hand yet judge the behaviour of others


It will alter the fabric of society, indeed could be seen as a stepping stone to gay adoption.



Its much more straightforward than NAMA anyway. I'm not hiding, if anyone is its you. Economic matters are different, and you know it.

You can keep your faux apologies. It is gay marriage really, it extends all the benefits of marriage to the holders. Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?

Well it is their choice, people assign different importance to different things. One might believe getting the local road repaired is the most important issue another employment others social issues.



What is the difference apart from the name?

Gonna group this one as the multi-quoting is doing my head in.

Gay marriage is different from a civil union. Anyone can have a civil union, regardless of whether or not the belong to church. Especially when the members come from different religious backgrounds. They have the same legal rights (wills, taxes, etc.) as a married couple, but it is the state the recognises this and not the church.
Esentically the question is; if I want to marry another man, share tax breaks with him and leave everything to him in my will, why should it be any different to if I want to marry a woman? Also - more importantly - Why should a religious have a say in whether I can or can not? I'm not doing this in their church in order to not offend them.
With Gay marraige, there's also a committment to the church and to the saraments. Not everyone agrees with this, not everyone is a catholic, hense the existance of a civil union. They are VERY different.
Also, civil unions can be straight. Gay marraiges, obviously, are not.

Regarding the majority/vote issue: I see your point: one person, one vote. That person thinks long and hard about what he or she believes in and makes a vote based on his or her ideals and principals. Unfortunately, the really is that this doesn't happen. If it did, Fianna Fail would not keep getting returned and the quality of politicans would generally be higher.

You say I advocate freedom and judge others behaviour? Yes, if they reject this freedom, I do. And to me, civil unions are a freedom.

Regarding the altaring fabric of society: you sound scared of something that MIGHT happen. Why? Have you and proof that civil unions would lead to something evil? Maybe you're wrong - but why should year fears impact on the lives of consenting adults you have no right to dictate to?

Someone pointed out that gay adoption is probably better than an institutional orphanage, I'd agree. But I certainly wouldn't see this as a stepping stone to gay adoption. Personally, I'd want to see a lot more evidence of negetaive realities that civil unions would bring to society.

In short, poeple who oppose same sex civil unions seem to do so on the grounds of fears an that they either cannot explain or choose not to theorise. We want to bring this country into the future where ALL people are treated equally and not back into the past where we discriminate against people for making a live choice.

rainbow kirby

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

You can keep your faux apologies. It is gay marriage really, it extends all the benefits of marriage to the holders. Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?

Actually, the Civil Partnership bill does not give all the same rights to same-sex couples as civil marriage does for a straight couple.

lucozader

the church used to have influence over the state and they abused that power

they should sod off

Killer Pigeon

What exactly is a 'family' anyway? The church says that the civil partership deal goes against the institution of the 'family'. What is a 'family'? Does it always have to following the conjugal or consanguineal model where there is a mother, father and children and partners of those children? The real issue here is not so much a question of constitutionality because the constitution can easily be changed with a referendum but it is a question of tradition; should we uphold tradition or should we embrace the future?

oppenheimer1

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Actually, the Civil Partnership bill does not give all the same rights to same-sex couples as civil marriage does for a straight couple.

Whats the difference? Enlighten me.

rainbow kirby

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Whats the difference? Enlighten me.

From the Summary Analysis of the Civil Partnership Bill from Marriage Equality:

Children

What comes up time and again in the Bill is the raw deal that the children of civil partners will get. The bill denies the existence of and the need for protection of children of same sex relationships. Whether we have children ourselves or not, we need to speak up on behalf of all children who are affected. This summary talks about ‘your children’ but refers specifically to the children in your family born to your partner. In the event of something unforeseen happening, it is these children who you have been caring for and parenting, that will be most affected. These children are written out of the picture in this Bill. In particular they are missing from the sections on Shared Home Protection, in the section on inheriting tenancies and in the sections around maintenance – especially where the other partner is dead or has deserted. In many cases, stepchildren, adopted children and foster children all seem to have rights denied to your children. The Bill does not recognise that children must be provided for if a partnership dissolves. The Bill does not provide for the birth expenses or funeral expenses of dependent children. If you do not make a will, your children will not inherit what ought to be due to them. Also, your child - unlike a step-child - can’t sue on your behalf for your wrongful death. While it is not clear how your children will be treated in tax and social welfare in the promised future legislation, it’s not looking good in those areas either if this is anything to go by. There are also issues around family reunification in the Refugee Act. You can also not get custody or guardianship of your child while your partner is still alive. Yet, on what we would consider less vital issues, your children are recognised. One example here is 'ethics and conflict of interest'; you would need to declare that you are 'connected' to your child for ethical reasons.

Inheritance rights

If a married person leaves a will, their surviving partner gets at least one-third of the inheritance - regardless of what’s in the will. For civil partners, however, children can apply to the Courts to have that share reduced. There is also no clear provision to protect a surviving civil partner if someone dies insolvent. If a married person leaves no will, the surviving partner gets two-thirds of what they have with the rest being divided among children. For civil partners, children can apply to get more than the one-third due to them.

Protection against domestic violence

In protecting against domestic violence, a married person can apply for a number of court orders at the same time. A civil partner, in the same situation, must apply for each order separately. The rules on barring orders are not the same for each type of couple.

Adoption

As a single lesbian or gay man, you can apply to adopt but you cannot apply together as civil partners. The Bill does not resolve this contradiction. You also cannot get custody or guardianship of your children while they are alive. The best you can hope for is access.

Registering a partnership

All couples need to give three months notice before marrying / civil partnering. You can apply for an exemption to this rule, for example if one of you is terminally ill. The conditions on these exemptions are different for marrying couples and civil partners. Also, the HSE must approve the venue of your partnership ceremony even if one of you is too ill to attend an approved venue. This extra red tape is not required by marrying couples.

There are also differences in providing ‘free and informed consent’ between
people getting married and people entering civil partnerships. There are also no exemptions for someone under-18 wanting to become a civil partner, which there are for marrying people.

Ending a civil partnership

Unlike married couples, civil partners cannot have
a judicial separation. On the other hand, the time that civil partners must live apart is shorter before they get a dissolution – it’s two out of three years for civil partners instead of, for married couples, four out of five years. Also, there is also no need for civil partners to prove that there is no reasonable chance of reconciliation.

Issues do arise around your home and providing for children. Dependent children are not protected (or even mentioned) enough in this Bill around the problems of dissolution.

Divorced people can apply to the courts to resolve property issues, but civil
partners whose partnership has been dissolved cannot. Also, unlike married
couples, there is no automatic right to stop someone selling off the household assets (like furniture) during a break-up. You can apply for the right to stop it, but it doesn’t kick in automatically.

Recognising foreign same-sex marriages and divorces

A foreign same-sex marriage can only be recognised as a civil partnership here, rather than a marriage. Also, the Minister has to first decide if your marriage is worthy of being called a civil partnership here. Unlike marriages or UK civil partnership law, the courts do not have the power to recognise foreign marriages, only the Minister… and only when he gets around to doing so.

Also, the Minister has the right to refuse to recognise all of the civil partnerships from a country if he’s not satisfied with one aspect of their partnership law. For those of you already married abroad, your union will only be recognised as a civil partnership 21 days after the Minister makes the order to say that he recognises the unions of that country.


The Bill does recognise if your marriage or partnership has been dissolved overseas (but not if it has been annulled or you have got a judicial separation). Again, though, you must wait for the Minister to recognise that country’s marriage or civil partnership laws first. And you cannot apply to the courts for recognition of that fact – unlike married people. There are also no rules set out to cover foreign dissolutions of Irish civil partnerships.

Also, if your partner dies before the Minister gets around to recognising the
partnerships of your country (+ 21 days), you are not recognised as a surviving civil partner under the law and so don’t have any of the rights you would otherwise have.

Others

There are a number of inequalities that have not been sorted by this Bill. The tax and social welfare codes refer a lot to people who live together as husband and wife. The Government have committed to publishing Tax and Social Welfare legislation to give civil partners “equivalent” rights to married couples. We will have to wait to see. There needs to be a full trawl of the law to systematically sort out the inequality that may occur here. For example, in certain circumstances, legal aid cannot be granted to civil partners but can to people who have lived together as husband and wife.

Engaged couples have certain rights around property and gifts that do not apply to those engaged to be civil partners. Also, your civil partner will not be covered under the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 1956. In other words, the Minister cannot grant your civil partner Irish citizenship in the way they could if you were married. Another issue is if you’re an EU-citizen, your non-EU partner will have to pay and wait longer than a married partner to be recognised by the State.

tl;dr : Separate isn't equal.

Galvasean

prinz wrote: »

That's right. Although Galvasean himself didn't have a great grasp on Papal Infallibility not too long ago.

First Thaedydal, now me. Would you care to engage the post rather than the poster?
I also seem to recall thanking you for your clarifying my misconceptions in relation to Papal Infalibilty. Seems rather petty that you should throw that back in my face later.

geeky

bluewolf wrote: »

The bishops can sod off

funk-you wrote: »

Fuck you Bishops and any of the rest of you who feel it's okay to tell anyone how to lead their life. Go take your baby Jesus and....well you have plenty of experience in that.

-Funk

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

I think the bishops will find that most people in Ireland couldn't give two sh*ts about what they think anymore.

I signed in just to thank these posts. Can't believe this shower think they have any moral authority remaining.

prinz

Galvasean wrote: »

First Thaedydal, now me. Would you care to engage the post rather than the poster?

Actually all my posts refer to posts. If some people choose to be inconsistent about who they deny rights to then IMO it's fair to call them on that no? Especially when they go down the 'how dare you deny someone a right' route with someone else. Now on to your post..

Galvasean wrote: »

I also seem to recall thanking you for your clarifying my misconceptions in relation to Papal Infalibilty. Seems rather petty that you should throw that back in my face later.

Yes you did, it is appreciated. I did not intend it to be petty. I was agreeing with you, in that misconceptions of basic beliefs are widespread, including many who claim to be Roman Catholic. I trust that you're obviously an intelligent decent chap and even you had a misunderstanding of P.I. - ever ask yourself why?

IMO it's because people aren't educated about the actual ins and outs Catholic faith, even amongst those who profess it. For far too long the Catholic Church in Ireland was based on a policy of not asking questions, that anyone who knew too much was a danger etc. Cultural Catholicism has ruined the faith in this country, which again brings me back to the point you made which I agree with. There are far too many people claiming to be something which they know very little about, but the fault is not completely theirs, the RCC in Ireland itself must shoulder a large proportion of the blame.

Apologies, my reply post wasn't meant to throw it back in your face.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

IMO it's because people aren't educated about the actual ins and outs Catholic faith, even amongst those who profess it. For far too long the Catholic Church in Ireland was based on a policy of not asking questions, that anyone who knew too much was a danger etc. Cultural Catholicism has ruined the faith in this country, which again brings me back to the point you made which I agree with. There are far too many people claiming to be something which they know very little about, but the fault is not completely theirs, the RCC in Ireland itself must shoulder a large proportion of the blame.

There is a certain amount of arrogance now as well as in in the past: why are they not coming out and telling us why they are against civil unions and what harm they think it will have on society?

What is it the RCC has against homosexuality and why do they wish to deny homoesxuals equal rights? As well as against other groups, such as women?
They will not be taken seriously until they come out and answer these basic questions.

They have to present their argument to us, we don't have to go looking for it from them.

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

They have to present their argument to us, we don't have to go looking for it from them.

I'm afraid you do have to go looking for them, they don't owe it to you.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

I'm afraid you do have to go looking for them, they don't owe it to you.

Nothing to do with a debt or "oweing" anything.

Why do I have to go looking for them? Why do they NOT have to present an argument to backup their claim?

oppenheimer1

dvpower wrote: »

The budget and Finance bill are the biggest social/family/justice issues of the year. I don't understand the case for a free vote on this bill but not on others.

I would say that there shouldn't be a free vote on any legislation that was agreed on a programme for Government.

A government cannot govern if it cannot pass its finance bill. Often tough decisions have to be made with the allocations of scarce resources, A free vote on everything would mean an end to the party system and our form of legislature would not be effective. The whip is of vital importance for things that matter ie. money. A government won't fall if it cannot pass legislation relating to justice/family/social matters.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Gonna group this one as the multi-quoting is doing my head in.

Gay marriage is different from a civil union. Anyone can have a civil union, regardless of whether or not the belong to church. Especially when the members come from different religious backgrounds. They have the same legal rights (wills, taxes, etc.) as a married couple, but it is the state the recognises this and not the church.
Esentically the question is; if I want to marry another man, share tax breaks with him and leave everything to him in my will, why should it be any different to if I want to marry a woman? Also - more importantly - Why should a religious have a say in whether I can or can not? I'm not doing this in their church in order to not offend them.
With Gay marraige, there's also a committment to the church and to the saraments. Not everyone agrees with this, not everyone is a catholic, hense the existance of a civil union. They are VERY different.
Also, civil unions can be straight. Gay marraiges, obviously, are not.

Civil Marriage is not a religious ceremony.

Regarding the majority/vote issue: I see your point: one person, one vote. That person thinks long and hard about what he or she believes in and makes a vote based on his or her ideals and principals. Unfortunately, the really is that this doesn't happen. If it did, Fianna Fail would not keep getting returned and the quality of politicans would generally be higher.

FF keep getting returned because they are populist and have no driving ideology. Aside from Labour (with whom abortion would be available on demand if it were not for the Constitution), FF represent the best chance of bringing civil partnership, especially if its seen to be popular. FG's Christian Democrat roots would probably work against such a proposal.

You say I advocate freedom and judge others behaviour? Yes, if they reject this freedom, I do. And to me, civil unions are a freedom.

Regarding the altaring fabric of society: you sound scared of something that MIGHT happen. Why? Have you and proof that civil unions would lead to something evil? Maybe you're wrong - but why should year fears impact on the lives of consenting adults you have no right to dictate to?

I never said I was against gay partnership, if that is the will of the majority. Like most people I think I don't care one way or another. Issues regarding children is a different matter, but not the topic of this thread.

Someone pointed out that gay adoption is probably better than an institutional orphanage, I'd agree. But I certainly wouldn't see this as a stepping stone to gay adoption. Personally, I'd want to see a lot more evidence of negetaive realities that civil unions would bring to society.

In short, poeple who oppose same sex civil unions seem to do so on the grounds of fears an that they either cannot explain or choose not to theorise. We want to bring this country into the future where ALL people are treated equally and not back into the past where we discriminate against people for making a live choice.

There is no shortage of straight couples willing to adopt in Ireland, its not as if gay couples are needed to pick up the slack. I would be irked if that if all other things being equal in a choice between a straight and a gay couple to get an adopted child that the gay couple be chosen over the straight one due to some misguided notion of equality and being seen to have equality on the half of the adoption agency.

People who oppose SS unions I think oppose it due to the change they see (for the worse) to the fabric of society. They see that the traditional nuclear family unit has served us well and that in cases where this has broken down sometimes it doesn't end well for the constituents. Society then has to deal with the damaged mess that results. It becomes especially complicated with children involved. Traditionalism maybe too is involved, and an unwillingness to embrace the unknown, because it is unknown. Maybe they fear (rightly or wrongly) that their children could become corrupted by the apparent acceptance of Gay is OK. They see and hear stories about children "outing" themselves at young ages 13 and 14 not thinking of the consequences of such a life changing decision, when all in fact they maybe confused about who they are.

There are real fears, some might say not justified, but they are there. Dismissing them would be arrogant in the extreme.

rainbow kirby wrote: »

From the Summary Analysis of the Civil Partnership Bill from Marriage Equality:

...

Separate isn't equal.

Thanks

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Civil Marriage is not a religious ceremony.


FF keep getting returned because they are populist and have no driving ideology. Aside from Labour (with whom abortion would be available on demand if it were not for the Constitution), FF represent the best chance of bringing civil partnership, especially if its seen to be popular. FG's Christian Democrat roots would probably work against such a proposal.

I never said I was against gay partnership, if that is the will of the majority. Like most people I think I don't care one way or another. Issues regarding children is a different matter, but not the topic of this thread.



There is no shortage of straight couples willing to adopt in Ireland, its not as if gay couples are needed to pick up the slack. I would be irked if that if all other things being equal in a choice between a straight and a gay couple to get an adopted child that the gay couple be chosen over the straight one due to some misguided notion of equality and being seen to have equality on the half of the adoption agency.

People who oppose SS unions I think oppose it due to the change they see (for the worse) to the fabric of society. They see that the traditional nuclear family unit has served us well and that in cases where this has broken down sometimes it doesn't end well for the constituents. Society then has to deal with the damaged mess that results. It becomes especially complicated with children involved. Traditionalism maybe too is involved, and an unwillingness to embrace the unknown, because it is unknown. Maybe they fear (rightly or wrongly) that their children could become corrupted by the apparent acceptance of Gay is OK. They see and hear stories about children "outing" themselves at young ages 13 and 14 not thinking of the consequences of such a life changing decision, when all in fact they maybe confused about who they are.

There are real fears, some might say not justified, but they are there. Dismissing them would be arrogant in the extreme.

Ok. So we agree that civil parnerships and religious marraiges are two completely different things. We also agree that FF get elected because of popularity and not because of policies or ideology. The elctorate, if it voted wisely, would not consistantly vote for a party in this condition.

The gay adoption issue, I'm not addressing because it's not what we're talking about. As long as the parents are vetted, trustworthy and capable, I'd be happy. But that's just me.

I don't wish to dismiss fears of opponents. But I do need to understand them, and this is where I have difficulty, because they seem to be based on false perceptions and merely possible scenarios. What it boils down to is either an inability or unwillingness to answer a basic question: Why, in an increseingly diverse society, is homosexuality such a threat to the fabric of society?

I see your point about the traditionalism and the nuclear family, but sometimes that is not the only option. In some cases, it's not even the best option. A society will only survive it it adapts.

Butch Cassidy

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

I think the bishops will find that most people in Ireland couldn't give two sh*ts about what they think anymore.

Whilst I agree with you at first glance and I of course support full rights for lesbian and gay people as well as this pathetic attempt from the Bishops and by proxy the church to regain influence and power over our society.... I have to point out that every member of the Dail bar Alan Shatter is Christian and there's many many voters who still go to church and take whatever the priest says as truth.

The deference shown to the church and the power they had over our society was just transfered to Fianna Fail when there was a suppossed "separation" of church and state. Today's actions from the bishops just shows that they still are not willing to accept the separation of church and state but more importantly it appears that we might actually not have that separation of church and state.

As far as I know - and I could be wrong on all counts - Joe Higgins of the Socialist Party was the last elected TD with a declared preference for not believing in any god.

wonderfulname

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Gay marraiges = church say
Civil unions = no church say

I'm sorry but I really have to disagree, there are two forms of marriage those sanctioned by the state and those sanctioned by the church, we in Ireland unfortunately seem to have difficulty in separating the two, and indeed distinguishing between them and Civil Partnership.

The Civil Partnership Bill, under consideration by the Oireachtas, if passed will provide for civil partnership but not full civil marriage. The bill will also provide co-habitation rights to same sex and opposite sex couples who co-habit

Civil marriage or secular marriage is marriage performed by a government official and not a religious organisation. Every country maintaining a population registry of its residents keeps track of marital status, this is included in religious ceremonies as "the signing of the registrar"

And marriage in general is the legally and socially sanctioned union, between two people, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their offspring (if any).

Marriage in the Catholic Faith is the coming together of two people in the eyes of the lord.

Get it?

Butch Cassidy

prinz wrote: »

I'm afraid you do have to go looking for them, they don't owe it to you.

Well actually yes they do. The burden of proof is on the person making the statement or request or "call" as they say these days. If christians and the church want to oppose gays and gays having rights then the burden of proof is on them to explain their case.

I suspect they won't be able to explain anything beyond:

Leviticus 18:22 wrote:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Leviticus#Summary

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

What is it the RCC has against homosexuality and why do they wish to deny homoesxuals equal rights? As well as against other groups, such as women?
They will not be taken seriously until they come out and answer these basic questions.
.

Sorry but has this been posted?

Christian's "explanations" agains gays having rights really is not that far removed from the above video. Some clever Christians adept at the language of argument will make some limp attempt to "protect" the "sanctity" of marriage and the family and some other such crap.

me_right_one

Bishops are voters too, and they have a right to ask their elected representatives to represent them. Thats democracy.

Butch Cassidy

me_right_one wrote: »

Bishops are voters too, and they have a right to ask their elected representatives to represent them. Thats democracy.

And bishops don't want democracy. They want autocracy.

The church tells people how to vote such as they did during various referendums over our history.
That is not democracy.

m@cc@

Jeff_Lebowski wrote: »

I think the bishops will find that most people in Ireland couldn't give two sh*ts about what they think anymore.

"You address me by my proper title... you little bollocks!"

davrho

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

And bishops don't want democracy. They want autocracy.

The church tells people how to vote such as they did during various referendums over our history.
That is not democracy.

Its up to the individual how they vote.

The church may state their opinion. The media have a huge control on how people vote and they tell folk who to vote. They don't want democracy either.

If people are fooled by religion/media then it's their own fault.

I do not see Bishops giving their opinion as a big deal. Like yourself I would dismiss it and go with my own beliefs.

oppenheimer1

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

Whilst I agree with you at first glance and I of course support full rights for lesbian and gay people as well as this pathetic attempt from the Bishops and by proxy the church to regain influence and power over our society.... I have to point out that every member of the Dail bar Alan Shatter is Christian and there's many many voters who still go to church and take whatever the priest says as truth.

The deference shown to the church and the power they had over our society was just transfered to Fianna Fail when there was a suppossed "separation" of church and state. Today's actions from the bishops just shows that they still are not willing to accept the separation of church and state but more importantly it appears that we might actually not have that separation of church and state.

As far as I know - and I could be wrong on all counts - Joe Higgins of the Socialist Party was the last elected TD with a declared preference for not believing in any god.

Rurai Quinn is an Atheist afaik.

Butch Cassidy

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Rurai Quinn is an Atheist afaik.

Cheers. I asked a senator were there any non-christians/religious after I saw a load of them bless themselves on telly there a while ago.

pablo42

I almost choked yesterday morning listening a Bishop attempting to explain the Catholic Church's rationale for attempting to persuade our elected legislators to, in effect, enshrine discrimination against citizens of our State. He plasuibly cited the Constitution (selectively) when mentioning the 'special protection for the institution of marriage' but surprisingly forgot to mention the more important statement in the Consititution that talks about 'cherising the children of the State equally'. The only meaningful difference between church recognised marriage and the State's is that the State offers married couples certain 'benefits', i.e. taxation, inheritence etc. So the Catholic Church is asking that the State ensure that some of its citizens be denied secular benefits of citizenship merely because the Catholic Church disagrees with equality for all.

I am not a Catholic nor am I a member of any religion - statements from such esteemed Church nobility remind me that the Christian message of love has been sadly polluted and no longer exists amongst so-called Church leaders. The Catholic Church should tend to its own flock and realise that its flock is not the entire population of this island. An organisation that can passively stand over decades of child rape and abuse to attempt to ask legislators to mistreat fellow citizens whose only 'crime' is have their love recognised by the State in which they live and participate in fully - well, it beggers belief!:)

super_furry

If the bishops want a say in the political process in this country they can form their own party, stand for election and work within the system. Can't imagine anyone would vote for them though, given the list of their religion's attrocities in this country.

me_right_one

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

And bishops don't want democracy. They want autocracy.

The church tells people how to vote such as they did during various referendums over our history.
That is not democracy.

No, they were just voicing their opinions. They have absolutely no power. They are entitled to their opinions, as are you and I. That IS democracy.

moonpurple

it must be 2010 when an Irish government minister is telling rome's got talent's finest

to back off ....or run for election yourselves

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gormley-its-time-bishops-stopped-interfering-2225758.html

very aggressive coir picket with intimidation of parliamentarians in recent days..backfire?

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Nothing to do with a debt or "oweing" anything. Why do I have to go looking for them? Why do they NOT have to present an argument to backup their claim?

Catch 22, damned if they do, damned if they don't. 90% of the posters here are already condemning them for saying what they did. As many have pointed out the RCC is not the democratically elected body to decide these issues. They can give opinions on where they stand sure like anyone else, but they don't have to go convincing anyone who isn't part of the RCC to believe them. It's that simple.

Butch Cassidy wrote: »

Well actually yes they do. The burden of proof is on the person making the statement or request or "call" as they say these days. If christians and the church want to oppose gays and gays having rights then the burden of proof is on them to explain their case.

..and a few minutes on the internet or phone and you'd have that. Life and society doesn't operate on the rules of boards.ie I'm afraid.

paultheviking

they're so used to being surrounded by yes men and mrs doyle type dogooders that they probably still think it is the good aul' days..

moonpurple

+1

dvpower

me_right_one wrote: »

No, they were just voicing their opinions. They have absolutely no power. They are entitled to their opinions, as are you and I. That IS democracy.

I don't think anyone would suggest that they aren't entitled to their opinions.
Once they leave it at that. In the bad old days they had the ability to enforce their opinions. Thankfully those days are long over and we now have the opportunity to reject their opinions.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

wonderfulname wrote: »

I'm sorry but I really have to disagree, there are two forms of marriage those sanctioned by the state and those sanctioned by the church, we in Ireland unfortunately seem to have difficulty in separating the two, and indeed distinguishing between them and Civil Partnership.

The Civil Partnership Bill, under consideration by the Oireachtas, if passed will provide for civil partnership but not full civil marriage. The bill will also provide co-habitation rights to same sex and opposite sex couples who co-habit

Civil marriage or secular marriage is marriage performed by a government official and not a religious organisation. Every country maintaining a population registry of its residents keeps track of marital status, this is included in religious ceremonies as "the signing of the registrar"

And marriage in general is the legally and socially sanctioned union, between two people, that is regulated by laws, rules, customs, beliefs, and attitudes that prescribe the rights and duties of the partners and accords status to their offspring (if any).

Marriage in the Catholic Faith is the coming together of two people in the eyes of the lord.

Get it?

You missed the point. Of course, there are more fundamental differences, but I was pointing out purely the religious difference between the two, and why bishops obviously will have a say in gay marraige, but should not have a say in civil partnerships.

super_furry

The Catholic Church simpy don't want to see any kind of legitimation of gay rights. They're actively opposing them and would be happier if we were back in the stone age and locking up people for who they sleep with.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

Catch 22, damned if they do, damned if they don't. 90% of the posters here are already condemning them for saying what they did. As many have pointed out the RCC is not the democratically elected body to decide these issues. They can give opinions on where they stand sure like anyone else, but they don't have to go convincing anyone who isn't part of the RCC to believe them. It's that simple.

Here, I'd agree with you. Although, these days a lot of people know more about homosexuality and a lot of people know gay people and think "hang on - these gus are ok - they're not going to destroy society, why should I dislike them?" where as before, they wouldn't have had this experience.

..and a few minutes on the internet or phone and you'd have that. Life and society doesn't operate on the rules of boards.ie I'm afraid.

And a few minutes when the bishops were on RTE News saying "and here's why we think this..." and I'd also have that.

Bishop wrote:

... the bill would undermine constitutional protection for the family by giving same-sex relationships a standing as similar as possible to marriage.

source
Again - no mention of how or why? I'm supposed to take this blindly? A few minutes on the internet or phone would be a waste of time, if they can't be bothered to go into detail when they get to talk to the media.

I'm going to take the RCC m.o. on this: I'm all i favour of complete equal parnersips rights between homosexual and heterosexual couples; and no church say in how the state runs these. The idea of if undermining constitution family portection or ruining the fabric of society is basless scaremongering. There, done. If the RCC wants to find out why I feel this way they can email me. I don't need to justify my argument to opponenrts. My work here is done.

PeterIanStaker

As I've said before, progress is anathema to the church. The bishops attempted to weigh in on Lisbon, and even though I was young, I remember the god squad's opposition to the divorce referendum.
Anything that brings us into line with the rest of the world has got to be a bad thing, from their perspective, because it lessens their control.
If the RCC were honest, which they aren't, they would ditch the whole jesus, god, heaven backstory and admit they want to control your life from the cradle to the grave.

paultheviking

once the last few pockets of god fearing catholics die out, we won't have to worry about them.

The only reason RTE/broadsheets give them any time is because a large portion of their audience kiss the bishops ass