Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Civil Partnership bill, can you explain something to me?

Options
1…6781012

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    No, the planet is over-populated. We struggle to provide sufficient power and food to maintain the current population. It has nothing to do with environmental issues.

    There is more than enough food, look at the vast quantities of food that is dumped everyday.
    There is simply a lot of waste overall.


  • Options
    #273
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    prinz wrote: »
    I have no problems with State recognised Partnerships. If you are asking me should homosexual couples with kids be held by the State on the same level as a heterosexual couple with kids from the point of view of again taxes benefits etc yes.

    prinz wrote: »
    As campaign if you want. Or just by keeping it as an ideal i.e. the State promotes and defends marriage while recognising Civil unions, civil partnerships etc and by financial incentives etc.

    Contradiction here? Are you saying that there shouldn't be equality unless children are involved?


  • Options
    #274
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    dvpower wrote: »
    Contradiction here? Are you saying that there shouldn't be equality unless children are involved?

    Nope. I said there should be equality until kids are involved. The extra financial incentives I mentioned above would be in relation to married couples having kids, as personally I believe that to generally be the most stable environment to bring up children, and the best overall on a social level.


  • Options
    #275
    kisaragi
    Registered Users Posts: 404 ✭✭kisaragi


    The world cannot sustain the population consuming at the rate it currently does. This is evident from the environmental destruction taking place all over the world to meet the needs of humans. The reason the world isn't "over populated", is because a large percentage of the population is in poverty basically consuming nothing, while people in wealthy first world countries are destroying the planet through over consumption. If everyone was consuming at an equal rate there's no way the planet could support 8 billion of us (a figure which is rising exponentially).

    Just a thought before you propose marriages to pump out children... It would probably be better (hypothetically) for the planet to support birthless marriages which adopt children, and penalise those who have a lot of kids. Sounds a lot like the China one baby policy... but the kids you have are going to grow up, consume more, make more kids who consume and destroy...

    Sure society needs children to function, but they don't have to be ones you make, plenty of other people are working on it too.


  • Options
    #276
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    prinz wrote: »
    Nope. I said there should be equality until kids are involved. The extra financial incentives I mentioned above would be in relation to married couples having kids.

    The state should punish children of same sex couples as a proxy for promoting traditional families?:confused:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    dvpower wrote: »
    The state should punish children of same sex couples as a proxy for promoting traditional families?:confused:

    Where did I say children should be "punished" ?


  • Options
    #278
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    prinz wrote: »
    That's a very difficult area that has to be looked into. With a homosexual couple there is obviously a third party involved.
    :confused::confused::confused:
    prinz wrote: »
    As campaign if you want. Or just by keeping it as an ideal i.e. the State promotes and defends marriage while recognising Civil unions, civil partnerships etc and by financial incentives etc.
    Are you coming at this from a religious point of view or something? Why promote one over the other?
    prinz wrote: »
    One of society's jobs is to try to ensure to the best of it's ability the future viability of itself.
    so how would gay marriage effect this, there'll still be gay people out there even though they're not married.
    prinz wrote: »
    ...society needs to renew itself. It needs kids. It's not about finding a mate, it's about contributing to that society.
    It's about living your own life and letting others live alike! Are you saying we should force married people to have kids rather than just being happy with each other because society needs kids? Marriage has nothing to do with kids, it's a commitment between 2 people!


  • Options
    #279
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    kisaragi wrote: »
    The world cannot sustain the population consuming at the rate it currently does. This is evident from the environmental destruction taking place all over the world to meet the needs of humans. The reason the world isn't "over populated", is because a large percentage of the population is in poverty basically consuming nothing, while people in wealthy first world countries are destroying the planet through over consumption. If everyone was consuming at an equal rate there's no way the planet could support 8 billion of us (a figure which is rising exponentially)..

    ...and if the human race copped the hell on with regard to over and under consumption, it could cop the hell on with regard to population growth. The population is growing fastest in places where it cannot be sustained and population is declining in other areas where it could be. It also needs to 'even out'.


  • Options
    #280
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    steve06 wrote: »
    :confused::confused::confused:

    With regard to inheritance, guardianships etc. It's an area that will take a lot of work.
    steve06 wrote: »
    Are you coming at this from a religious point of view or something? Why promote one over the other?

    No. Purely on the basis of what is best for society.
    steve06 wrote: »
    It's about living your own life and letting others live alike! Are you saying we should force married people to have kids rather than just being happy with each other because society needs kids? Marriage has nothing to do with kids, it's a commitment between 2 people!

    Yes, I am saying people should be 'forced' to have kids.:rolleyes: Really is pointless sometimes.


  • Options
    #281
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,809 ✭✭✭✭smash


    prinz wrote: »
    The population is growing fastest in places where it cannot be sustained and population is declining in other areas.

    Maybe we should move some gay people around to stop reproduction in some areas and encourage it in others! :D
    prinz wrote: »
    With regard to inheritance, guardianships etc. It's an area that will take a lot of work.
    Why, 2 adoptive parents no matter what sex or sexuality, are still parents.
    prinz wrote: »
    No. Purely on the basis of what is best for society.
    You mean, what your opinion of society should be... Ever think of going for a dictatorship?
    prinz wrote: »
    Yes, I am saying people should be 'forced' to have kids.:rolleyes: Really is pointless sometimes.
    then stop making silly statements.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    prinz wrote: »
    Where did I say children should be "punished" ?

    Didn't you say that (traditional) married couples with children should be given financial incentives that should not be made available to their same sex counterparts?
    How is that anything but punishing the children of same sex couples for the choices of their parents?


  • Options
    #283
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    prinz wrote: »
    Nope, the planet produces enough food to feed everyone. It's just that the food is being produced in the wrong places. For example in the West we over-produce and other places have less than adequate food supplies. That's a problem with greed, logistics etc rather than a population issue, as is the power, I remember seeing before that a proper hydroelectirc system in the Congo could power the entire continent of Africa for example. The potential is there. The will isn't.

    Well, I wasn't really talking in snap-shot terms. We can, of course, ship food off all around the world to temporarily stave off the effects of over-population and poverty in some parts of the world but it would only be temporary, especially if populations continue to grow - and it would be artificially sustaining/maintaining population. According to the latest figures and reports by INRAN, WWF, GFN, etc, in order to achieve a sustainable environment, the world population would have to reduce by up to two thirds...

    And I'm not sure what you think a greater proportion of resource hog population in the west is going to do to help the situation, anyway?
    prinz wrote: »
    One of society's jobs is to try to ensure to the best of it's ability the future viability of itself.

    And what on earth would equality laws or gay adoption do to shake the foundation of societal viability? :confused:
    prinz wrote: »
    ...society needs to renew itself. It needs kids. It's not about finding a mate, it's about contributing to that society.

    Marriage doesn't equal kids any more than singledom equates to none, it's a non-argument. Again, award parents by all means but there should be no prizes just for pairing up.


  • Options
    #284
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    steve06 wrote: »
    then stop making silly statements.

    :pac: Says steve.
    dvpower wrote: »
    Didn't you say that (traditional) married couples with children should be given financial incentives that should not be made available to their same sex counterparts? How is that anything but punishing the children of same sex couples for the choices of their parents?

    Am I being punished because I don't get JSA while working? :confused: If my parents didn't choose for me to get the best education possible etc I could easily be unemployed now. Why does the State punish me for the choice of my parents?
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Well, I wasn't really talking in snap-shot terms. We can, of course, ship food off all around the world to temporarily stave off the effects of over-population and poverty in some parts of the world but it would only be temporary, especially if populations continue to grow...

    That's just it. If the world got it's act together the population needn't continue to grow at the rate it has been.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    And I'm not sure what you think a greater proportion of resource hog population in the west is going to do to help the situation, anyway?...

    Again, willfullly ignoring what I am saying. The west shouldn't be hogging resources.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    And what on earth would equality laws or gay adoption do to shake the foundation of societal viability? :confused:...

    There are all sorts of issues that it would raise in time.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Marriage doesn't equal kids any more than singledom equates to none, it's a non-argument. Again, award parents by all means but there should be no prizes just for pairing up.

    I never said there should be.


  • Options
    #285
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    prinz wrote: »
    Am I being punished because I don't get JSA while working? :confused: If my parents didn't choose for me to get the best education possible etc I could easily be unemployed now. Why does the State punish me for the choice of my parents?

    Is that a serious arguement Prinz?

    You want children of same sex couple to be treated differently to those of traditionally married couples. Can you justify this?


  • Options
    #286
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    prinz wrote: »
    That's just it. If the world got it's act together the population needn't continue to grow at the rate it has been.

    But if every society promotes, nay awards, having children as you suggest - why wouldn't it?
    prinz wrote: »
    Again, willfullly ignoring what I am saying. The west shouldn't be hogging resources.

    Even if you spread out all the resources, unless we all become celibate amish folk, they will run out unless there is a significant drop in population - so rewarding people who have children is pointless.
    prinz wrote: »
    There are all sorts of issues that it would raise in time.

    Such as? Prior to legislation X% of the population is gay and X% straight. With gay marriage those proportions don't change. People don't suddenly produce kids that they wouldn't have had, nor don't have kids that they would have just because the legislation is in place to allow them to marry.


  • Options
    #287
    ricman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,559 ✭✭✭ricman


    AS FAR as i know the government took away all the tax benefits of being married ten years ago,apart from inheritance benefits, ie a couple who live together pay the same tax as a married couple,you cant give your wife your tax credits if you lose your job.many people just do not bother getting married, they just live together for years.


  • Options
    #288
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    ricman wrote: »
    AS FAR as i know the government took away all the tax benefits of being married ten years ago,apart from inheritance benefits, ie a couple who live together pay the same tax as a married couple,you cant give your wife your tax credits if you lose your job.

    You can transfer some allowances if both partners are working, so a couple with one earner on the top rate and the other on the standard, can benefit.
    I presume that this benefit will now be available to prople in Civil Partnerships.

    http://www.revenue.ie/en/tax/it/leaflets/it2.html#section11


  • Options
    #289
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Such as?

    Homosexuals more prone to depression and mental illnesses. More prone to suicides. Lower life expectantcy. More likely to end in 'divorce'/separation.. Throw kids into the mix and forgive me for thinking that everything might not be rosy into the future.


  • Options
    #290
    dvpower
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,183 ✭✭✭dvpower


    prinz wrote: »
    Homosexuals more prone to depression and mental illnesses. More prone to suicides. Lower life expectantcy. More likely to end in 'divorce'/separation.. Throw kids into the mix and forgive me for thinking that everything might not be rosy into the future.

    I wonder why that would be. Something to do with the discrimination they face? A good arguement for equality legislation if I ever heard one.


  • Options
    #291
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    prinz wrote: »
    Homosexuals more prone to depression and mental illnesses. More prone to suicides. Lower life expectantcy. More likely to end in 'divorce'/separation.

    Due attitudes that make them feel unequal in soceity.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    prinz wrote: »
    Homosexuals more prone to depression and mental illnesses. More prone to suicides.

    ...as a result of dealing with societal pressures and discrimination. Attitudes like yours really do not help matters.


  • Options
    #293
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    ...as a result of dealing with societal pressures and discrimination. Attitudes like yours really do not help matters.

    What "attitude" would that be?


  • Options
    #294
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    prinz wrote: »
    What "attitude" would that be?

    Do you really need to do this act over and over?


  • Options
    #295
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,991 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    prinz wrote: »
    More likely to end in 'divorce'/separation..

    Well considering up to this point, homosexuals were only allowed marry persons of the opposite gender, it's easy to see why that would be the case. Funnily enough, letting people marry who they want leads to happier marriages.

    By the way, how is it that your typical bigot never actually asks people who grew up with same sex parents for their opinion?


  • Options
    #296
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    rovert wrote: »
    Do you really need to do this act over and over?

    Oh we're back full circle to the 'You're just a homophobe!' are we? I see. Enjoy.


  • Options
    #297
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Stark wrote: »
    Well considering up to this point, homosexuals were only allowed marry persons of the opposite gender, it's easy to see why that would be the case. Funnily enough, letting people marry who they want leads to happier marriages.

    I think you'll you'll find that relates to jurisdictions were civil partnerships/gay marriage/civil unions exist. They are more likely to end in separation than a heterosexual similarly united couple.


  • Options
    #298
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    prinz wrote: »
    What "attitude" would that be?

    Your implication in every single post that you make on this topic that we are lesser people on the basis of sexual orientation. Usually accompanied by a large dose of bible-thumping.


  • Options
    #299
    Stark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,991 ✭✭✭✭Stark


    prinz wrote:
    I think you'll you'll find that relates to jurisdictions were civil partnerships/gay marriage/civil unions exist. They are more likely to end in separation than a heterosexual similarly united couple.

    Do you have links to some statistics to back that up? Most jurisdictions have only had civil partnerships for a small number of years.


  • Options
    #300
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    prinz wrote: »
    Oh we're back full circle to the 'You're just a homophobe!' are we? I see. Enjoy.

    No it is just that playing dumb is...rather dumb.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    prinz
    Registered Users Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    Your implication in every single post that you make on this topic that we are lesser people on the basis of sexual orientation. Usually accompanied by a large dose of bible-thumping.

    How charming if you to bring the Bible into this? Care to point out where I invoked the Bible or religion at all for that matter? Or is it just another attempt to label, generalise,.......


Advertisement