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
13567…12

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    dudara
    Registered Users Posts: 33,518 ✭✭✭✭dudara


    v2 wrote: »
    As a Catholic, I have no problem with two men (or multiple men, or man and his camel for that matter) entering into a legally binding agreement. But be careful who you jump into bed with: homosexuals are a promiscuos bunch. When they hit 40, youth is long gone and they're staring old age in the face, they think that going off with a 21 year-old lad will satisfy their sexual lust.

    As opposed to heterosexual males experiencing a mid-life crisis? Men are men regardless of their sexual orientation. The attraction of sh*gging something younger is common to all males (and some females :))


  • Options
    #63
    v2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 42 ✭v2


    kylith wrote: »
    So only marriage that take place in a church should be recognised? Stop acting like a twit.

    Did I say that? No. Gob****e. Take it up in a pm and stop looking for a rise.

    Obviously, legal homosexual unions (call it marriage if you insist) are not recognised by the Catholic Church (and many other Christian denominations for that matter).


  • Options
    #64
    v2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 42 ✭v2


    sock puppet wrote: »
    Oh look another religious troll.

    Meaningful contribution fail. :P

    I'll happily debate with you in a civilised manner. Are you able?


  • Options
    #65
    ilovelamp2000
    Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭ilovelamp2000


    sasser wrote: »
    It's being debated at the moment, I keep hearing that it will undermine /threaten marriage. Can someone explain how, really, I just don't undertstand this argument?


    It's to do with the Constitution and the protection of the position that marriage based on the traditional family is given in the Constitution. Giving the rights that married couples get to non married couples effectively takes away the secondary benefits of marriage it is arguable that it runs contrary to Art. 41 of the Constitution where the State promises to protect the family based on marriage and rights related with it.

    The Civil Partnership is an awful piece of legislation carved out in a archaic manner because the State (for whatever reason) won't allow homosexual couples to marry, but would like to accomodate them in some half arsed manner. Throw in the added difficulty of having to achieve equality and you end up with non married heterosexual couples gaining rights and in some instances responsibilities which they didn't intend to gain, because if they wanted to they would have gotten married, presumably.

    If the Supreme Court were to recognise that a family unit can be something other than man and wife then there would be no need for this awful piece of legislation.


  • Options
    #66
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    CrazySnakeLady wrote: »
    How (....)the product of that union would be Sarah Jessica Parker

    Theres nothing odd about wondering what caused Sarah Jessica Parker. If we discover the source, we can prevent another.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    tman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,339 ✭✭✭✭tman


    CrazySnakeLady wrote: »
    Straight males who **** animals aren't gay

    Even if you give it a reach around when you're done??

    Phew!


  • Options
    #68
    Sulmac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Sulmac


    Rosco1982 wrote: »
    If the Supreme Court were to recognise that a family unit can be something other than man and wife then there would be no need for this awful piece of legislation.

    They might yet, the Zappone appeal case decision is due later this year.

    That said, I wouldn't hold my breath! :(


  • Options
    #69
    twinQuins
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,199 ✭✭✭twinQuins


    v2 wrote: »
    Meaningful contribution fail. :P

    Oh the irony...


  • Options
    #70
    v2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 42 ✭v2


    Morkarleth wrote: »
    Oh the irony...

    So you're not open to balanced debate then? Grand so. You should grow some feathers and stick your head in the sand. If you want to quip and snipe from the sidelines, go right ahead. Don't expect me to engage with you.


  • Options
    #71
    ilovelamp2000
    Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭ilovelamp2000


    Sulmac wrote: »
    They might yet, the Zappone appeal case decision is due later this year.

    That said, I wouldn't hold my breath! :(

    Has a date been set for that ? and yeah, it is a particularly conservative Supreme Court at the moment.

    Surely homosexual couples deserve to be every bit as miserable as heterosexual couples, so let them marry.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    v2 wrote: »
    Don't expect me to engage with you.

    But you just did.


  • Options
    #73
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    v2 wrote: »
    Did I say that? No. Gob****e. Take it up in a pm and stop looking for a rise.

    Obviously, legal homosexual unions (call it marriage if you insist) are not recognised by the Catholic Church (and many other Christian denominations for that matter).
    You said
    V2 wrote:
    Any stats for real marriages (i.e. Catholic marriages) up your sleeve? Rate of divorce is only part of the reasoning against homosexual unions being recognised in civil law.

    (emphasis mine) This statement would lead me to believe that you do not see registary, buddhist, protestant, hindu or muslim marriages to be 'real'.

    Whether homosexual marriage should be recognised by religious organisations is not the issue, whether or not it should be recognised by the state is.


  • Options
    #74
    Sulmac
    Registered Users Posts: 1,021 ✭✭✭Sulmac


    Rosco1982 wrote: »
    Has a date been set for that ? and yeah, it is a particularly conservative Supreme Court at the moment.

    Surely homosexual couples deserve to be every bit as miserable as heterosexual couples, so let them marry.

    I'm almost certain the result will be before the end of the year.

    Can you imagine the hilarity that would ensue if the court said "same-sex marriage must be legalised", like their South African counterparts did? :D

    I'd say we'd be amazed at how quickly the government could organise a referendum to define marriage as between a man and woman only, then. :rolleyes: :(


  • Options
    #75
    v2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 42 ✭v2


    kylith wrote: »
    (emphasis mine) This statement would lead me to believe that you do not see registary, buddhist, protestant, hindu or muslim marriages to be 'real'.

    Hi Mr Nit-Pick. They're marriages in some sense. Quite obviously I don't recognise them in a spiritual sense. Nor would a Muslim recognise my marriage. It's not rocket science, especially when there's a whole vatican.va available to you on the interweb.

    Go on... Say something funny: it's After Hours after all!


  • Options
    #76
    sock puppet
    Registered Users Posts: 4,586 ✭✭✭sock puppet


    v2 wrote: »
    Meaningful contribution fail. :P

    I'll happily debate with you in a civilised manner. Are you able?

    Able but not willing. You're opinions are all the same anyway. Maybe the next time you re-reg?


  • Options
    #77
    twinQuins
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,199 ✭✭✭twinQuins


    v2 wrote: »
    So you're not open to balanced debate then?

    Somehow I don't think you're here to "debate" anything.
    Grand so. You should grow some feathers and stick your head in the sand.

    Perhaps you could sprout some and not darken this forum with your shadow any longer. Oh look! I can make childish insults too!
    If you want to quip and snipe from the sidelines, go right ahead. Don't expect me to engage with you.

    If what you've posted on this thread is the level of discussion I can expect then I'd be quite pleased with that.


  • Options
    #78
    ilovelamp2000
    Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭ilovelamp2000


    Sulmac wrote: »
    I'm almost certain the result will be before the end of the year.

    Can you imagine the hilarity that would ensue if the court said "same-sex marriage must be legalised", like their South African counterparts did? :D

    I'd say we'd be amazed at how quickly the government could organise a referendum to define marriage as between a man and woman only, then. :rolleyes: :(

    I don't know if they would. There seems more Judicial intransigence than Legislative - the legislature are clearly making some effort to rectify things.

    I've no idea what sort of support a referendum like that would get, I don't know how you'd judge the mood of the citizens on that one. Most people I know, including me, don't feel particularly strongly about it either way - that said I don't know of any logical reason to deny homosexual couples the right to marry. Is there one / any ?


  • Options
    #79
    kylith
    Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    v2 wrote: »
    Hi Mr Nit-Pick. They're marriages in some sense. Quite obviously I don't recognise them in a spiritual sense. Nor would a Muslim recognise my marriage. It's not rocket science, especially when there's a whole vatican.va available to you on the interweb.

    Go on... Say something funny: it's After Hours after all!
    But your original post about 'real marriages' was in response to my posting divorce statistics in Ireland, and you asking how many of the divorces were between catholic couples. Your not recognising non RC marriages in a spiritual manner doesn't negate the fact that 1 in 6 real, legally binding marriages in ROI end in divorce. The link I found doesn't break that down into what religion people were, and frankly I don't see of what importance religion is in that manner. However, since it seems to be important to you: the fact that Ireland is still predominantly Catholic would lead me to conclude that most of the divorces were between Catholic couples.


  • Options
    #80
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    enniscorthy wrote: »
    us irish on the other hand

    There are no Gay Irish people ? :confused: :rolleyes: :mad:


  • Options
    #81
    Dord
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,817 ✭✭✭✭Dord


    It's a step forward but a bit of a **** deal to be honest. They should just stop faffing about and legalise marriages regardless of the sex of those in the couple. Now, whether the couples church allows marriage within their walls is a whole other story. Each couple should have the right to be married by a registrar at the very minimum.

    Marriage and religion do not need to go together. They don't need to for heterosexual couples.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    CrazySnakeLady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭CrazySnakeLady


    Nodin wrote: »
    Theres nothing odd about wondering what caused Sarah Jessica Parker. If we discover the source, we can prevent another.


    Good point and well made :D
    tman wrote: »
    Even if you give it a reach around when you're done??

    Phew!

    If you feel the need to give a reach around after you are "done" then chances are you have bigger issues than your sexuality


  • Options
    #83
    El Siglo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,803 ✭✭✭El Siglo


    Dord wrote: »
    It's a step forward but a bit of a **** deal to be honest. They should just stop faffing about and legalise marriages regardless of the sex of those in the couple. Now, whether the couples church allows marriage within their walls is a whole other story. Each couple should have the right to be married by a registrar at the very minimum.

    Marriage and religion do not need to go together. They don't need to for heterosexual couples.

    Yeh but it's like everything in this country, half-arsed. We're still living in the twilight of "de Valeraism".


  • Options
    #84
    stephenmaturin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12 ✭stephenmaturin


    Homosexual "marriage" radically devalues marriage, first, by de-linking marriage from the natural conception of children, and second, by eliminating the very concepts of husband, wife, father, mother. Since, under a same-sex marriage regime, these natural, sex-specific terms exclude same-sex couples, they must be replaced by such generic terms as "partner" and "parent." In Spain, the designated terms for parents are "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B". Furthermore, young men's willingness to give up their freedom for marriage requires that the married state convey a special quality of honour to them. That promise of honour is destroyed when marriage includes homosexual "marriage," and young men contemplating marriage realize that instead of becoming a husband, they will become a "partner," the moral equivalent of a homosexual man or a lesbian.


  • Options
    #85
    GLaDOS
    Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 23,221 Mod ✭✭✭✭GLaDOS


    stephenmaturin wrote: »
    Homosexual "marriage" radically devalues marriage, first, by de-linking marriage from the natural conception of children, and second, by eliminating the very concepts of husband, wife, father, mother. Since, under a same-sex marriage regime, these natural, sex-specific terms exclude same-sex couples, they must be replaced by such generic terms as "partner" and "parent." Furthermore, young men's willingness to give up their freedom for marriage requires that the married state convey a special quality of honor to them. That promise of honor is destroyed when marriage includes homosexual "marriage," and young men contemplating marriage realize that instead of becoming a husband, they will become a "partner," the moral equivalent of a homosexual man or a lesbian. In Spain, the designated terms for parents are "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B".
    I agree completely

    Cake, and grief counseling, will be available at the conclusion of the test



  • Options
    #86
    stephenmaturin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12 ✭stephenmaturin


    Actually I was just responding to the OP which asked about the argument that homosexual unions undermine traditional marriage, and what it was. It would be a strange, one-sided conversation if one half of the argument is deemed to be trollish. Is this thread simply a place for supporters of homosexual unions to talk amongst themselves and give out about traditionalism? If so, then the OP should be changed because it's misleading.


  • Options
    #87
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    stephenmaturin wrote: »
    Homosexual "marriage" radically devalues marriage, first, by de-linking marriage from the natural conception of children,.

    How are they linked ?


  • Options
    #88
    Piste
    Registered Users Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    Marriage isn't 100% about children though, the obligations/privileges of marriage exist regardless of whether the couple has children or not.


  • Options
    #89
    Minfrit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭Minfrit


    stephenmaturin wrote: »
    Homosexual "marriage" radically devalues marriage, first, by de-linking marriage from the natural conception of children, and second, by eliminating the very concepts of husband, wife, father, mother. Since, under a same-sex marriage regime, these natural, sex-specific terms exclude same-sex couples, they must be replaced by such generic terms as "partner" and "parent." In Spain, the designated terms for parents are "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B". Furthermore, young men's willingness to give up their freedom for marriage requires that the married state convey a special quality of honour to them. That promise of honour is destroyed when marriage includes homosexual "marriage," and young men contemplating marriage realize that instead of becoming a husband, they will become a "partner," the moral equivalent of a homosexual man or a lesbian.

    A young man's willingness to give up their freedom? Are they being forced in marriage?

    A person's sexuality doesn't negate the role they role within the family, a gay man is still a father (should he have a child). I'm not sure why you are suggesting otherwise (by stating it would have to be changes to parent etc)


  • Options
    #90
    stephenmaturin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12 ✭stephenmaturin


    If you see marriage as a transcendent institution, if you see the relationship of a child to his biological father and mother as essential and vital, you can immediately grasp the destructiveness of gay adoption and “marriage”, as well as separation and divorce, and out-of-wedlock births.

    It's true that not all married couples have children. Many don't. However child-rearing is normative for the institution of marriage.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    sasser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 369 ✭✭sasser


    why did you do a copy and paste job from a right wing American website stephen?


Advertisement