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
12467…12

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    sasser
    Closed Accounts Posts: 369 ✭✭sasser


    Young men's freedom?, what an outdated view of things.


  • Options
    #93
    stephenmaturin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12 ✭stephenmaturin


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

    A willingness to give up one's freedom is not the same thing as having it forcibly taken away.
    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)

    Since a child cannot have two fathers, the terms are flattened out on a sort of "neutral" equalitarian basis. Spain was one example. Two men (or women) cannot be called "mother" and "father" so instead people are designated by codes, "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B". In this way, normalcy has been overthrown.


  • Options
    #94
    starbelgrade
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,739 ✭✭✭✭starbelgrade


    stephenmaturin wrote: »
    Since a child cannot have two fathers, the terms are flattened out on a sort of "neutral" equalitarian basis. Spain was one example. Two men (or women) cannot be called "mother" and "father" so instead people are designated by codes, "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B". In this way, normalcy has been overthrown.

    Men & women used to live in caves too, but we are forever progressing. The desire for protection of "normalcy" as you call it, is just a knee jerk reaction of those unwilling to accept that things move on, often beyond the comfort zone of those with very conservative viewpoints.


  • Options
    #95
    stephenmaturin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12 ✭stephenmaturin


    Perhaps it is reactionary but that is the way some people see it. I'm not convinved that progress - political progress - is linear, going in a straight line from the past into the future.


  • Options
    #96
    Minfrit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭Minfrit


    stephenmaturin wrote: »
    A willingness to give up one's freedom is not the same thing as having it forcibly taken away.

    Since a child cannot have two fathers

    You are suggesting that the man is making some supreme sacrifice by entering into a marriage, and should therefore be given some sort of prize! Ridiculous...

    And a child can have 2 sex parents, and I imagine they both refer to themselves as fathers/mothers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    stephenmaturin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12 ✭stephenmaturin


    You are suggesting that the man is making some supreme sacrifice by entering into a marriage, and should therefore be given some sort of prize! Ridiculous...

    If men decide that it's no longer worth the bother then the OP's question will have been answered...that is how traditional marriage is undermined.


  • Options
    #98
    CrazySnakeLady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭CrazySnakeLady


    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.

    If thats your opinion of what marriage is then gay people deserve it more than you because at least they fight for it whereas you seem to think it's a privelage and also punishment, if thats how all you straight males see marriage then why not give it up and let gay people own it and you can all stay single? no one is forcing you to marry, the problem here is people are forcing other not to be able to get married


  • Options
    #99
    Minfrit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4 ✭Minfrit


    stephenmaturin wrote: »
    If men decide that it's no longer worth the bother then the OP's question will have been answered...that is how traditional marriage is undermined.

    I would suggest to any woman out there: if your man is stating that he feels that traditional marriage has been undermined by civil partnerships and he now doesn't want to marry you...he's just not that into you


  • Options
    #100
    CrazySnakeLady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 67 ✭✭CrazySnakeLady


    stephenmaturin wrote: »
    If men decide that it's no longer worth the bother then the OP's question will have been answered...that is how traditional marriage is undermined.


    Is that the "traditional" marriage that is also supported by an organisation that has molested more young boys in the last 30 years than Michael Jackson has sold Albums?


  • Options
    #101
    stephenmaturin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12 ✭stephenmaturin


    the problem here is people are forcing other not to be able to get married

    The Civil Partnership Bill will be signed into law in the autumn. As far as I can tell nobody is forcing, or rather preventing, anyone from doing anything.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Piste
    Registered Users Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    stephenmaturin wrote: »
    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.

    Thankfully most people don't think that way and realise that a child that is loved and cared for by their adoptive parents is in a much better situation than one who is neglected by their biological parents. Out-of-wedlock births need not be any different to births within a marriage, marriage doesn't somehow give you amazing parenting skills. Divorce and separation do not necessarily always result in loss of contact with one biological parent. Better a child whohave divorced parents who they can be comfortable with rather than parents who hate each other but are staying together "for the sake of the kids".


  • Options
    #103
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    It is not gay marriage as that would be going against the constitution which states that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    If the state wanted to bring in gay marriage they would need the people to vote on it, the chances are it would be defeated.


  • Options
    #104
    stephenmaturin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12 ✭stephenmaturin


    If the state wanted to bring in gay marriage they would need the people to vote on it, the chances are it would be defeated.

    I assume that it would pass since it seems to me that modern, progressive attitudes are constantly gaining steam.


  • Options
    #105
    Piste
    Registered Users Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    The constitution does not define marriage; special legislation was drafted to define marriage as being between a man and a woman a few years ago.


  • Options
    #106
    Piste
    Registered Users Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    stephenmaturin wrote: »
    A willingness to give up one's freedom is not the same thing as having it forcibly taken away.



    Since a child cannot have two fathers, the terms are flattened out on a sort of "neutral" equalitarian basis. Spain was one example. Two men (or women) cannot be called "mother" and "father" so instead people are designated by codes, "Progenitor A" and "Progenitor B". In this way, normalcy has been overthrown.

    It depends on what you see a father as being. If it's just a donor of <50% of your genetic material or a male figure who raises his children and loves and supports them.


  • Options
    #107
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,955 ✭✭✭Daith


    Min wrote: »

    If the state wanted to bring in gay marriage they would need the people to vote on it, the chances are it would be defeated.

    I'd like to see it put to a vote to see what the actual reality is in Ireland.


  • Options
    #108
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,647 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    CrazySnakeLady wrote: »
    Is that the "traditional" marriage that is also supported by an organisation that has molested more young boys in the last 30 years than Michael Jackson has sold Albums?
    FYP


  • Options
    #109
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    stephenmaturin wrote: »
    I assume that it would pass since it seems to me that modern, progressive attitudes are constantly gaining steam.

    Do you mean the media that promotes it?

    Liberals with influence?

    Younger people who vote less than older people?

    Who decides what is progressive?


  • Options
    #110
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    Min wrote: »
    It is not gay marriage as that would be going against the constitution which states that marriage is between a man and a woman..
    In the actual text of the constitution, it does not specify that.


  • Options
    #111
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Daith wrote: »
    I'd like to see it put to a vote to see what the actual reality is in Ireland.

    I suspect it would be like California.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Min wrote: »
    It is not gay marriage as that would be going against the constitution which states that marriage is between a man and a woman.

    Which article/section/subsection specifically states this ?
    Min wrote: »
    If the state wanted to bring in gay marriage they would need the people to vote on it,

    Have you actually read the constitution ?


  • Options
    #113
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,955 ✭✭✭Daith


    Min wrote: »
    Do you mean the media that promotes it?

    Liberals with influence?

    Younger people who vote less than older people?

    Who decides what is progressive?

    Aggressive secularists


  • Options
    #114
    El Weirdo
    Registered Users Posts: 11,647 ✭✭✭✭El Weirdo


    Min wrote: »
    I suspect it would be like California.
    But with more rain.


  • Options
    #115
    stephenmaturin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12 ✭stephenmaturin


    Do you mean the media that promotes it? Liberals with influence? Younger people who vote less than older people?

    Yes, I think that the media promotes it and that if something is fashionable in New York and London it tends to filter down to Dublin as well as Hellsinki, Warsaw etc. - all smaller European countries eventually.

    I hadn't really thought about the voting patterns in terms of age. Also, some people will vote 'No' just because they don't like the government.


  • Options
    #116
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

    That means between a man and a woman, as two men or two women can't physically through sex start a family.


  • Options
    #117
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    In the actual text of the constitution, it does not specify that.

    The institution of marriage, were they thinking of gay marriage when the constitution was being formed?
    I think not.


  • Options
    #118
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,632 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Min wrote: »
    That means between a man and a woman, as two men or two women can't physically through sex start a family.
    So allowing marriage between a man and a woman where one is infertile is unconstitutional?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Options
    #119
    Mr. Mercurial
    Registered Users Posts: 14 ✭Mr. Mercurial


    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.

    So this is what a conservative Klingon looks like...


  • Options
    #120
    Mike 1972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,018 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    Min wrote: »
    That means between a man and a woman, as two men or two women can't physically through sex start a family.

    No it doesnt
    you just imagine it does because you want it to


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Mr. Mercurial
    Registered Users Posts: 14 ✭Mr. Mercurial


    Min wrote: »
    The institution of marriage, were they thinking of gay marriage when the constitution was being formed?
    I think not.

    That the constitution is a living document is a long-accepted premise of Irish jurisprudence.
    Min wrote: »
    That means between a man and a woman, as two men or two women can't physically through sex start a family.

    Neither can an infertile man and a woman, or an infertile woman and a man, or couples where the woman is post-menopausal.

    Consistency is a wonderful thing, you should try it.


Advertisement