Civil Partnership bill, can you explain something to me?

eightyfish

prinz wrote: »

Extra benefits, tax breaks etc. I believe it beneficial to our society that our government promotes a stable family unit and rewards couples that have kids in particular.

Excellent idea. Supporting stable families, supporting birth parents and adoptive parents. Are you gonna add to that that the parents must not be gay?

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

Homosexuals more prone to depression and mental illnesses. More prone to suicides. Lower life expectantcy.

Much of that could be levelled at coloured people or young black men...also a marginalised minority prone to prejudice and spite - coincidence?

prinz wrote: »

More likely to end in 'divorce'/separation..

Seriously? There are still people standing in the way of allowing gay partnerships, demanding it not be called marriage and you are citing higher divorce rates? Do you have any unbiased links for stats? I thought that was just a popular myth to perpetuate but it was actually the other way about, 20% divorce rates to 50% hetero or something like that.

prinz wrote: »

Throw kids into the mix and forgive me for thinking that everything might not be rosy into the future

There are a whole heap of things that are most certainly not rosy in terms of ideal parenting, as far as I'm concerned. Assuming a minority are going to be substandard parents is hardly a rational or fair way to approach the situation.

prinz

Stark wrote: »

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

http://www-same-sex.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf

prinz

eightyfish wrote: »

Excellent idea. Supporting stable families, supporting birth parents and adoptive parents. Are you gonna add to that that the parents must not be gay?

Since the 'ideal' environment to raise kids is a heterosexual coupling then it is implied.

Stark

So what happens with existing arrangements where a biological mother is raising children with her female partner? Should they have no rights under law? Why should those children be punished for not being raised by opposite sex parents? If the biological mother dies, should the children be taken away from their other mother? How is that good for children?

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

http://www-same-sex.ined.fr/WWW/04Doc124Gunnar.pdf

You do realise that's a paper studying the cross national differentials between norway and sweden six years ago? Is that really qualification on a global scale in 2010?

prinz

Stark wrote: »

So what happens with existing arrangements where a biological mother is raising children with her female partner? Should they have no rights under law? Why should those children be punished for not being raised by opposite sex parents? If the biological mother dies, should the children be taken away from their other mother? How is that good for children?

Seeing as how I didn't advocate any of those things happening then it's just pointless needling.

prinz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You do realise that's a paper studying the cross national differentials between norway and sweden six years ago? Is that really qualification on a global scale in 2010?

Do you know of any global studies done on anything in 2010?

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

Do you know of any global studies done on anything in 2010?

That's hardly the point, I'm not the one making outlandish claims regarding gay marriage in general with only desperately retrospectively resourced papers regarding two nordic countries years ago, to back it up...

Stark

prinz wrote: »

Seeing as how I didn't advocate any of those things happening then it's just pointless needling.

Well it does happen and people are getting on with their lives in spite of your prejudices. So it makes no sense to punish children because small minded people like you don't approve of their parents' lifestyle choices.

prinz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That's hardly the point, I'm not the one making outlandish claims regarding gay marriage in general with only desperately retrospectively resourced papers regarding two nordic countries years ago, to back it up...

What outlandish claims have I made?

[EMAIL="LOL@desperately"]:pac:[/EMAIL] desperately retrospective. I think Stark can answer that one for you :rolleyes:

Stark wrote: »

Most jurisdictions have only had civil partnerships for a small number of years.

Hilarious.

smash

prinz wrote: »

Since the 'ideal' environment to raise kids is a heterosexual coupling then it is implied.

Surely the ideal environment to raise kids in, is a loving one....

Stark

prinz wrote: »

[EMAIL="LOL@desperately"]:pac:[/EMAIL] desperately retrospective. I think Stark can answer that one for you :rolleyes:



Hilarious.

I said most jurisdictions :rolleyes: Citing two Nordic countries who have given recognition for longer doesn't alter that.

murpho999

steve06 wrote: »

Surely the ideal environment to raise kids in, is a loving one....

Agreed totally, lots of kids in Ireland growing up in 'ideal heterosexual environments' but families are total skobies, with drink and drug problems, kids poorly educated and also on poor diets etc etc, and they then go on to have their own kids and cycle continues.

Surely there should be legislation against that.

It's raising kids with the right values and methods that is more important not if it's heterosexual or homosexual.

The Waltzing Consumer

murpho999 wrote: »

Agreed totally, lots of kids in Ireland growing up in 'ideal heterosexual environments' but families are total skobies, with drink and drug problems, kids poorly educated and also on poor diets etc etc, and they then go on to have their own kids and cycle continues.

Surely there should be legislation against that.

It's raising kids with the right values and methods that is more important not if it's heterosexual or homosexual.

Best post in this thread!

prinz

Stark wrote: »

I said most jurisdictions :rolleyes: Citing two Nordic countries who have given recognition for longer doesn't alter that.

I see that point went over your head. How can you have a proper study in a place where recognition has only just started. :rolleyes: of course studies are going to be done and are going to present a better picture where recognition has been present for a longer period of time.

prinz

murpho999 wrote: »

Agreed totally, lots of kids in Ireland growing up in 'ideal heterosexual environments' but families are total skobies, with drink and drug problems, kids poorly educated and also on poor diets etc etc, and they then go on to have their own kids and cycle continues. Surely there should be legislation against that..

You are right, all those things should be dealt with.

smash

prinz wrote: »

You are right, all those things should be dealt with.

yea yea, now get back to my point please:

steve06 wrote: »

Surely the ideal environment to raise kids in, is a loving one....

Why would a gay marriage mean this wouldn't happen?

General Zod

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Oh people will be marrying potatoes and horses and microwave ovens next I suppose.

I think we should ban marriage altogether for everyone, then we wouldn't have this problem. :mad:

I'll have you know me and my horse are just waiting for the day we can marry legally, and when the gays get the thin end of the wedge in the stable door me and my new sporse will be bolting after them.

That said, we already have issues communicating and don't have sex. much like most hetronormative marriages, then.

murpho999

General Zod wrote: »

I'll have you know me and my horse are just waiting for the day we can marry legally, and when the gays get the thin end of the wedge in the stable door me and my new sporse will be bolting after them.

That said, we already have issues communicating and don't have sex. much like most hetronormative marriages, then.

I think marrying horses could be a positive thing as it will make the instituite of marraige more stable!:D

Stark

Matthew Broderick's already married one.

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

What outlandish claims have I made?

Where do I start?! :pac:

Now, the UK is relatively new at civil partnerships and dissolutions, in fact the one year past before dissolution may be sought and two year rule for separation means that statistics are very new and so it is too early to tell if a trend is being set. However, these are the latest stats from the ONS;

A total of 33,956 civil partnerships have been formed in the UK since the Civil Partnership Act came into force in December 2005.

There were 180 civil partnership dissolutions granted in the UK in 2008.

How do you think that tallies with the hetero marriage stats in the same period?

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

Why would a gay marriage mean this wouldn't happen?

Do you expect me to say that a homosexual person is incapable of showing and acting with love?

prinz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Where do I start?! :pac:

So the UK is ok, but not Nordic countries....apples..oranges... :rolleyes: the UK represents global findings now too does it? Still no mention of outlandish claims either btw.

smash

prinz wrote: »

Do you expect me to say that a homosexual person is incapable of showing and acting with love?

If not, why would you have a problem with them raising a child as a married couple. You're not explaining yourself or answering questions....

Surely the ideal environment to raise kids in, is a loving one.... Why would a gay marriage mean this wouldn't happen?

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

Surely the ideal environment to raise kids in, is a loving one.... Why would a gay marriage mean this wouldn't happen?

Not necessarily. Never said it automatically meant anything of the sort.

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

So the UK is ok, but not Nordic countries....apples..oranges... :rolleyes: the UK represents global findings now too does it? Still no mention of outlandish claims either btw.

I'm just showing you why your outlandish GLOBAL claim regarding civil union divorce was nonsense...seriously, do you really need your hand held to understand all this?

prinz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I'm just showing you why your outlandish GLOBAL claim regarding civil union divorce was nonsense...seriously, do you really need your hand held to understand all this?

Where did I say it was global? btw your stats have no more global applications either........ so nonsense.

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

Where did I say it was global? btw your stats have no more global applications either........ so nonsense.

What are you waffling on about? *holds hand* I'm not making global claims, I'm refuting your claim that;

prinz wrote: »

Homosexuals ..... More likely to end in 'divorce'/separation..

If you weren't talking generally or globally then perhaps you could help those of us working without the benefit of a crystal ball and add that you are only referring to norway and sweden circa 2004, when making such claims?

prinz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If you weren't talking generally or globally then perhaps you could help those of us working without the benefit of a crystal ball and add that you are only referring to norway and sweden circa 2004, when making such claims?

Well there are many studies detailing monogamy etc with homosexual couples which would lead me to believe that long term it wouldn't work and would only lead to legal difficulties and kids in turmoil. If we can avoid that IMO we should.

smash

steve06 wrote:

Surely the ideal environment to raise kids in, is a loving one....

prinz wrote:

Not necessarily.

Then what in your eyes is the ideal environment to raise a child?

steve06 wrote:

Why would a gay marriage mean this wouldn't happen?

prinz wrote:

Never said it automatically meant anything of the sort.

Well you're implying they shouldn't be allowed get married and raise children as a family unit.

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

Well there are many studies detailing monogamy etc with homosexual couples which would lead me to believe that long term it wouldn't work and would only lead to legal difficulties and kids in turmoil. If we can avoid that IMO we should.

Yeah, cos we all know monogamy is only possible for heterosexuals and none of them every cheat, get divorced or give a less that gleaming home-life for kids - or are you about to give us some study from guatamala in 2003 showing that more or only gay people cheat when married?

Seriously, there is nothing about sharing the same genitalia with a partner that makes you more likely to have multiple partners while married, cheat on your spouse or be a bad parent with an unhappy child. Now, can we lay those myths to bed, too?

Piste

prinz wrote: »

Since the 'ideal' environment to raise kids is a heterosexual coupling then it is implied.

prinz wrote: »

Well there are many studies detailing monogamy etc with homosexual couples which would lead me to believe that long term it wouldn't work and would only lead to legal difficulties and kids in turmoil. If we can avoid that IMO we should.

Can you cite any of the studies carried out which show this? Even links to absracts would be fine.

Prof.Badass

prinz wrote: »

Well there are many studies detailing monogamy etc with homosexual couples which would lead me to believe that long term it wouldn't work and would only lead to legal difficulties and kids in turmoil. If we can avoid that IMO we should.

I would assume that homosexual couples are less monogamous than heterosexual ones precisely because of the lack of children in gay relationships.

Stark

The article about Norwegian and Swedish partnerships seems to make that point. In any case, the whole point of a partnership agreement is to properly handle the cases where mutually dependent relationships break down.

Brian O Dalaigh

This is ridiculous. LGBT couples should have the exact same rights as straight couples, including marriage and the ability to adopt children. If we ban them from getting married it is not going to mean there will be less gays around - rather it will mean we will be permanently discriminating against a section of our society (something we seem to love to do in Ireland) who will always be there. To argue about a traditional family is also a stupid argument. What is a traditional family? In Ireland, prior to the arrival of Christianity, a woman could marry more than one man, at one time - that's right we had polygamy here. And we had polygamous relationships here for much longer than we have had monogamous relationships. A typical family in Ireland for most of Ireland's existence would have been made up of a central mother-figure generally married to young male and usually an uncle of his. She would have had many children as well. Also in the family there would have been the adopted (taken in from other tribes). Far different from what we have today. Yet that family structure was around far longer than what we currently have. And it obviously worked because their descendants are here today in us. It's time we changed what we perceive as family. Certainly not this stupid conservative idea we have in our constitution. Our current family ideal promotes the following: family 1 is better than family 2 and family 2 is better than family 3, where family 1 is a loving husband, wife and child, family 2 is an abusive husband, wife and child and family 3 is a loving husband, husband and child.

Brian O Dalaigh

prinz wrote: »

Well there are many studies detailing monogamy etc with homosexual couples which would lead me to believe that long term it wouldn't work and would only lead to legal difficulties and kids in turmoil. If we can avoid that IMO we should.

What studies? Tell us. Show us. Who conducted them? What was the control? Were there similar studies done with the same procedures on heterosexual couples? What was the the duration of study? What about social background? Geography? Economic situation? Culture? Did religion have a part to play?

MJRS

I always post this in threads like this, but ****it.


1. Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
2. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
3. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
4. Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
5. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
6. Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
7. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
8. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
9. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

laurashambles

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYPVISQR9fY

Brian O Dalaigh

prinz wrote: »

Well there are many studies detailing monogamy etc with homosexual couples which would lead me to believe that long term it wouldn't work and would only lead to legal difficulties and kids in turmoil. If we can avoid that IMO we should.

That is definitely true. As far as I know men NEVER cheat on their wives, and women NEVER cheat on their husbands. That's why our society is perfect these days. We have no cheating, no neglected children, no war, no famine, no pestilence, no poverty, no drug abuse, no alcohol abuse, no-one smokes, and certainly no-one expresses opinions differing from established Western norms.

Annasopra

Min wrote: »

Change the 'institution of marriage'?

But the institution of marriage has changed - 12 year old girls could marry in 1937 - should we not still allow this because the institution shouldnt be changed?

K-9

Johnnymcg wrote: »

But the institution of marriage has changed - 12 year old girls could marry in 1937 - should we not still allow this because the institution shouldnt be changed?

/Thread.

Links234

well said johnny!

squod

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4748292.stm

K-9 wrote: »

/Thread.

K-9

squod wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4748292.stm

Homosexuality was punishable by death in the 1800's, they then reduced it to imprisonment, then flogging (!). They then made it legal. Now they are giving them rights.

I'm getting out before they make it compulsory.

Annasopra

K-9 wrote: »

/Thread.

whats your point?

MJRS

Johnnymcg wrote: »

whats your point?

I think he was agreeing with you boss!