Civil Partnership bill, can you explain something to me?

Ickle Magoo

K-9 wrote: »

Min and David Norris are in agreement.

It isn't full marriage as Norris points out.

Close, but no Cigar.

I love David Norris...

Yes of course, if the legal provisions are different then they cannot be considered the same legally, regardless of how joe public views the couples. Lets hope a bit more wrangling and addition of amendments by the Seanad prior to the supreme court ruling on constitutionality changes that...

Locker10a

enniscorthy wrote: »

if gays dont like the law of the land nobodys forcing them to stay

us irish on the other hand are a charitable and understanding race

how many gays are in the country surely we can clear off some rocky island somewhere out west and put them all on that and they can have their own little country

do what they like then

Am just checking to see the you actually realise there is no "gay country" thay gay people come from !! LOL ! Any gay people who as you say " dont like the law of the land " well the thing about that is am well they actually are 100% Irish! (shock horror shock) . So when u say "us irish on the other hand " that includes gay and lesbians n what ever !!!:P:P Just ta let ya know like !!In case u were a bit confused about the whole thing !

sasser

sasser wrote: »

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

Still didn't answer me stephen,

you copied the entire bazaar paragraph from here

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011016.html

eightyfish

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Wee bit of info I found awhile ago that might be intersting btw Research Shows Two Gay Parents Are Better Than A Single Straight One.

This, I have always presumed. Thanks for the link. It just seems obvious that for a child to grow up in the optimum environment, they need two role models. They need two different opinions. They need one parent to say no so something so they can learn that if they wait until the right moment and ask the other parent, they will say yes. They learn all sorts of things about the difference between authority figures, negotiation, human interaction, from two role models. It is irrelevant whether they are gay or straight.

Did anyone see the Frontline this week? That Catholic anti-gay-marriage think-tank the Iona institute were on, against Ivana Batchik (sp?) who unfortunately didn't put forward a very convincing argument.

rainbow kirby

eightyfish wrote: »

Did anyone see the Frontline this week? That Catholic anti-gay-marriage think-tank the Iona institute were on, against Ivana Batchik (sp?) who unfortunately didn't put forward a very convincing argument.

It would have helped if the show wasn't hugely slanted towards the Iona Institute, including Pat Kenny cutting across Ivana Bacik every time she tried to answer questions and far more time being given to the anti-CP Bill side.

lynski

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.

Seriously? what planet are you on? do you really think that a man is giving up his freedom? and what the hell does that mean? his freedom to do what exactly?
Also, no one is asking the churches to marry anyone, this is a civil law issue, so the 'spiritual' aspect of marriage you are so concerned with is unaffected by the civil union. Of course given that you are against civil marriage, straight or otherwise, children outside of wedlock, etc you probably dont see it that way.
There is no way that anyone should be denied marriage based on their gender. if 2 people want to commit to each other for life it is to be celebrated and cherished, their gender is irrelevant.

Links234

Mike 1972 wrote: »

What about a transsexual who marries before the surgery and then lives with their spouse as a gay couple ?

sadly you have to divorce your spouse if you want your gender legally recognised AFAIK
I could marry the woman I love, but the state wouldn't consider me female unless I divorced her.

Piste

Min wrote: »

I say that from my own experience and that of my friends and neighbours.

So you know several same-sex couples who are parents then?

Min wrote: »

So heterosexual couples in the bill who are getting their partnership recognised are also getting married?

No they're not, the obligations of the civil partnership bill are different to those of marriage.

squod

lynski wrote: »

There is no way that anyone should be denied marriage based on their gender. if 2 people want to commit to each other for life it is to be celebrated and cherished, their gender is irrelevant.

1.

1 the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:

2.

In December 2006, judgement in the 'KAL Case', the Irish High Court held that marriage as defined in the Irish Constitution was between a man and a woman

People seem confused here, the bill legislates for civil union. Marriage is, as the English dictionary describes, something different.

Piste

Then change the dictionary definition. It's not as if the definition of marriage is some natural law that can't ever be changed, we can easily widen the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

Chuchoter

enniscorthy wrote: »

if gays dont like the law of the land nobodys forcing them to stay

us irish on the other hand are a charitable and understanding race

how many gays are in the country surely we can clear off some rocky island somewhere out west and put them all on that and they can have their own little country

do what they like then

First and foremost, have you any idea how bigoted you sound? I am Irish. Everyone in my family for generations has been Irish, and I deserve to have equal rights as an Irish person in my own country.

In any case, the population of Ireland is about 4.5mil, 10% of the population identifies as gay or lesbian. Thats 450,000 people. The world over we can assume there are about 650 million gay people. I love when people say I wish we could just move them all to a gay island, it just shows they have no idea how many of us there are.

eightyfish

crayolastereo wrote: »

First and foremost, have you any idea how bigoted you sound?

I don't think he's worried about that.

humanji

crayolastereo wrote: »

First and foremost, have you any idea how bigoted you sound? I am Irish. Everyone in my family for generations has been Irish, and I deserve to have equal rights as an Irish person in my own country.

In any case, the population of Ireland is about 4.5mil, 10% of the population identifies as gay or lesbian. Thats 450,000 people. The world over we can assume there are about 650 million gay people. I love when people say I wish we could just move them all to a gay island, it just shows they have no idea how many of us there are.

I think he was joking.

squod

Piste wrote: »

Then change the dictionary definition. It's not as if the definition of marriage is some natural law that can't ever be changed, we can easily widen the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

Change the world, yeah. The fanatical views on here are astonishing!

Ickle Magoo

squod wrote: »

Change the world, yeah. The fanatical views on here are astonishing!

Funny, I was thinking the same thing...clinging onto the last vestiges of exclusivity based on genitalia. Laughable, really.

K-9

Piste wrote: »

Then change the dictionary definition. It's not as if the definition of marriage is some natural law that can't ever be changed, we can easily widen the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.

I don't think David Norris or the opponents of the bill with his point of view, would be happy with that.

It doesn't give the same rights over children as marriage. Maybe they can address that later if there is a revision of family law.

humanji

squod wrote: »

Change the world, yeah. The fanatical views on here are astonishing!

How in the name of Hasslehoff's chest hair, is that a fanatical view?

Jamiekelly

I seen one lad on the news who was part of the protest outside the Dail when it was being debated and he said it's unconstitutional for gays to be allowed to get married and said it should be put to the president to see it as unconstitutional. It was funny because most of those protesters were religious nuts who only oppose it because of their religious beliefs. And our own constitution demands that the state be secular when passing bills so in a way our constitution demands that it should be allowed

P.S One sign made by a protester actually read "Down with this sort of thing. Careful now!" I was in the stitches lol

rainbow kirby

Passed the Dáil without a vote, passed the senate 48-4. It's clear what way the wind is starting to blow here. :pac:

Brian O Dalaigh

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?

simple really - those that say it undermines marriage obviously have no faith in their own marriage. The real answer is of course that it does not undermine marriage at all. If there is a civil partnership bill, which looks likely, I do not see how that will affect Joe and Mary in Tuam who have been happily married for 30 years. The real undermining is of course the idea that the LGBT community will accept this as the final ruling and will be happy not to pursue their (just and right) goal of obtaining marriage rights for them too.

zacseph

squod wrote: »

1.

2.

People seem confused here, the bill legislates for civil union. Marriage is, as the English dictionary describes, something different.

Actually, you forgot:
"long-term relationships between partners of the same sex"
That's been in the Oxford English Dictionary for ten years now...
So, really, there shouldn't be an issue...

Or check http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage if you don't have a dictionary handy...

Piste

squod wrote: »

Change the world, yeah. The fanatical views on here are astonishing!

Dunno about you, but the dictionary certainly isn't my world !

squod

zacseph wrote: »

Actually, you forgot:
"long-term relationships between partners of the same sex"
That's been in the Oxford English Dictionary for ten years now...
So, really, there shouldn't be an issue...

Or check http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/marriage if you don't have a dictionary handy...

Lol An American dictionary.......... the home of thousands of made up words!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aluminum

Jebus, that's hillarious.

Piste

Aluminum is a valid alternative spelling of aluminium.

maringo

From what I understand it allows a gay partnership to be recognised in law for inheritance etc. if they wish.

Can anyone enlighten me on how any christian or infidel could object to that - don't we live in a wonderful little Republic!
:rolleyes:

MJRS

Isn't aluminum the original spelling? It's not as if we say platinium instead of platinum.. Aluminium is an anglicisation (sp?)

Ickle Magoo

squod wrote: »

Lol An American dictionary.......... the home of thousands of made up words!

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/aluminum

Jebus, that's hillarious.

If the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) recognise aluminum as an acceptable variant, I can't imagine why you should take such umbrage...

kisaragi

maringo wrote: »

From what I understand it allows a gay partnership to be recognised in law for inheritance etc. if they wish.

Can anyone enlighten me on how any christian or infidel could object to that - don't we live in a wonderful little Republic!
:rolleyes:

Because being gay is wrong, hasn't anyone told you?

I don't know where to stand on the bill to be honest. It's great that gay couples will be extended some of the rights of marriage... but it's hard to support something that's cementing our own inequality in law.

I'm sure we'll keep up the pressure for full civil marriage rights though, don't worry

rainbow kirby

kisaragi wrote: »

I don't know where to stand on the bill to be honest. It's great that gay couples will be extended some of the rights of marriage... but it's hard to support something that's cementing our own inequality in law.

I'm sure we'll keep up the pressure for full civil marriage rights though, don't worry

That's pretty much how I'm seeing it, it's *some* progress, but we're not there yet - there is a lot more to do.

squod

maringo wrote: »

From what I understand it allows a gay partnership to be recognised in law for inheritance etc. if they wish.

Can anyone enlighten me on how any christian or infidel could object to that - don't we live in a wonderful little Republic!
:rolleyes:

For the record I don't. I do object to the misuse of the English word marriage.