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?

1…68101112

Comments

  • #212
    Piste
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,440 ✭✭✭✭Piste


    It's only a "misuse" insofar as the definition hasn't been broadened to include same-sex couples and that's pretty easily changed.


  • #213
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


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

    Why would you care if the definition changes, as thousands of words have before it, to encompass gay couples? Dictionaries don't just tell us what words mean, popular usage and meaning become dictionary definitions...


  • #214
    ricman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,559 ✭✭✭ricman


    The social welfare system has done more to destroy marriage than any bill.
    THE CONSERVATIVES do not want any couple to have the same rights as a married couple.Course we know marriage is perfect bliss,no one in ireland ever divorces or separates .i see no financial benefit to marriage apart from rights to inherit or to take care of kids ,if one spouse dies.


  • #215
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Why would you care if the definition changes, as thousands of words have before it, to encompass gay couples? Dictionaries don't just tell us what words mean, popular usage and meaning become dictionary definitions...


    How many times have you heard someone call something blue when it is red? Really what these fanatics want is the destruction of marriage. The word, the sacrament and any constitutional reference to it or it's place in society IMO. Leave marriage out of it.


  • #216
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    squod wrote: »
    How many times have you heard someone call something blue when it is red?
    How many times have you heard people use the word "gay" to mean "homosexual", when it used to only mean "happy"? Things change.
    Really what these fanatics want is the destruction of marriage. The word, the sacrament and any constitutional reference to it or it's place in society IMO. Leave marriage out of it.

    The fanatics are the ones who want to oppress a minority so that they can continue to feel smug about themselves.


  • Advertisement
  • #217
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    squod wrote: »
    How many times have you heard someone call something blue when it is red?

    It's hardly comparable, blue and red are not similar or alike in any way shape or form, red will never become blue - it's inevitable that same-sex unions will one day have an equal standing in every aspect with heterosexual unions. Those that object are a dying breed and their wish for a difference and petty demands for exclusions to common terminology will die with them.

    Dictionaries used to have one entry under bike, now there are motor-bikes, mopeds, quad-bikes, etc, etc. To suggest a single dictionary definition is correct as if definitions are set in stone and stagnant, unaffected by the change in common usage, history, technology, the never ending march of modern society or indeed legislation, is the vocabulary equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and humming.

    Edited to answer ninja edit:

    Sacrament? Are you suggesting only catholics get married now? I didn't get married in a church and I'm the proud owner of a certificate of marriage, the word has already lost its place as a claim only of the religious. Linguistic evolution, if you will.


  • #218
    Nevyn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43,045 ✭✭✭✭Nevyn


    The sacrament of marriage is a religous construct, this is not about the sacrament of marriage it is about the legal and civil definition of marriage.

    You can keep your Judaic sacrament between heterosexuals but the legal and civil marriage should be available equally.


  • #219
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    There's more than two hundred thousand words in the English language. I'm absolutely positve that some other word, combination of words could be used to suit like.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    To suggest a single dictionary definition is correct as if definitions are set in stone and stagnant, unaffected by the change in common usage, history, technology.
    humanji wrote: »
    How many times have you heard people use the word "gay" to mean "homosexual", when it used to only mean "happy"? Things change.

    It's also completely possible to create a new word or combination of words to suit.

    Why keep banging on about it? Because the people influencing you are fanatics. Reasoned debate is going to be impossible for as long as these fanatics/extremists are so involved.


  • #220
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,749 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    squod wrote: »
    How many times have you heard someone call something blue when it is red? Really what these fanatics want is the destruction of marriage. The word, the sacrament and any constitutional reference to it or it's place in society IMO. Leave marriage out of it.
    The constitutional definition of marriage does not specify gender. The Catholic definition does. So if we change the legal and civil word of marriage to 'union' and make all rights applicable regardless of the gender of the two people, would that be ok? So that religions are the only place where marriage is used?

    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



  • #221
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    squod wrote: »
    It's also completely possible to create a new word or combination of words to suit.

    Why keep banging on about it? Because the people influencing you are fanatics. Reasoned debate is going to be impossible for as long as these fanatics/extremists are so involved.

    Unlike the religious fanatics and extremists clearly managing to convince others that the morals of the world will collapse & armageddon will ensue if a dictionary definition is changed, no fanatic or extremist is influencing me. I have gay relations, I have gay friends, I think campaigning against gay marriage is no different to those who campaigned that only whites should get the vote. Frankly, it's just as shameful. I'm really glad that the majority of the world don't think like that any more.

    The only fanatics or extremists I can see are people so blinded by prejudice that they cling onto an historic dictionary definition based on their own personal religious moralising. There is absolutely no other reason for it, it's completely irrational to expect a new word to be invented to protect the sensitivities of an ever shrinking and ageing handful of hand-wringing conservatives barely able to contain the underlying homophobia we all know is driving their prejudices...if anything, that just highlights why using marriage as an all-encompassing, non-exclusive, un-prejudiced definition - and why it legally should be - is so necessary.


  • Advertisement
  • #222
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    28064212 wrote: »
    The constitutional definition of marriage does .........

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66815680&postcount=190
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    .................

    Pretty much the kind of reply I'd expect from someone so influenced.


  • #223
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    squod wrote: »
    Pretty much the kind of reply I'd expect from someone so influenced.

    Yeah, when you can't fight the logic, get silly.

    :pac:

    Conspiracy forum
    >


  • #224
    zacseph
    Closed Accounts Posts: 150 ✭✭zacseph


    squod wrote: »
    There's more than two hundred thousand words in the English language. I'm absolutely positve that some other word, combination of words could be used to suit like.





    It's also completely possible to create a new word or combination of words to suit.

    Why keep banging on about it? Because the people influencing you are fanatics. Reasoned debate is going to be impossible for as long as these fanatics/extremists are so involved.

    It's not really "fanatic" just because people aren't willing to give up fighting for their rights because other people say so??

    And in answer to your question, a new word could be created, but would have to be applied to ALL civil unions to be fair (as was said). Specifically creating a different word to describe same sex unions would effectively be saying that homosexual people are not equal in the eyes of he law and make them second class citizens.

    P.S. - while dictionary.com may be american, i'm reasonably sure the oxford english dictionary is not (not that it should make a difference) and both include genderless definitions of marriage between 2 partners...:rolleyes:


  • #225
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    zacseph wrote: »

    And in answer to your question, a new word could be created, but would have to be applied to ALL civil unions to be fair

    See? How easy was that.


  • #226
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Yeah, when you can't fight the logic, get silly.

    :pac:

    Conspiracy forum
    >

    There seems to be no forum for fanatics yet, shame.


  • #227
    keepkeyyellow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 705 ✭✭✭keepkeyyellow


    Uggggh. I read through half of this and it's already doing my head in.

    As a gay man (had to mention that) I believe that this civil partnership bill is a step in the right direction, but we've a long way to go. Homosexual people do need full marriage rights, you can go away with any arguments you have about marriage being undermined because that's what was said when they allowed black people to marry in America or the family unit being ruined by having no mother/father influence because that's what was said when they singles wanted to adopt.


  • #228
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    It passed we can all stop fighting.

    We are family


  • #229
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    squod wrote: »
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=66815680&postcount=190

    The opinion of one judge and a load of fanatics.
    squod wrote: »
    Pretty much the kind of reply I'd expect from someone so influenced.

    Seriously, do you hate homosexuals or something? Why do you think they're going to bring down society? Why should all Irish people not be treated equally? Is there one single, valid reason for that bizarre belief?


  • #230
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 2,874 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    humanji wrote: »
    Is there one single, valid reason for that bizarre belief?

    butt secks


  • #231
    AudreyHepburn
    Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    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?

    Nothing to understand really. It's just homophobic nonesence if you ask me.

    There is no reason why homosexuals (men and women) can't marry or have families. Those who protest against it are the ones with problems imp.


  • Advertisement
  • #232
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Unlike the religious fanatics and extremists....The only fanatics or extremists I can see are people so blinded by prejudice...

    ..and there it is. The irony of it all.


  • #233
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    rovert wrote: »
    It passed we can all stop fighting.

    Interesting looking at the newspaper coverage of this. All the newspapers cover it positively. The only exception is the Daily Fail, who have run the story that "Catholic croup Cóir will not stop fighting this bill."


  • #234
    rainbow kirby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,928 ✭✭✭✭rainbow kirby


    rovert wrote: »
    It passed we can all stop fighting.

    We are family

    Still fighting for full marriage equality, tbh :)


  • #235
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    prinz wrote: »
    ..and there it is. The irony of it all.

    Yeah, I'm so blinded by prejudice that I want people to have the same rights as other people. The wish for equality between humans is fanatical and extremist? That is some seriously twisted thinking. I wonder if those in favour giving coloured people the vote were also called extremists and fanatical? I bet they were.


  • #236
    rovert
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,089 ✭✭✭✭rovert


    rainbow kirby wrote: »
    Still fighting for full marriage equality, tbh :)

    Youve done enough, God is angry look at the weather :pac:


  • #237
    Brian O Dalaigh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23 ✭Brian O Dalaigh


    squod wrote: »
    Lol :D An American dictionary.......... the home of thousands of made up words!

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

    Jebus, that's hillarious.
    This is an aside, but actually the American spelling Aluminum is technically more correct. The British/Irish spelling aluminium was brought in after aluminum as it was believed the ending would be better rendered -ium rather than -um to keep it in line with other chemical elements on the periodic table. Although personally I do use aluminium as my preferred spelling of the word :D


  • #238
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Yeah, I'm so blinded by prejudice that I want people to have the same rights as other people. The wish for equality between humans is fanatical and extremist? That is some seriously twisted thinking. I wonder if those in favour giving coloured people the vote were also called extremists and fanatical? I bet they were.

    So you don't think it prejudiced to label everyone who doesn't agree with you in terms such as fanatic and extremist? :pac: How about I label you a bleeding heart-pinko-liberal-rainbow-sodomite? Seems fair no? If we're going to start labelling people and all that.


  • #239
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    prinz wrote: »
    So you don't think it prejudiced to label everyone who doesn't agree with you in terms such as fanatic and extremist? :pac:

    Why don't you have a wee read of the thread and have a look at who was throwing the fanatic and extremist labels about killing yourself to launch in with a dig at me, eh? Yawnarama. :rolleyes:


  • #240
    eightyfish
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭eightyfish


    Brian O Dalaigh wrote: »
    This is an aside, but actually the American spelling Aluminum is technically more correct.

    Bit more on this here.


  • Advertisement
  • #241
    prinz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Why don't you have a wee read of the thread and have a look at who was throwing the fanatic and extremist labels about killing yourself to launch in with a dig at me, eh? Yawnarama. :rolleyes:

    Perhaps you shouldn't stoop to their level.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Unlike the religious fanatics and extremists clearly managing to convince others that the morals of the world will collapse & armageddon will ensue if a dictionary definition is changed, no fanatic or extremist is influencing me..
    The only fanatics or extremists I can see are people so blinded by prejudice that they cling onto an historic dictionary....


Advertisement