Civil Partnership bill, can you explain something to me?

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: 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.

I would laugh - and consider that calling someone who doesn't own a penis a sodomite as epitomising the ignorance and irrational fears that drive homophobia. Enough said really.

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps you shouldn't stoop to their level.

Aside from the fact I am very specific about the people to whom I am referring, if you have an issue with my posts report them and stop telling me how to post, you're the first to start bawling about it when others do that to you.

prinz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I would laugh - and consider that calling someone who doesn't own a penis a sodomite as epitomising the ignorance and irrational fears that drive homophobia. Enough said really.

...and I would laugh and consider calling everyone who disagrees with you a religious fanatic the height of ignorance and irrationality. See where labelling gets us? Nowhere.

humanji

prinz wrote: »

...and I would laugh and consider calling everyone who disagrees with you a religious fanatic the height of ignorance and irrationality. See where labelling gets us? Nowhere.

They didn't call everyone who disagrees with them a fanatic. You selectively quoted them as saying that. For the love of god, move on.

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

...and I would laugh and consider calling everyone who disagrees with you a religious fanatic the height of ignorance and irrationality. See where labelling gets us? Nowhere.

For the second time, I didn't call everyone who disagreed with me anything, I specifically stated people who are actively campaigning against this. To not agree with what gay people do is one thing is one thing, people have every right to have their personal prejudices whether society likes it/agrees with it or not.

To feel so strongly that you desperately want to exclude a section of society from something based on that prejudice, to the point that you do everything in your power to fight equality and have your own personal beliefs supercede the rights of others can't be considered anything other than extremist and fanatical. No amount of personal logifying changes that, which is why these laws are being brought in - and why they have the support of 80%+ of the population. Now that must really stick in your craw but that's not the issue here.

Moving on...

rovert

Im very unsurprised at his latest getting the wrong end of the stick.

prinz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

For the second time, I didn't call everyone who disagreed with me anything, I specifically stated people who are actively campaigning against this....

Actively campainging about something you don't agree with makes you an extremist now? I wonder if you were campaiging against something you didn't like but that the majority agreed with would you consider yourself an extremist?


I have no real issue with a civil union or partnership or whatever, but I believe that our society should promote heterosexual couples, married, civilly united whatever. Does that make me a fanatic?

Ickle Magoo

Obviously it depends what you are campaigning against. If it involves the exclusion or prejudice of a section of society based on disability, race, colour, sex, sexuality or something else currently legislated against, then yes.

Campaigning against equality laws can only be driven by extremism, I'm not sure how you can't see that. If people weren't extremists they would have no issue with equality.

eightyfish

prinz wrote: »

I believe that our society should promote heterosexual couples, married, civilly united whatever.

Promote in what way?

rovert

eightyfish wrote: »

Promote in what way?

Buy one ring get one free?

prinz

eightyfish wrote: »

Promote in what way?

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. Purely from a logical rational standpoint with regard to demographics and population trends, particularly in Europe.

No problem with homosexual couples having registered partnerships, or unions, but I do think that this is not an ideal that our government should hold on an equal footing across all areas, taxes, benefits, etc as similarly partnered heterosexual couples.

smash

prinz wrote: »

Actively campainging about something you don't agree with makes you an extremist now? I wonder if you were campaiging against something you didn't like but that the majority agreed with would you consider yourself an extremist?

Would you change your mind if you had a gay child? Or would you tell him to cop on, man up an stop being gay because you don't like it?

prinz wrote: »

I have no real issue with a civil union or partnership or whatever, but I believe that our society should promote heterosexual couples, married, civilly united whatever. Does that make me a fanatic?

Should our society not promote freedom of choice and equality?

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.

Cool, lets give the knackers with 20 kids more tax breaks and benefits. And not everyone that gets married wants kids you know. When did marriage become about children more than love? Are you living in the dark ages where you had to be married to have kids?

prinz wrote: »

Purely from a logical rational standpoint with regard to demographics and population trends, particularly in Europe.

None of your arguments are "a logical rational standpoint". They're just opinions.

Ickle Magoo

Let's face it, "promoting heterosexuality" is just "discriminating against homosexuality" with flowery window-dressing in the hope people don't notice the true motivation...

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

Would you change your mind if you had a gay child? Or would you tell him to cop on, man up an stop being gay because you don't like it?

Er no, is there anything in the above posts that indicates that 'I don't like gay people'? Don't let that stop the homophobe calls though...:rolleyes:

steve06 wrote: »

Should our society not promote freedom of choice and equality?

To an extent yes, but let's face it equality isn't guaranteed.

smash

prinz wrote: »

Er no, is there anything in the above posts that indicates that 'I don't like gay people'?

Well you don't want them to have equal rights....

prinz wrote: »

To an extent yes, but let's face it equality isn't guaranteed.

But it should be encouraged and not protested against. It's a basic human right!

prinz

steve06 wrote: »

Cool, lets give the knackers with 20 kids more tax breaks and benefits. And not everyone that gets married wants kids you know. When did marriage become about children more than love? Are you living in the dark ages where you had to be married to have kids?

Where did I say it would only apply to married couples with kids? LOL at coming on to talk about equality etc and then refer to 'knackers with 20 kids'. Where did I say everyone who gets married must want kids?

steve06 wrote: »

None of your arguments are "a logical rational standpoint". They're just opinions.

What do you think a standpoint is? That's my opinion, that's what I wil stand over.

prinz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Let's face it, "promoting heterosexuality" is just "discriminating against homosexuality" with flowery window-dressing in the hope people don't notice the true motivation...

..... ah yes, there has to be an imaginary 'true motivation', I forgot. :rolleyes:.. Go on just call me a homophobe, I know you want to.

steve06 wrote: »

Well you don't want them to have equal rights....

Such as?

steve06 wrote: »

But it should be encouraged and not protested against. It's a basic human right!

What's a basic human right?

rovert

prinz wrote: »

..... ah yes, there has to be an imaginary 'true motivation', I forgot. :rolleyes:.. Go on just call me a homophobe, I know you want to.

Deep down that is the position.

dvpower

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. Purely from a logical rational standpoint with regard to demographics and population trends, particularly in Europe.

So you might be against the bill on the grounds that it doesn't provide recognition for children being parented by same sex couples?
Do you think it should have gone further?

prinz

dvpower wrote: »

So you might be against the bill on the grounds that it doesn't provide recognition for children being parented by same sex couples? Do you think it should have gone further?

Haven't read the Bill, but from what I understand of it so far, I have no problems with State recognised Partnerships. If you are asking me should homosexual couples with kids be held by the State on the same level as a heterosexual couple with kids from the point of view of again taxes benefits etc yes. Held out as an ideal by the State, no..

Ickle Magoo

prinz wrote: »

..... ah yes, there has to be an imaginary 'true motivation', I forgot. :rolleyes:.. Go on just call me a homophobe, I know you want to.

I don't want to or have to call you anything, people can read and make their own conclusions.

This planet is sorely over-populated, even in ireland there are many children living below the poverty line, thousands more in care and looking to be fostered or adopted, it's not even remotely believable that the motivation for actively fighting equality laws with regards to homosexuals has anything to do with population.

Quite aside from the point that I have no idea what actively fighting equality laws or gay marriage have to do with population or, indeed, promoting heterosexual marriage - giving gay people the right to marry doesn't prevent heterosexuals getting married and you can't seriously be suggesting there is going to be a catastrophic down-turn in population if gay marriage is allowed. The respective proportions of gay/straight population remain regardless of the legislation passing or no.

prinz

rovert wrote: »

Deep down that is the position.

Is it? Thanks, saved me a fortune in psychoanalysis. Glad you could tell me.

rovert

prinz wrote: »

Haven't read the Bill, but from what I understand of it so far, I have no problems with State recognised Partnerships. If you are asking me should homosexual couples with kids be held by the State on the same level as a heterosexual couple with kids from the point of view of again taxes benefits etc yes. Held out as an ideal by the State, no..

Yep if the gays want to be held as the ideal they have to have sham marriages.

prinz wrote: »

Is it? Thanks, saved me a fortune in psychoanalysis. Glad you could tell me.

Maybe you might meet Ronan Mullin there.

prinz

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

This planet is sorely over-populated...

Actually it's not. It's what we as a race are doing to it is the problem. Parts of the world are over populated. Other parts are increasingly underpopulated.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

even in ireland there are many children living below the poverty line...

Yes, that's terrible. What does it have to do with the topic at hand?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

thousands more in care and looking to be fostered or adopted,...

Indeed. But once again

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

it's not even remotely believable that the motivation for actively fighting equality laws with regards to homosexuals has anything to do with population...

That's your opinion.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Quite aside from the point that I have no idea what actively fighting equality laws or gay marriage have to do with population or, indeed, promoting heterosexual marriage - giving gay people the right to marry doesn't prevent heterosexuals getting married and you can't seriously be suggesting there is going to be a catastrophic down-turn in population if gay marriage is allowed. The respective proportions of gay/straight population remain regardless of the legislation passing or no.

Once again, it has nothing to do with actively fighting equality laws. It has to do my opinion that the State promoting and rewarding what I regard as an ideal family unit.

smash

Gay marriage is not being promoted as an ideal family unit, what are you on prinz? It's just a group of regular people with a different sexuality than yours looking for an equal opportunity to commit themselves to each other like heterosexual people can. Much like heterosexual people, they all don't want to get married and raise children, and if they do what's the harm?

Piste

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. Purely from a logical rational standpoint with regard to demographics and population trends, particularly in Europe.

No problem with homosexual couples having registered partnerships, or unions, but I do think that this is not an ideal that our government should hold on an equal footing across all areas, taxes, benefits, etc as similarly partnered heterosexual couples.

I actually sort of agree with you, but I would go one step further and only allow couples with children to marry- i.e. the woman has to be pregnant or the child already born before the marriage can occur. I think it's a bit ridiculous that couples should get tax breaks just because they love each other. I'd have civil partnership for all other couples- hetero and homosexual to take care of issues such as inheritance.

In realise it's an extreme view though, one that's incredibly unlikely ever to come into reality, so from a pragmatic point of view I'd prefer that both straight and gay couples could marry.

dvpower

prinz wrote: »

Haven't read the Bill, but from what I understand of it so far, I have no problems with State recognised Partnerships. If you are asking me should homosexual couples with kids be held by the State on the same level as a heterosexual couple with kids from the point of view of again taxes benefits etc yes. Held out as an ideal by the State, no..

Its not so much what was in the bill, but what was not included. Children of same sex couples don't have the same inheritance rights or access or gaurdianship rights.

But I'm not clear on the distinction you make. You seems to be for equality in practice but you don't want the state to hold this arrangement as an 'ideal'? How would the state achieve this? Maybe an ad campaign promoting traditional marriage?

rovert

dvpower wrote: »

Its not so much what was in the bill, but what was not included. Children of same sex couples don't have the same inheritance rights or access or gaurdianship rights.

But I'm not clear on the distinction you make. You seems to be for equality in practice but you don't want the state to hold this arrangement as an 'ideal'? How would the state achieve this? Maybe an ad campaign promoting traditional marriage?

A poster with a straight couple laughing at a gay couple, perhaps?

Ickle Magoo

No, the planet is over-populated. We struggle to provide sufficient power and food to maintain the current population. It has nothing to do with environmental issues.

Because suggesting population growth is at all relevant in a society that has children looking for homes and struggling to provide adequate family life for those it already has is ludicrous.

prinz wrote: »

Once again, it has nothing to do with actively fighting equality laws. It has to do with the State rewarding what it promotes as an ideal family unit.

Why should the state decide what constitutes an ideal family unit? I was raised to believe an ideal family unit should be one where a child is loved and cared for, that's it - no assumptions that genitalia equals familial superiority. There are no guarantees that a male and a female will offer a child a better family environment to one female, one male, two females or two males so to promote a single family unit on that assumption is just to discriminate irrationally against the others.

Child benefit I can understand but I don't see why people should get just for being married anyway, it's just a life-style choice, I don't know why the rest of society has to offer up some kind of prize for finding a mate.

dvpower

rovert wrote: »

A poster with a straight couple laughing at a gay couple, perhaps?

Maybe something more subtle. Two families enjoying a day out in the park, but the gay couple have uglier children.

prinz

dvpower wrote: »

Its not so much what was in the bill, but what was not included. Children of same sex couples don't have the same inheritance rights or access or gaurdianship rights.

That's a very difficult area that has to be looked into. With a homosexual couple there is obviously a third party involved. It will take a long time IMO to work out the rights and obligations of all involved in that scenario in any sort of general set of 'rules'.

dvpower wrote: »

But I'm not clear on the distinction you make. You seems to be for equality in practice but you don't want the state to hold this arrangement as an 'ideal'? How would the state achieve this? Maybe an ad campaign promoting traditional marriage?

As campaign if you want. Or just by keeping it as an ideal i.e. the State promotes and defends marriage while recognising Civil unions, civil partnerships etc and by financial incentives etc.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No, the planet is over-populated. We struggle to provide sufficient power and food to maintain the current population. It has nothing to do with environmental issues..

Nope, the planet produces enough food to feed everyone. It's just that the food is being produced in the wrong places. For example in the West we over-produce and other places have less than adequate food supplies. That's a problem with greed, logistics etc rather than a population issue, as is the power, I remember seeing before that a proper hydroelectirc system in the Congo could power the entire continent of Africa for example. The potential is there. The will isn't.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why should the state decide what constitutes an ideal family unit?...

One of society's jobs is to try to ensure to the best of it's ability the future viability of itself.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Child benefit I can understand but I don't see why people should get just for being married anyway, it's just a life-style choice, I don't know why the rest of society has to offer up some kind of prize for finding a mate.

...society needs to renew itself. It needs kids. It's not about finding a mate, it's about contributing to that society.