FG Manifesto out

DeVore · 16-02-2011 4:35am

andrewire wrote: »

FG is against same-sex unions. I have been told this by two FG TDs: Lucinda Creighton and Leo Varadkar. They will do nothing for the gays.

Well.... perhaps they wont refer to them as "the gays" for a start :rolleyes:

DeV.

jank · 16-02-2011 7:53am

Reilly616 wrote: »

More like 5-10%, but that's not really the point. After all, it's not those in the majority that often need help with equality. That said, I fully understand it not being a deal breaker for you.

5-10% are gay and are waiting to be married?:rolleyes:

femur61 · 16-02-2011 8:14am

mgmt wrote: »

Still reading, but I really disagree with this on page7:

17 is too young.

Ditto.

DeVore · 16-02-2011 11:30am

jank wrote: »

5-10% are gay and are waiting to be married?:rolleyes:

Even unbiased estimates put homosexuality at 2-5% of the population.

DeV.

johngalway · 16-02-2011 11:50am

snubbleste wrote: »

5.3 Fine Gael will reverse the ban on stag hunting.

Only one of many Fianna Fail/Green policies that need reversing.

ei.sdraob · 16-02-2011 11:54am

johngalway wrote: »

Only one of many Fianna Fail/Green policies that need reversing.

I propose to introduce FFer hunting :P with hounds, big hounds.

Reilly616 · 16-02-2011 12:19pm

jank wrote: »

5-10% are gay and are waiting to be married?:rolleyes:

No, 5-10% are gay and waiting for the right to get married. A right is not dependent on an intention to use it.

Laminations · 16-02-2011 1:06pm

Reilly616 wrote: »

No, 5-10% are gay and waiting for the right to get married. A right is not dependent on an intention to use it.

Why is marriage a right? A recognised civil union by the state with same benefits for all (or no benefits for any) would be closer to a right than a religious recognition of what would be an oxymoron for the church. If it is a religious belief that gay people cant be married in the eyes of that religions God, a belief I disagree with but I don't believe in a RC God, then why should they be forced to contravene their beliefs to acquiesce to your desires? Off topic I know but religions should be allowed practice their faith separate from what the state does, its one instance where I side with libertarians.

And now on topic, I think the manifesto is majority good, and nothing to put me off voting FG

Zubeneschamali · 16-02-2011 1:13pm

Laminations wrote: »

If it is a religious belief that gay people cant be married in the eyes of that religions God, a belief I disagree with but I don't believe in a RC God, then why should they be forced to contravene their beliefs to acquiesce to your desires?

Who care what any religion says?

The Irish state recognizes straight marriage, but not gay marriage. I'm in favour of the state recognizing them equally.

WhosUpDocs · 16-02-2011 1:17pm

Laminations wrote: »

Why is marriage a right? A recognised civil union by the state with same benefits for all (or no benefits for any) would be closer to a right than a religious recognition of what would be an oxymoron for the church.

People aren't looking for the religious right to marry. Civil union as it stands only offers half the rights it offers straight couple. I don't care if the populist panderers want to call it union or marriage. I'm more concerned with the rights being in place

Idbatterim · 16-02-2011 1:18pm

Good economic policy is going to effect us all and far more than whether same sex couples can marry or whatever. But you know what, if things get worse here and emigration increases, unemployment goes up, we have to fully or partially default, well atleast we will have legalised same sex marriage! LOL LOL

Laminations · 16-02-2011 1:18pm

I agree with both of you, the state should recognise marriage/union equally with equal rights, I think I said that in my post.

Pete_Cavan · 16-02-2011 1:21pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Who care what any religion says?

The Irish state recognizes straight marriage, but not gay marriage. I'm in favour of the state recognizing them equally.

I think the point Laminations was making is that the state recognises the union between two people, rather than the actual marriage which is a religous issue. The state should also recognise the union between two people of the same sex and grant them the same rights, but if the church refuses to recognise it as a marriage that is up to them (it is their concept after all).

Zubeneschamali · 16-02-2011 1:24pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

Good economic policy is going to effect us all and far more than whether same sex couples can marry or whatever.

The economy is in the toilet, but that is no reason to continue discriminating against gays.

WhosUpDocs · 16-02-2011 1:26pm

Idbatterim wrote: »

Good economic policy is going to effect us all and far more than whether same sex couples can marry or whatever. But you know what, if things get worse here and emigration increases, unemployment goes up, we have to fully or partially default, well atleast we will have legalised same sex marriage! LOL LOL

Yes I agree but if you'd read the whole thread you'd know most of us feel the same way. However, we shouldn't have to sacrifice good social policy for good economic policy! LOL LOL

Zubeneschamali · 16-02-2011 1:29pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

if the church refuses to recognise it as a marriage that is up to them (it is their concept after all).

No, it isn't.

People get married every day in a registry office, nothing to do with any Church.

The state recognizes marriages, just not gay ones.

Reilly616 · 16-02-2011 2:18pm

Laminations wrote: »

Why is marriage a right? A recognised civil union by the state with same benefits for all (or no benefits for any) would be closer to a right than a religious recognition of what would be an oxymoron for the church. If it is a religious belief that gay people cant be married in the eyes of that religions God, a belief I disagree with but I don't believe in a RC God, then why should they be forced to contravene their beliefs to acquiesce to your desires?

Marriage is a right because the European Court of Human Rights said it was, under Article 12 of the Convention.

As for your other point, I think you are mistaking religious marriage for civil marriage. We are discussing the latter.

Reilly616 · 16-02-2011 2:20pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

I think the point Laminations was making is that the state recognises the union between two people, rather than the actual marriage which is a religous issue.

It's just that a civil marriage isn't a religious issue.

Pete_Cavan · 16-02-2011 2:35pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

No, it isn't.

People get married every day in a registry office, nothing to do with any Church.

The state recognizes marriages, just not gay ones.

A marriage is one of the seven sacrements of the Catholic church. A Civil Marriage is different.

The state only recognises religious marriages in the same way it recognises civil marriages (ie. legally not religiously). The state recognises civil marriages, just not gay ones.

The point that was being made was that the state should recognise same sex civil marriages, religious marriages on the other hand are up to the church and it is not up to the state to tell them who they can and cant marry under their beliefs. Anyway, this is way off topic so if we are going to keep on this it should be in a new thread in a different forum.

Zubeneschamali · 16-02-2011 3:21pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The point that was being made was that the state should recognise same sex civil marriages

If that was the point, then OK, I agree.

This isn't in FGs manifesto, and it should be.

Tipp Man · 16-02-2011 3:32pm

The party most likely to lead the country for the next few years has released its manifesto and this thread has become bogged down in the nitty gritty detail of same sex marriage or union or whatever the hell you call it

Unbelievable

dsmythy · 16-02-2011 3:34pm

So any thoughts on the economic sections of the manifesto? You would have thought this would be foremost in everyone's mind.

Zubeneschamali · 16-02-2011 3:35pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

Unbelievable

There are policies which FG could adopt which would cost nothing, hurt no-one and help end discrimination in Ireland.

So why don't they push for same-sex civil marriage?

Afraid of the bishops?

Zubeneschamali · 16-02-2011 3:37pm

dsmythy wrote: »

So any thoughts on the economic sections of the manifesto?

We are so screwed.

But I knew that 2 years ago.

WhosUpDocs · 16-02-2011 3:38pm

Tipp Man wrote: »

The party most likely to lead the country for the next few years has released its manifesto and this thread has become bogged down in the nitty gritty detail of same sex marriage or union or whatever the hell you call it

Unbelievable

It's an issue people feel passionate about. It's in the manifesto and therefore perfectly valid for discussion here. Be that as it may, there are better fora than this thread for discussion of this and maybe we should put it aside for now.

dsmythy wrote: »

So any thoughts on the economic sections of the manifesto? You would have thought this would be foremost in everyone's mind.

I think a lot of the suggestions contained in the manifesto would be really effective if FG have the balls to stand up to the vested interests when the form the next government. Here's hoping!

kraggy · 16-02-2011 3:54pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

A marriage is one of the seven sacrements of the Catholic church. A Civil Marriage is different.

The state only recognises religious marriages in the same way it recognises civil marriages (ie. legally not religiously). The state recognises civil marriages, just not gay ones.

The point that was being made was that the state should recognise same sex civil marriages, religious marriages on the other hand are up to the church and it is not up to the state to tell them who they can and cant marry under their beliefs. Anyway, this is way off topic so if we are going to keep on this it should be in a new thread in a different forum.

As things stand, the state only provides marriage (yes civil marriage) to hetrosexual couples. It does not provide marriage to gay couples. It is in the process of providing civil PARTNERSHIP. Civil partnership is inferior to civil marriage in terms of rights.

Stop talking about religion. It has nothing to do with it.

Pete_Cavan · 16-02-2011 4:04pm

kraggy wrote: »

As things stand, the state only provides marriage (yes civil marriage) to hetrosexual couples. It does not provide marriage to gay couples. It is in the process of providing civil PARTNERSHIP. Civil partnership is inferior to civil marriage in terms of rights.

Stop talking about religion. It has nothing to do with it.

Marriage is a religious institution and one of the seven sacraments of the Catholic church so it has everything to do with religion. A civil marriage is completely different and I was highlighting the difference between the two.

I know that a civil partnership is inferior to civil marriage. The government is free to legislate to change this to allow same sex couples the right to civil marriage and all the rights that go with it. However, the government has nothing to do with marriage as it is a religious issue and that is up to the church.

There is marriage (a religious concept) and there is civil marriage (a legal concept), it is not that difficult to understand.

Zubeneschamali · 16-02-2011 4:08pm

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

There is marriage (a religious concept) and there is civil marriage (a legal concept), it is not that difficult to understand.

I've looked in the Constitution for this "civil marriage" thing, and I don't see it anywhere.

Pete_Cavan · 16-02-2011 4:20pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I've looked in the Constitution for this "civil marriage" thing, and I don't see it anywhere.

Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. We all happy now?

Reilly616 · 16-02-2011 6:09pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I've looked in the Constitution for this "civil marriage" thing, and I don't see it anywhere.

Lol, I was just about to point that out!

FG Manifesto out

Comments