Fine Gael and yet more censorship

prinz

oryan28 wrote: »

@ Prinz
She did state however, that marriage is about precreation! I have plenty of friends who are married who do not want children. I have plenty of friends who can't have children due to infertility. I have plenty of friends who found their partner at a late stage in their life and are also unable to have children. Their relationships are based on love, respect and a desire to share the rest of their lives with eachother. If we are to listen to waht Lucinda said, shouldn't all these marriages be void! Since they won't be having any children?

She marriage is primarily about procreation and creating an environment in which to raise kids. The vast, vast majority of married couples in this state would have kids, and would have deliberately thought marriage through with regard to children, present or future. Not having kids, not being able to have your own biological kids has nothing to do with what Lucinda said.

oryan28

She marriage is primarily about procreation and creating an environment in which to raise kids. The vast, vast majority of married couples in this state would have kids, and would have deliberately thought marriage through with regard to children, present or future. Not having kids, not being able to have your own biological kids has nothing to do with what Lucinda said.

Marriage is not primarily about having children. In my experience with all my friends, they get married because they love each other, want to spend their lives with each other, are each other soulmates, and want to gain the rights in which a marriage brings. Yes children come down the line, but it's not the reason for why they wanted to get married. I pity people who do get married just to have children. Surely that will effect the child as time goes on, if his or her parents don't love each other.

Do you know Prinz, that gay couples have children too? You may not want to believe it, but it's true, Many of my gay friends have children. It is part of modern society. If a couple, gay/straight can provide a happy home and a happy enviroment, than who cares!! I can never understand why people want to dictate what goes on inside an adults bedroom.

We are born gay. It's like being born black or Asian. It is who we are. I am proud of being Gay, it's some parts of society that I am not proud off! The part that thinks certain people don't deserve equal rights. It really is disgusting.

oryan28

Gay Marriage

Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Iceland
Netherlands


Civil Unions


Andorra
Austria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
Finland
France
- New Caledonia
- Wallis and Futuna


USA

Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, and the District of Columbia
Germany
Greenland
Hungary
Ireland
Luxembourg
New Zealand
Slovenia
Switzerland
United Kingdom
Uruguay





Hawaii from today

Also from today the US will no longer fund federal goverement from opposing same sex marriage.

Jurisdictions with current or recent debates on SSUs

Albania
Belarus
Bolivia
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Burundi
Cambodia
Cayman Islands
Chile
China (PRC)
ROC (Taiwan)
Congo (DRC)
Costa Rica
Cuba
Cyprus
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Estonia
Greece
Honduras
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jersey

Latvia
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Kenya
Malta
Moldova
Montenegro
Nepal
Nigeria
Panama
Paraguay
Peru
Poland
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Serbia
Slovakia
South Korea
Uganda
Ukraine
Venezuela
Vietnam
Zambia




Norway
Portugal
South Africa
Spain
Sweden

Monty Burnz

oryan28 wrote: »

Gay Marriage

Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Iceland
Netherlands

Where are most of your friends from? I presume they must be from the five countries in the world where SSM exists?

oryan28 wrote: »

Civil Unions
Andorra
Austria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Ecuador
Finland
France
- New Caledonia
- Wallis and Futuna

We're not doing too badly is we are in the top 14 or so countries WRT recognising gay relationships. Do you know how our Civil Unions compare to those in the countries listed?

With a proper campaign, we'll be on the first list in a few years time.

prinz

oryan28 wrote: »

Surely that will effect the child as time goes on, if his or her parents don't love each other...

Who said the parents don't love each other?

oryan28 wrote: »

Do you know Prinz, that gay couples have children too? You may not want to believe it, but it's true, Many of my gay friends have children. It is part of modern society. ..

I'm sure they do. Like I have said the civil partnership act doesn't go far enough in this regard.

oryan28 wrote: »

If a couple, gay/straight can provide a happy home and a happy enviroment, than who cares!!..

You just insulted all the single parent families out there :mad:. Nonsense of course but do you see how easy it is to read too much into a single comment and draw the wrong conclusions?

oryan28 wrote: »

I can never understand why people want to dictate what goes on inside an adults bedroom...

Do you want to be married in your bedroom?

oryan28 wrote: »

We are born gay.It's like being born black or Asian. It is who we are..

That much has yet to be definitively settled tbh.

oryan28 wrote: »

I am proud of being Gay, it's some parts of society that I am not proud off! The part that thinks certain people don't deserve equal rights. It really is disgusting.

Odd that. How often do you hear people saying they are proud to be straight? Oh wait, can't do that.

oryan28 wrote: »

Gay Marriage
Argentina
Belgium
Canada
Iceland
Netherlands

Which proves the point unless all your friends come from these countries I can't imagine the grounds for being shocked that Ireland doesn't have gay marriage.

oryan28

@ Prinz Only a couple can get married, or am I unaware that single people can get married to themselves???

@ Prinz My friend who is single and gay is pregnant. As long as a child is brought up in a caring home. whether that is a single gay/straight home, couple gay/straight home who cares.

@ Prinz Straight people aren't objected to verbal and physical abuse because of their sexual orientation, gay people are. I say I am proud, because people seem to think, if gay people had the option to change their sexuality they would. I'm simply stating that I wouldn't!


@Monty @Prinz

You know after reading your posts, I really should be greatfull for being a second class citizen in this country. Prinz and Monty you are right, how was I so wrong. It just hit me, Gays have it good enough, we've already got CP, what more could i want? Ugh, WE should just be happy with what we have, it's not like gay people are being arrested any more, we really have no right to complain, apologies, I'm just being a whingy spoilt brat, looking for a fight and looking for offence in everything. Next I'll start thinking that I'm actually the same as everyone else, but I need to realise I'm a separate class and that I have brought this injustice on myself. I mean I chose to be gay, I think it was around the same time I was deciding if I liked boyzone or Westlife more!! I can't really remember, It happened so fast. I am gay and have gay friends and we deserve rights and all, but really we are asking for too much to be equal, to be treated as equal citizens, to have the same rights as everyone else, what was I thinking!!!!! I can't believe I didn't realise this before! Thank you both for opening my eyes up.

I must go now, as I hear there's another gay bashing on George's street, I deserve a good kicking because I'm gay so I must jump in.

Buceph

oryan28 wrote: »

we've already got CP,

Don't say that on the internet. To some people it means things you may not think it means.



Prinz: When you say it hasn't been settled whether people are born gay or not, what difference would it make? If someone chooses to couple with someone of the same sex why should they be treated any different to someone who chooses to couple with someone of the opposite sex? Is it just a case of "They knew what the deal was so tough sh!t?"

oryan28

Don't say that on the internet. To some people it means things you may not think it means.

@ Buceph - I don't think it's hard to read between the lines of what I was actually trying to say....

It is as simple as this: Gay people deserve to have the same rights as their family and friends. It's not hard to understand that.

Buceph

oryan28 wrote: »

Don't say that on the internet. To some people it means things you may not think it means.

@ Buceph - I don't think it's hard to read between the lines of what I was actually trying to say....

It is as simple as this: Gay people deserve to have the same rights as their family and friends. It's not hard to understand that.

I know. I was trying to point out that on a lot of places on the internet, and I've seen it on boards as well, "CP" means child porn.

It was an attempt at humour, although I can understand why some people aren't taking the thread in a jocular manner. You should have been here at 4am. I think there was a marriage proposal at one point.

Monty Burnz

oryan28 wrote: »

You know after reading your posts, I really should be greatfull for being a second class citizen in this country. Prinz and Monty you are right, how was I so wrong. It just hit me, Gays have it good enough, we've already got CP, what more could i want? Ugh, WE should just be happy with what we have, it's not like gay people are being arrested any more, we really have no right to complain, apologies, I'm just being a whingy spoilt brat, looking for a fight and looking for offence in everything. Next I'll start thinking that I'm actually the same as everyone else, but I need to realise I'm a separate class and that I have brought this injustice on myself. I mean I chose to be gay, I think it was around the same time I was deciding if I liked boyzone or Westlife more!! I can't really remember, It happened so fast. I am gay and have gay friends and we deserve rights and all, but really we are asking for too much to be equal, to be treated as equal citizens, to have the same rights as everyone else, what was I thinking!!!!! I can't believe I didn't realise this before! Thank you both for opening my eyes up.

I must go now, as I hear there's another gay bashing on George's street, I deserve a good kicking because I'm gay so I must jump in.

I'm sorry, but that's a disgraceful and immature response. Here is what I said:

We're not doing too badly if we are in the top 14 or so countries WRT recognising gay relationships. Do you know how our Civil Unions compare to those in the countries listed?

With a proper campaign, we'll be on the first list in a few years time.

And you basically make out like you are a victim of my homophobia? That's a total disgrace. I'm sure you won't apologise, but when you cool down I hope you look at what I said and what you said and realise that you are bang out of order here. In addition, it seems you told us an untruth about 'all your friends' not being able to believe there was no gay marriage here, when there are only 5 countries in the world where it is possible.

It's pretty sad that you attack people on your own side, and to be honest you are probably doing more damage than good to the cause.

prinz

oryan28 wrote: »

@ Prinz Only a couple can get married, or am I unaware that single people can get married to themselves???

oryan28 wrote: »

@ Prinz My friend who is single and gay is pregnant. As long as a child is brought up in a caring home. whether that is a single gay/straight home, couple gay/straight home who cares.

I do for one. Your friend could be a great parent but studies would show that kids in two-parent home families fare better generally. Again good cases make bad laws, should the State say that single parent homes are just as good as two-parent homes when all the evidence points to the contrary?

oryan28 wrote: »

@ Prinz Straight people aren't objected to verbal and physical abuse because of their sexual orientation, gay people are. I say I am proud, because people seem to think, if gay people had the option to change their sexuality they would. I'm simply stating that I wouldn't!

....and yet if a straight person wanted a straight pride parade they would be laughed out of it/bullied out of it. If I said I am straight and proud, the automatic reading into that is that I am concurrently a homophobe. Just like being white and proud is synonymous with being a racist. Are you a heterophobe?

oryan28 wrote: »

You know after reading your posts, I really should be greatfull for being a second class citizen in this country.

Where have I described you as such?

oryan28 wrote: »

Prinz and Monty you are right, how was I so wrong. It just hit me, Gays have it good enough, we've already got CP, what more could i want?

An even better formulated and farther-reaching Civil Partnership? Something I support by the way. Just because you don't want the legal definition of marriage to change doesn't mean you want the 'gheys' put back in some box with no rights whatsoever. But no, it's easier to start throwing around the accusations of homophobia, the tired old clichés etc.

oryan28 wrote: »

Blllleuuuurrrgggggggggh. Thank you both for opening my eyes up.

LOL. So which was it, Westlife or Boyzone?

oryan28 wrote: »

I must go now, as I hear there's another gay bashing on George's street, I deserve a good kicking because I'm gay so I must jump in.

How did that go for you?

Kasabian

I still can't find anything that shows me how FG are going to go about implementing their 5 point plan.

Look forward to more of the same when the electorate are fooled into electing these clowns.

Monty Burnz

Kasabian wrote: »

I still can't find anything that shows me how FG are going to go about implementing their 5 point plan.

Look forward to more of the same when the electorate are fooled into electing these clowns.

Which clowns do you think we should vote for? The choice isn't great to be honest. You have the looney left who would turn us into a wet and cold combination of Argentina and Cuba, without the good-looking people. You have the Fianna Failure Peasant Party that got us into this disaster. And you have Labour and FG. Labour I like but they will not cut public service numbers or salaries and will tax the rest of us to the bone. FG couldn't get rid of Inda but seem likely to try to tackle the PS.

It's really a case of choose your poison.

Kasabian

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Which clowns do you think we should vote for? The choice isn't great to be honest. You have the looney left who would turn us into a wet and cold combination of Argentina and Cuba, without the good-looking people. You have the Fianna Failure Peasant Party that got us into this disaster. And you have Labour and FG. Labour I like but they will not cut public service numbers or salaries and will tax the rest of us to the bone. FG couldn't get rid of Inda but seem likely to try to tackle the PS.

It's really a case of choose your poison.

Your'e right it is a case of which clowns have a diluted poison that hopefully won't kill us all.

K-9

prinz wrote: »

I do for one. Your friend could be a great parent but studies would show that kids in two-parent home families fare better generally. Again good cases make bad laws, should the State say that single parent homes are just as good as two-parent homes when all the evidence points to the contrary?

It shouldn't because it's a massive generalisation. As you said yourself earlier, a one parent family or a separated family can be better than a 2 parent one. It depends on the individual case.

Ideally all families would have 2 parents, as we all know things don't work like.

prinz

K-9 wrote: »

It shouldn't because it's a massive generalisation. As you said yourself earlier, a one parent family or a separated family can be better than a 2 parent one. It depends on the individual case..

Well as I said there are always exceptions and good cases make bad laws. Plenty of studies to show that kids do better in two parent homes generally speaking. Society tends not to operate based on every single individuals personal circumstances.

K-9 wrote: »

Ideally all families would have 2 parents, as we all know things don't work like.

What's wrong with the State keeping that ideal?

steddyeddy

Thats were he lost me "Mr Kenny said he supported animal welfare but not issues being pursued by animal rights”.

K-9

prinz wrote: »

Well as I said there are always exceptions and good cases make bad laws. Plenty of studies to show that kids do better in two parent homes generally speaking. Society tends not to operate based on every single individuals personal circumstances.



What's wrong with the State keeping that ideal?

Of the reason two parent families do better is pure economics and one income.

The ideal is pretty stupid seeing as we have divorce. It is stuck back in DeV's Ireland, a throwback to the days of no divorce.

Society has moved on, if you go to any class in the country right now, chances are half of the children will be from a single parent or separated family.

Get with the times.

drdeadlift

well is he a cross dresser or not?

prinz

K-9 wrote: »

Of the reason two parent families do better is pure economics and one income..

One of the reasons. Plenty more.

K-9 wrote: »

The ideal is pretty stupid seeing as we have divorce. It is stuck back in DeV's Ireland, a throwback to the days of no divorce...

That's pretty sad tbh. You might as well scrap the ideal of state education and healthcare because there are private schools and hospitals and insurance. Divorce has no bearing on it whatsoever.

K-9 wrote: »

Society has moved on, if you go to any class in the country right now, chances are half of the children will be from a single parent or separated family. Get with the times.

That's great. It still has no bearing on anything. If half the children lived in poverty should the state stop trying to improve that. If half were obese do we stop supporting healthy eating and lifestyles? Just because something is more common doesn't mean it's any better.

K-9

prinz wrote: »

One of the reasons. Plenty more.

Yes, a major factor though.[/quote]

prinz wrote:

That's pretty sad tbh. You might as well scrap the ideal of state education and healthcare because there are private schools and hospitals and insurance. Divorce has no bearing on it whatsoever.

Not comparable at all. They are political philosophies, this is basic human rights. Divorce has a bearing on it as it legally recognises that 2 parent families don't always work.

prinz wrote:

That's great. It still has no bearing on anything. If half the children lived in poverty should the state stop trying to improve that. If half were obese do we stop supporting healthy eating and lifestyles? Just because something is more common doesn't mean it's any better.

The state already gives tax benefits etc. to encourage marriage, hell it even provides state marriages if so desired. It already supports and encourages it. You'd swear it didn't care and 2 parent families were oppressed.

Anyway, you see marriage as an ideal, but want to exclude homosexual couples, so it's a selective ideal. It's like a religion, you'll ignore the points raised.

prinz

K-9 wrote: »

Not comparable at all. They are political philosophies, this is basic human rights. Divorce has a bearing on it as it legally recognises that 2 parent families don't always work..

It is a social philosphy.

K-9 wrote: »

Anyway, you see marriage as an ideal, but want to exclude homosexual couples, so it's a selective ideal. It's like a religion, you'll ignore the points
raised.

Yes I do see it as an ideal and I admire that it is reflected in our Constitution. I have no problem with other issues being dealt with via an improved civil partnership act.

AskMyChocolate

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What I don't understand, as someone who is in favour of SSM, is that this has only become an issue in the week before the election. Why have we not been talking about this for the past year?

And I hope and trust it will not die down after the election, or it will just look like some sort of stunt to embarrass FG. The law will be changed if enough people put pressure on the government - the Catholic church does not run things around here anymore.

Except for unimportant things like Health and Education.

Monty Burnz

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

Except for unimportant things like Health and Education.

Exactly - why do they still have control of so many schools, for example, when they have basically lost the support of the people?

K-9

prinz wrote: »

It is a social philosphy.



Yes I do see it as an ideal and I admire that it is reflected in our Constitution. I have no problem with other issues being dealt with via an improved civil partnership act.

Social? I don't know. Even libertarians recognise there should be a health and education system, they just disagree on how it's funded.

So you want to exclude homosexual couples from that Constitutional right. You seem to be focussing on 2 parent families, they will be 2 parent families too.

prinz

K-9 wrote: »

So you want to exclude homosexual couples from that Constitutional right..

It's not a Constitutional "right".

K-9 wrote: »

You seem to be focussing on 2 parent families, they will be 2 parent families too.

When two homosexuals can biological concieve and have their own children that would be a new issue. Until that time you are talking about balancing the rights of 3 people. As far as adoption and fostering goes the Civil Partnership is really lacking when it comes to joint guardianship provisions. That should be corrected. There need not be any major difference between the institutions of marriage and civil partnership, however an attempt to combine the two or amend the institution of marriage would affect the constitutional article which I think is a good article, and I don't think that should be amended or left out altogether for the sake of using a word.

AskMyChocolate

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Exactly - why do they still have control of so many schools, for example, when they have basically lost the support of the people?

I have no idea. You tell me. I would imagine it has a lot to do with their historical cosy relationship with Leinster House and the two main parties in particular. They also still have a large amount of influence with the older generation who always vote in large numbers compared with the younger generation. The director of my local mental health service is a "Brother" in a religious order. He's not fit to work in a kennel never mind be left in charge of looking after the welfare of one of the most vulnerable groups in our society. I brought this matter up with both Mary Harney and James Reilly. Mary Harney advised me she doesn't concern herself with the provision of healthcare in this country and to take the matter up with the HSE. Dr. James Reilly didn't lower himself to bothering to reply to my communication at all.

K-9

prinz wrote: »

It's not a Constitutional "right".

Recognition then for the pedantic!

prinz wrote:

When two homosexuals can biological concieve and have their own children that would be a new issue. Until that time you are talking about balancing the rights of 3 people. As far as adoption and fostering goes the Civil Partnership is really lacking when it comes to joint guardianship provisions. That should be corrected. There need not be any major difference between the institutions of marriage and civil partnership, however an attempt to combine the two or amend the institution of marriage would affect the constitutional article which I think is a good article, and I don't think that should be amended or left out altogether for the sake of using a word.

Oh there are deficiencies in the Partnership bill, guardianship being one.

Then that goes back to the couples who can't conceive. They can adopt.

I don't see this as an attempt to amend marriage recognition at all, just giving same sex couples the opportunity to avail of it. In many ways it's a recognition of the importance of marriage as it is seen as a basic right.