What now for gay marriage

jill_valentine

I wouldn't say that democracy has failed exactly, but certainly I think it's reasonable to be hugely disillusioned with the version of it we've got.

walrusgumble

[Jackass] wrote: »

What is the current status of gay couple rights in Ireland?

I can't believe that this is still even an issue. Just hold a referendum ffs, I don't think there's a single person I know who would appose gay marriage. Let them suffer like the rest of us

Importantly though, gay couples should be afforded the same rights and protection of marriage that the rest of us can benefit from.

I would have thought we have a young enough population that the catholic church madness is no longer relevant in Ireland and we could have had this sorted by now.

Why are no politicians proposing putting this to a vote?

Why Politicians are doing nothing? Because Catholic Ireland has not died in areas of the country. THe type of areas that actually do vote. The type of areas that say their FF vote is on loan and simply waiting for FF to get their ****e into gear. (if there was any doubt, remember the blasphemy laws, see the looneys who followed that other looney from Ballyfermott - no not Joe Duffy - to knock claiming that he knew the secrets these are the same looneys that the Church themselves won't touch) Why would a politician get involved in such a debate when the are the money issues to be worried about.

I have absolutely no time for opinion polls, but, has there ever being an objective and "respectable/ reputable" poll ever done on this issue. If so when and who commissioned it?

a-ha

Here are some of the authorities in support of the proposition that Ireland already recognizes a constitutional right to marry - this is arguable inherent in Article 41 the whole tenor of which is to encourage people to marry (the 1930s were a time at which the Irish marriage rate was lower than many other countries, indeed the lowest it has been in the 20th century.

Hogan & Whyte, J.M. Kelly: The Irish Constitution 3rd ed, (Butterworths 1994) opine that one of the unenumerated rights found in Bunreacht na hÉireann 1937 is a right to marry. The authors aver that; “That the whole constellation of rights expressed or clearly implied by Articles 41 and 42 in the field of the family and the upbringing and education of children must, one would have thought, necessarily include a right to marry, since Article 41 specifically commits the State to guarding ‘with special care the institution of marriage [and protecting] it against attack”.

Ryan v. Attorney General [1965] IR 294. Justice Kenny mentioned the right to marry as an example of the personal rights latent in Article 40.3.

McGee v. Attorney General [1974] IR 284. Chief Justice FitzGerald (albeit in a dissenting judgment) located the right to marry in Article 40.3, as a right recognised in “most, if not all, civilized countries for many centuries”. The then Chief Justice suggested that the right had not been “conferred” by the Constitution, which suggests that the right to marry is an unenumerated constitutional right located within the unspecified personal rights of the citizen protected by Article 40.3.

Report of the Constitutional Review Group 1996 If, as recommended by the Review Group, Article 40.3.1° is amended to include a comprehensive list of rights, an express right to marry and to procreate or found a family should be guaranteed in Article 41. Such rights have been held by the courts to be personal rights guaranteed by Article 40.3.

a-ha

walrusgumble wrote: »

If you really care about your community, what ever you do, never ever ever make those views that you have quoted known outside the confines of this site. You would likely have single handly lost the campaign for them. Some would react madly , out of hand, and some will only be too happy to confirm what they rightly or wrongly already believed. At least your honest here.

Actually, the principle that the rights of a minority should not be put up to a vote is referred to as the tyranny of the majority - the simple fact that majorities can always vote away the rights of the minority. This is why one of the most important functions of the courts in a constitutional republic is to protect the fundamental rights of minorities.

Three questions for the court:

1. Is there a right to marry?
2. Does the recognition of same-sex marriages constitute "an unjust attack on the family" and on marriage per Article 41? (has any evidence been produced that it does?)
3. If not, then on what legitimate basis might the right to marry be denied on the basis of sex or sexual orientation?

a-ha

walrusgumble wrote: »

Why Politicians are doing nothing? Because Catholic Ireland has not died in areas of the country. THe type of areas that actually do vote. The type of areas that say their FF vote is on loan and simply waiting for FF to get their ****e into gear. (if there was any doubt, remember the blasphemy laws, see the looneys who followed that other looney from Ballyfermott - no not Joe Duffy - to knock claiming that he knew the secrets these are the same looneys that the Church themselves won't touch) Why would a politician get involved in such a debate when the are the money issues to be worried about.

I have absolutely no time for opinion polls, but, has there ever being an objective and "respectable/ reputable" poll ever done on this issue. If so when and who commissioned it?

The two I know of are the Red C Poll (73% in favor of allowing same-sex couples to marry) and the Irish Times poll which was similar - I think 68% or so...can't anyone provide a link for me (sorry rushing off to a meeting in five).

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Since 2008, public support for marriage equality has grown year on year, from 58 per cent in a 2008 Lansdowne poll, to 73 per cent in this year’s Red C poll (March 2011).

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/column-why-should-our-love-be-valued-less-than-anyone-else%E2%80%99s/

And figure put at 80% here
http://breakingnews.ie/ireland/?jp=CWIDGBEYCWOJ

walrusgumble

a-ha wrote: »

Actually, the principle that the rights of a minority should not be put up to a vote is referred to as the tyranny of the majority - the simple fact that majorities can always vote away the rights of the minority. This is why one of the most important functions of the courts in a constitutional republic is to protect the fundamental rights of minorities.

Three questions for the court:

1. Is there a right to marry?
2. Does the recognition of same-sex marriages constitute "an unjust attack on the family" and on marriage per Article 41? (has any evidence been produced that it does?)
3. If not, then on what legitimate basis might the right to marry be denied on the basis of sex or sexual orientation?

There is a right to abortion in other countries, yet, Ireland's majority recognize that bar a very limited exception, its banned. What happens for the minority who seek it in their country, but their life is not at risk - don't they run the risk of seeking assistance in some ****ty London Clinic?

The problem is first, that there might not actual be recognition of the right you seek. The right to marry, if the court follow the previous interpretation of the law is that the right to marry is a right only between a man and woman. THat was discussed in the High Court case of Zapponne.

Man v Woman, yes, I definitely see the argument that that definition can change. But, oddly or cleverly (whatever way one see's it) Dunne J looked at the jurisdiction of other states and noted there was little to support Zapprone

Unjust attack,god knows. you know damn well the "children" will come up. Somebody think of the Children. I can imagine Hardiman J getting all philosophical on how the world first viewed marriage. The Man and woman issue will come up. Bet you lot really wish that there was no mention of family in the Constitution, because all of this could have been solved by legislation, if their was political will. Somehow tax implications etc will come up. No doubt there would be a statement along the lines that , its self evident that the law says X,Y,Z and move on from that without much thought.

glic71rods46t0

So should the LGBT community adopt a strategy of positive political engagement to garner public support for their goals or continue a "noise" campaign - which strategy is more likely to bring success?

a-ha

One would hope the court would base it's decisions on evidence not assumption or prejudices about lesbian and parents.

To summarize what the worlds leading psychiatric and psychological associations have to say. Gay and lesbian people are just as capable as parents as heterosexual counterparts and their children do just as well. Gay people are no more likely to have gay children than straight people are.

a-ha

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

So should the LGBT community adopt a strategy of positive political engagement to garner public support for their goals or continue a "noise" campaign - which strategy is more likely to bring success?

The community can and should engage with the issue as often as possible, including the march for marriage and conversations with ordinary people, information campaigns and visibility. They also need to reach out to their elected representatives and where politicians fail to protect us, the courts.

a-ha

a-ha wrote: »

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

So should the LGBT community adopt a strategy of positive political engagement to garner public support for their goals or continue a "noise" campaign - which strategy is more likely to bring success?

The community can and should engage with the issue as often as possible, including the march for marriage and conversations with ordinary people, information campaigns and visibility. They also need to reach out to their elected representatives and where politicians fail to protect us, the courts.

The answer is simply that many strategies must be followed simultaneously, i.e marriage equality, glen, LGBT noise, TENI, LOOK etc.

woodoo

Would two men refer to each other as their husband?

Would two women refer to each other as their wife?

If so i'm against gay marriage. Civil partnership yes but Marriage no. Marriage is Husband and Wife imo.

efb

woodoo wrote: »

Would two men refer to each other as their husband?

Would two women refer to each other as their wife?

If so i'm against gay marriage. Civil partnership yes but Marriage no. Marriage is Husband and Wife imo.

well thats me convinced :rolleyes:

woodoo

efb wrote: »

well thats me convinced :rolleyes:

The sarcasm still doesn't answer the question though?

FreudianSlippers

woodoo wrote: »

The sarcasm still doesn't answer the question though?

Because it's a ridiculous question. I can call my girlfriend my parakeet if I want, what difference does it make?

jimmycrackcorm

efb wrote: »

well thats me convinced :rolleyes:

I think that the LGB lobby should be forthright is saying that they want to redefine marriage from its current heterosexual definition. Otherwise equal civil rights should be sufficient.

a-ha

woodoo wrote: »

Would two men refer to each other as their husband?

Would two women refer to each other as their wife?

If so i'm against gay marriage. Civil partnership yes but Marriage no. Marriage is Husband and Wife imo.

You are not seriously objecting to equality for lesbian and gay people on the basis of what married people call each other?

I've heard that some straight people use sweet, baby, snookums, pork chop etc but I'm not out to ban their marriages.

Dr Galen

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I think that the LGB lobby should be forthright is saying that they want to redefine marriage from its current heterosexual definition. Otherwise equal civil rights should be sufficient.

i thought thats what they were saying?

a-ha

Dr Galen wrote: »

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I think that the LGB lobby should be forthright is saying that they want to redefine marriage from its current heterosexual definition. Otherwise equal civil rights should be sufficient.

i thought thats what they were saying?

Lots of major dictionaries included same sex marriage years ago. Dictionaries describe the current not historical meaning of words.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2009/04/noah_webster_gives_his_blessing.html

woodoo

a-ha wrote: »

You are not seriously objecting to equality for lesbian and gay people on the basis of what married people call each other?

I've heard that some straight people use sweet, baby, snookums, pork chop etc but I'm not out to ban their marriages.

Is the term husband and wife not used in official documentation. Will they be pronounced husband and husband during the marriage ceremony.

glic71rods46t0

Dr Galen wrote: »

i thought thats what they were saying?

Not in a transparent manner. Many opinion polls which show majority support for gay marriage. Opinion polls also show that only a minority support gay parenting/adoption rights.

I believe the LGBT community need to engage transparently on the real issue.
As far as I can see there is ONE substantive difference between civil partnership and gay marriage and that is parenting/adoption rights.

I believe that the advocates of gay marriage would be better served by moving the debate onto the details rather than a broad concept which most people just understand to be a benign ceremony where everybody gets their day out. The moral authority of opinion polls is lost when teh debate is not transparent

marienbad

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

Not in a transparent manner. Many opinion polls which show majority support for gay marriage. Opinion polls also show that only a minority support gay parenting/adoption rights.

I believe the LGBT community need to engage transparently on the real issue.
As far as I can see there is ONE substantive difference between civil partnership and gay marriage and that is parenting/adoption rights.

I believe that the advocates of gay marriage would be better served by moving the debate onto the details rather than a broad concept which most people just understand to be a benign ceremony where everybody gets their day out. The moral authority of opinion polls is lost when teh debate is not transparent

so fencer, in calling for transparency, how about answering the questions I put to you in post 67

glic71rods46t0

marienbad wrote: »

so fencer, in calling for transparency, how about answering the questions I put to you in post 67

taken into care

marienbad

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

taken into care

So rather than stay with an adult with whom they have relationship you would have them taken into care just because that adult is gay ?

and how about my other question on children currently with gay partners ? Consistancy dictates that you should do something about that also , does it not, particularly where the ''straight'' parent is not involved ?


As aside do you have a problem with an openly gay person teaching in our schools ?

glic71rods46t0

marienbad wrote: »

So rather than stay with an adult with whom they have relationship you would have them taken into care just because that adult is gay ?

The gay partner is not a parent and no legal relationship exists, so yes, taken into care. Being gay is an ancillary issue although it could be the causative issue regarding the lack of legal relationship

marienbad wrote: »

and how about my other question on children currently with gay partners ?

Kids should only be parented by parents/adoptive/foster parents

marienbad wrote: »

As aside do you have a problem with an openly gay person teaching in our schools ?

No

a-ha

woodoo wrote: »

a-ha wrote: »

You are not seriously objecting to equality for lesbian and gay people on the basis of what married people call each other?

I've heard that some straight people use sweet, baby, snookums, pork chop etc but I'm not out to ban their marriages.

Is the term husband and wife not used in official documentation. Will they be pronounced husband and husband during the marriage ceremony.

Researching the answer on my phone. Here are the links you need.

http://www.groireland.ie/getting_married.htm

http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2004/a304.pdf

Dr Galen

Fencer, would that still apply if the remaining parent was straight?

glic71rods46t0

Dr Galen wrote: »

Fencer, would that still apply if the remaining parent was straight?

Clearly, if surviving person is the childs legal parent then there cannot be any issue at all. I suspect though you are referring to a surviving gay partner of the childs parent?

Dr Galen

No sorry, maybe i just wasn't clear.

Straight non-married couple. Technically the biological father has no rights to the child. Mother dies. What should happen to the child?

walrusgumble

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Because it's a ridiculous question. I can call my girlfriend my parakeet if I want, what difference does it make?

a night in the spare room?

glic71rods46t0

Dr Galen wrote: »

No sorry, maybe i just wasn't clear.

Straight non-married couple. Technically the biological father has no rights to the child. Mother dies. What should happen to the child?

Sorry, you actually were clear but I honestly thought you werent asking that question.
My answer is that the child should remain with the biological father - presuming he wants the child. I dont believe that the state objects to this?

a-ha

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

Dr Galen wrote: »

i thought thats what they were saying?

Not in a transparent manner. Many opinion polls which show majority support for gay marriage. Opinion polls also show that only a minority support gay parenting/adoption rights.

I believe the LGBT community need to engage transparently on the real issue.
As far as I can see there is ONE substantive difference between civil partnership and gay marriage and that is parenting/adoption rights.

I believe that the advocates of gay marriage would be better served by moving the debate onto the details rather than a broad concept which most people just understand to be a benign ceremony where everybody gets their day out. The moral authority of opinion polls is lost when teh debate is not transparent

169 statutory inequalities have been found already. Civil partnerships are a second class status because that is what they were designed to be. They are unique and are not even recognized in other countries which provide for recognition of same sex relationships like Spain (civil marriage) or France (PACS) a married couple are married everywhere civil partners are not and lose every attendant benefit once they cross a border.

CPs are not recognized as each others' family. They have a shared home not a family home. The differences affect everything from immigration to farming grants.

Please read the missing pieces report before commenting further. Civil partnership does not confer equal rights on adults who are lesbian and gay when compared to childless straight couples who are even protected and recognized by our constitution as a family while civil partners are not - no constitutional rights.

Plus as an entirely new institution the entire corpus of the common law and rights therein is probably inapplicable to them.

Finally, they have no social meaning. Lesbians and gays were raised with the expectation from childhood onwards that they too would get married someday. It is a basic rite of passage for many people.

http://www.marriagequality.ie/download/pdf/missing_pieces.pdf

glic71rods46t0

a-ha wrote: »

169 statutory inequalities have been found already. Civil partnerships are a second class status because that is what they were designed to be. They are unique and are not even recognized in other countries which provide for recognition of same sex relationships like Spain (civil marriage) or France (PACS) a married couple are married everywhere civil partners are not and lose every attendant benefit once they cross a border.

CPs are not recognized as each others' family. They have a shared home not a family home. The differences affect everything from immigration to farming grants.

Please read the missing pieces report before commenting further. Civil partnership does not confer equal rights on adults who are lesbian and gay when compared to childless straight couples who are even protected and recognized by our constitution as a family while civil partners are not - no constitutional rights.

http://www.marriagequality.ie/download/pdf/missing_pieces.pdf

Yes a lot of these issues are "family" issues. The changes would require a change to the definition of family - the consequences of which go all the way to parenting/adoption rights... futher than the political system is willing to go

a-ha

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

a-ha wrote: »

169 statutory inequalities have been found already. Civil partnerships are a second class status because that is what they were designed to be. They are unique and are not even recognized in other countries which provide for recognition of same sex relationships like Spain (civil marriage) or France (PACS) a married couple are married everywhere civil partners are not and lose every attendant benefit once they cross a border.

CPs are not recognized as each others' family. They have a shared home not a family home. The differences affect everything from immigration to farming grants.

Please read the missing pieces report before commenting further. Civil partnership does not confer equal rights on adults who are lesbian and gay when compared to childless straight couples who are even protected and recognized by our constitution as a family while civil partners are not - no constitutional rights.

http://www.marriagequality.ie/download/pdf/missing_pieces.pdf

Yes a lot of these issues are "family" issues. The changes would require a change to the definition of family - the consequences of which go all the way to parenting/adoption rights... futher than the political system is willing to go

Did you read the whole report in a matter of seconds. You must be a genius.

That or uninterested in spouting more than conjecture.

walrusgumble

Dr Galen wrote: »

No sorry, maybe i just wasn't clear.

Straight non-married couple. Technically the biological father has no rights to the child. Mother dies. What should happen to the child?

in such drastic measures,without need to look to art 41, and just the legislation, take child's interest into account and intervene so child's not put into care?what about other family members, who are in the same constitutional limbo like unmarried father? wonder would the the relancy of god parents crop up? (hardly against capable father)

marienbad

Fencer what if you had a child living with a couple when one of that couple was not the biological parent of the child, the biological parent dies . In that scenario would you have the child taken into care rather than stay with the surviving ''straight'' adult ?

glic71rods46t0

a-ha wrote: »

Did you read the whole report in a matter of seconds. You must be a genius.

That or uninterested in spouting more than conjecture.

Genius works for me.:D That or maybe I read it before, take your pick;)

glic71rods46t0

marienbad wrote: »

Fencer what if you had a child living with a couple when one of that couple was not the biological parent of the child, the biological parent dies . In that scenario would you have the child taken into care rather than stay with the surviving ''straight'' adult ?

If the surviving adult is not the parent/adoptive parent or foster parent then yes, taken into care or hopefully given to blood relations willing to take the child on.

Can we quit the rapid fire question round or my views and stick to the topic at hand

marienbad

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

If the surviving adult is not the parent/adoptive parent or foster parent then yes, taken into care or hopefully given to blood relations willing to take the child on.

Can we quit the rapid fire question round or my views and stick to the topic at hand

Just trying to establish where you are coming from fencer, it is you who called for transparency, remember.

glic71rods46t0

marienbad wrote: »

Just trying to establish where you are coming from fencer, it is you who called for transparency, remember.

Yes, transparency on the debate not my inner thoughts forensically examined - keep it real, cheers!

walrusgumble

marienbad wrote: »

Fencer what if you had a child living with a couple when one of that couple was not the biological parent of the child, the biological parent dies . In that scenario would you have the child taken into care rather than stay with the surviving ''straight'' adult ?

where is the other biological parent? have a look at the supreme court decision of McD v L 2010 for some idea.it won't answer the question ultimately,but gives an idea of some sort of right (access) to the other parent. if non biologicial, would they easily get guardians if non married father objected? or adoption?

a-ha

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

marienbad wrote: »

so fencer, in calling for transparency, how about answering the questions I put to you in post 67

taken into care

Here again prejudice which is not based on any real evidence.

The following psychological associations have looked at the issue of same sex parenting and at numerous peer reviewed studies from top universities going back 20 years and involving hundreds of children and concluded that the children of same sex couples do just as well and endorsed same sex parenting these are:

1. American Academy of Pediatrics
2. American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
3. Canadian Psychological Association
4. Australian Psychological Society
5. American Psychiatric Association,
6. American Psychological Association
7. National Association of Social Workers

 The evidence and scientific evidence is so overwhelming that in 2010 in legalizing adoption by same sex couples the Florida District Court of Appeals held
 
• The issue of gay adoption is so far beyond scientific dispute that it would be irrational to hold otherwise.
• The best interests of children are not preserved by prohibiting gay adoption.

Finally, in an amicus brief submitted to Federal court in California the American Psychological Association, American Pychiatric Association and National Association of Social Workers concluded that the children of gay parents would benefit if their parents could marry.

marienbad

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

Yes, transparency on the debate not my inner thoughts forensically examined - keep it real, cheers!

I am keeping it real- it is the inner thoughts that show the motives cheers for transparency on all sides

jimmycrackcorm

Dr Galen wrote: »

i thought thats what they were saying?

No, they aren't. They are saying that they want to be able to be "married", not that they want being married to mean something other than between a man and a woman. The crux is getting people to accept what this means. It's peoples normal defination of what being married is they really want to change. No point changing the law until this changes.

walrusgumble

a-ha, fencer has only given you an idea of what the likely/plausible LEGAL position would be not his own opinion.getting all emotive for no justified reason and making potentially incorrect assumptions ain't going to endear opponents outside this site.

a-ha

walrusgumble wrote: »

a-ha, fencer has only given you an idea of what the likely/plausible LEGAL position would be not his own opinion.getting all emotive for no justified reason and making potentially incorrect assumptions ain't going to endear opponents outside this site.

My sincerest apologies. My tired mind thought he was actually arguing that a child should be taken into care if it's biological parent dies.

The legal position is that your partner (or for me read wife:-) cannot become your child's legal parent (guardian) while you are still alive.

You should make them a testamentary guardian by will to protect your child and partner in the event of your death.

Adoption by the surviving partner as an individual would be the only option open to them otherwise and is fraught with difficulty, ie. your next of kin might simply take the child away leaving your partner with an impossible court battle in which they'd have no legal rights to their son or daughter whatsoever.

oisindoyle

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

Not in a transparent manner. Many opinion polls which show majority support for gay marriage. Opinion polls also show that only a minority support gay parenting/adoption rights.

I believe the LGBT community need to engage transparently on the real issue.
As far as I can see there is ONE substantive difference between civil partnership and gay marriage and that is parenting/adoption rights.

I believe that the advocates of gay marriage would be better served by moving the debate onto the details rather than a broad concept which most people just understand to be a benign ceremony where everybody gets their day out. The moral authority of opinion polls is lost when teh debate is not transparent

As i said to you in another post,.There are 169 differences between Civil Partnership and civil marriage (its not gay marriage)I even sent you the link which you obviously didnt read or disregarded.However I will send it again ,then perhaps you will see that its not about parenting adopting rights.
Perhaps if you have a look at the link and click on "missing pieces " it will enlighten your narrow mindedness.
http://marriageequality.ie/

When is comes to marriage equality as this thread is about (although it has desended into a are gay people suitable to adopt children thread.)Opponnents og marriage equality always try and muddy the water by bring the issue of gay people adopting children .
Whilst it is an important issue it should not be used as a means to oppose EQUALITY.
Many gay couples do not want to adopt ,but some do ..
The daft situation at thye moment is a single gay man can adopt a child ,but a gay couple cannot!!

a-ha

oisindoyle wrote: »

nuxlrzqspd76ca wrote: »

Not in a transparent manner. Many opinion polls which show majority support for gay marriage. Opinion polls also show that only a minority support gay parenting/adoption rights.

I believe the LGBT community need to engage transparently on the real issue.
As far as I can see there is ONE substantive difference between civil partnership and gay marriage and that is parenting/adoption rights.

I believe that the advocates of gay marriage would be better served by moving the debate onto the details rather than a broad concept which most people just understand to be a benign ceremony where everybody gets their day out. The moral authority of opinion polls is lost when teh debate is not transparent

As i said to you in another post,.There are 169 differences between Civil Partnership and civil marriage (its not gay marriage)I even sent you the link which you obviously didnt read or disregarded.However I will send it again ,then perhaps you will see that its not about parenting adopting rights.
Perhaps if you have a look at the link and click on "missing pieces " it will enlighten your narrow mindedness.
http://marriageequality.ie/

When is comes to marriage equality as this thread is about (although it has desended into a are gay people suitable to adopt children thread.)Opponnents og marriage equality always try and muddy the water by bring the issue of gay people adopting children .
Whilst it is an important issue it should not be used as a means to oppose EQUALITY.
Many gay couples do not want to adopt ,but some do ..
The daft situation at thye moment is a single gay man can adopt a child ,but a gay couple cannot!!

The allegation re transparency is unfounded for another simple reason. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO ADOPT.

Lesbians and gays want to marry for the same reasons you do. The grew up expected they might one day do so an are denied this right purely because of their sexual orientation and for no other reason. Marriage is the way in which the one you love becomes a part of your family and you become a part of theirs. Ithad social meaning.

The second reason why same sex marriage and parenting are not necessarily linked to a right to marry or desire to do so is that straight couples can marry EVEN IF THEY DON'T want to HAVE CHILDREN or can't do so be they old, infertile or simply uninterested on having any children. No do marriages simply dissolve when children are reared and fly the nest.

The third is simply that marriage equality will not remedy the difficulties encountered by the social (non-genetic parent) in a same sex relationship any more than marriage does for straight step parents becasuse there is NO provision for STEP PARENT ADOPTION in Irish law.

But even if the argument was about parenting we would win it if decisions were made based on the international scientific consensus and not on prejudice about lesbians and gays.

walrusgumble

oisindoyle wrote: »

As i said to you in another post,.There are 169 differences between Civil Partnership and civil marriage (its not gay marriage)I even sent you the link which you obviously didnt read or disregarded.However I will send it again ,then perhaps you will see that its not about parenting adopting rights.
Perhaps if you have a look at the link and click on "missing pieces " it will enlighten your narrow mindedness.
http://marriageequality.ie/

When is comes to marriage equality as this thread is about (although it has desended into a are gay people suitable to adopt children thread.)Opponnents og marriage equality always try and muddy the water by bring the issue of gay people adopting children .
Whilst it is an important issue it should not be used as a means to oppose EQUALITY.
Many gay couples do not want to adopt ,but some do ..
The daft situation at thye moment is a single gay man can adopt a child ,but a gay couple cannot!!

The fact that "some" do, justifies evoking arguments on adoption,in opponents eyes then. If your looking for equality you can't distinguish the types of gay relationships then.? The reason for the opposition is because, once such a couple is allowed to "marry", more rights, such as right to adoption, shall be conceded, later, when the same groups again, go seeking for this.

How many straight men actually succeed in adoption cases?

walrusgumble

a-ha wrote: »

The allegation re transparency is unfounded for another simple reason. THERE IS NO RIGHT TO ADOPT.

Lesbians and gays want to marry for the same reasons you do. The grew up expected they might one day do so an are denied this right purely because of their sexual orientation and for no other reason. Marriage is the way in which the one you love becomes a part of your family and you become a part of theirs. Ithad social meaning.

The second reason why same sex marriage and parenting are not necessarily linked to a right to marry or desire to do so is that straight couples can marry EVEN IF THEY DON'T want to HAVE CHILDREN or can't do so be they old, infertile or simply uninterested on having any children. No do marriages simply dissolve when children are reared and fly the nest.

The third is simply that marriage equality will not remedy the difficulties encountered by the social (non-genetic parent) in a same sex relationship any more than marriage does for straight step parents becasuse there is NO provision for STEP PARENT ADOPTION in Irish law.

But even if the argument was about parenting we would win it if decisions were made based on the international scientific consensus and not on prejudice about lesbians and gays.

International Scientific consensus is not how our laws are based (in court). Similar arguments were used in the High Court case of Zapponne, to justify how attitudes to what marriage meant had changed. It was shown that laws around the world and even ECtHR said no.

What happens where the other biological but non married parent is around, and the other parent,who is gay dies? Your saying that the non biological gay partner's rights should take priority over the rights of the surviving biological parent?

The stuff has to be argued in Westminster House. With Alan Shatter in as Justice Minister, now is the best time to try