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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Why not "Same Sex Marriage" ?

2»

Comments

  • #52
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    And yet some very important inequalities remain. For example, Civil Partnership:

    1-does not permit children to have a legally recognised relationship with their parents - only the biological one. This causes all sorts of practical problems for hundreds of families with schools and hospitals as well as around guardianship, access and custody. In the worst case, it could mean that a child is taken away from a parent and put into care on the death of the biological parent.


    http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/mythbusters.html#X-201106301525050

    I have a question on this. If these rights are to be deferred to the non-related partner

    what is the order of rights?


  • #53
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,104 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Well you do want a Same Sex Marriage I think?

    So what is the problem in calling a spade a spade, while recognising it as distinct and equal to my shovel?

    No just a marriage.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #54
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,104 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    wisejohn wrote: »
    the intervention of mary mcaleese in the marriage referendum is to be abhorred she should mind her own business, by all means support her son, but refrain from using her former position to influence other people. the taxpayer provides her with a substantial pension, she should confine herself to her academic pursuits.

    She is absolutely entitled to express an opinion

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #55
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,104 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Iona and the religious make their own choices and live with the consequences. The religions have lost lots of support...

    Here I am talking about LGBT choices and whether these are the best choices for this group in the long run?

    A yes vote in the referendum shall not be the end of it.
    Every law or court case to do with marriage/family/children shall become a mini rerun of the referendum, and all the disharmony it produces.

    I am a live and let live type of person - I have no need to interact with the gay community or vise-versa and that's fine for both I think.

    But this referendum has encroached "legally" on my marriage, and I would much prefer if we could remain totally separate - opposite sex marriage for me and same sex marriage for you - equal but legallty distinct entities.

    How is your marriage encroached on?

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



  • #56
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Why not "Same Sex Marriage" ?
    LGBT people want Same Sex Marriage, so why not have "Same Sex Marriage" in the Constitution, parallel and equivalent to man+woman marriage - say "Same Sex Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons of the same sex."
    Nothing wrong with civil marriage. (Yes, civil marriage, a legal contract).
    This referendum shall probably pass 60/40 say, but you have done immence damage to your own LGBT cause long term - by pissing off 40% of the public at least
    Are we all required to be shiny happy people for our straight overlords? The idea that we are put down to an inconvenience is outdated, hurtful, nonsensical. If 'pissing off' people is a consequence of creating a brighter and better Ireland where people no longer need that horrible burden of shame, vulnerability, and segregation, I think it is something that is worth it in the long run.
    90 to 95% of the people would support Same Sex Marriage in parallel to man+woman marriage. You would not have to worry about the baggage of 100 years of existing case law, and hetero's would not have to worry about the confusion of the legal melting of same and opposite sex.
    There's that 'appeasing the straight people' point. You don't speak for all heterosexuals at all.

    Could you imagine the mess we'd be in if divorce had required a 90% pass? Even then, that was a vote that affected the entire public. This is having to ask a majority who it won't affect. Do you realise how bad that is in the first place, to have to plead to people that we are not sex objects/molesters/incapable of love, commitment, parenting?
    LBGT leaders can still do something now. It's 11'th hour but still not too late.
    Do you want the current marriage referendum at any price, to the displeasure of over 40% of the people? OR do you want "Same Sex Marriage" with support of 90 to 95% of the people - your choice.

    Sorry, I don't need to appease a specific group of people to live my life thanks. Who I am and what I do, by and large, has absolutely no effect on those who are a bit uncomfortable because of two people holding hands, or, perish the thought, of them as sexual beings that are capable of being humans too.


  • #57
    ThinkProgress
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,634 ✭✭✭ThinkProgress


    bjork wrote: »
    And yet some very important inequalities remain. For example, Civil Partnership:

    1-does not permit children to have a legally recognised relationship with their parents - only the biological one. This causes all sorts of practical problems for hundreds of families with schools and hospitals as well as around guardianship, access and custody. In the worst case, it could mean that a child is taken away from a parent and put into care on the death of the biological parent.


    ^^^This kind of thing is why I never understand people who say "gay people already have civil partnerships - they don't need marriage"...

    It just doesn't make ANY sense, that you can give a gay couple the right to have children and expect them to create a loving, fully functioning family unit - but then deny them the same rights and protection as hetro families...!?

    When you consider this situation exists, and you agree it's wrong... you must work towards resolving that situation. It's obvious we could never keep the status quo - it was illogical at best.

    In fact, one could argue that no couple (gay or straight) should be permitted to start a family unless there was an environment where they were entitled to equal protection.

    Yet that's exactly what we do routinely with civil partnerships...


  • #58
    gk5000
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 859 ✭✭✭gk5000


    ThinkProgress wrote: »
    ^^^This kind of thing is why I never understand people who say "gay people already have civil partnerships - they don't need marriage"...

    It just doesn't make ANY sense, that you can give a gay couple the right to have children and expect them to create a loving, fully functioning family unit - but then deny them the same rights and protection as hetro families...!?

    When you consider this situation exists, and you agree it's wrong... you must work towards resolving that situation. It's obvious we could never keep the status quo - it was illogical at best.

    In fact, one could argue that no couple (gay or straight) should be permitted to start a family unless there was an environment where they were entitled to equal protection.

    Yet that's exactly what we do routinely with civil partnerships...
    Again... you want "Same Sex Marriage", so why not have "Same Sex Marriage" with the same constitutional protection as hetero but none of the baggage. Vote NO to send this back to the drawing board.


  • #59
    J_E
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,734 ✭✭✭J_E


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Again... you want "Same Sex Marriage", so why not have "Same Sex Marriage" with the same constitutional protection as hetero but none of the baggage. Vote NO to send this back to the drawing board.

    You want segregation, not fairness.


  • #60
    ThinkProgress
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,634 ✭✭✭ThinkProgress


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Again... you want "Same Sex Marriage", so why not have "Same Sex Marriage" with the same constitutional protection as hetero but none of the baggage. Vote NO to send this back to the drawing board.

    Because society (and adoption boards / child advocates / government) expect those gay couples with children to meet the same standards of care as hetro families... so why not make them the same in law and in social status?

    It's hypocritical to expect the same standards, but then not treat them same or view them the same. It's symbolic in many ways too. If you create a separate type of marriage, you are basically saying... "you're the same"... "but you're also not the same" lol

    We all know there are subtle differences between different types of couples... but those differences are not significant enough to warrant creating a completely separate entity such as you suggest! (otherwise we'd have to create dozens of separate marriage definitions to facilitate minor differences - not practical)

    And you clearly must know that the symbolic nature of these things is almost just as important as anything else! Opening up traditional marriage tells the lgbt community they are an important part of our society... we respect them and they're not excluded.

    Creating a separate entity is like moving side-ways instead of forward.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Aard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭Aard


    ThinkProgress wrote: »
    Creating a separate entity is like moving side-ways instead of forward.

    We must move forward, not backward; upward, not forward; and always twirling, twirling, twirling towards freedom!


  • #62
    Annasopra
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 41,104 ✭✭✭✭Annasopra


    gk5000 wrote: »
    Again... you want "Same Sex Marriage", so why not have "Same Sex Marriage" with the same constitutional protection as hetero but none of the baggage. Vote NO to send this back to the drawing board.

    No. We want marriage. And it's patronising and rude to tell us what we want.

    It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's fault. If it was us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us. I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Them. No one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us. It's Them that do the bad things.

    Terry Pratchet



Advertisement