Would you support the legilisation of gay marrige in Ireland?

Chillwithcian

Considering that even catholic spain has legalised it, i strongly feel that ireland should come out of the dark ages and into a new era of multiculturisim.

snappieT

Well, marriage may be overkill, but civil partnerships definately. For the legal reasons mostly.

Stark

Well you're posting in the LGB forum so expect a strong bias towards yes and an answer that's not representative of Ireland as a hole*.

* no I didn't forget the w

Annasopra

snappieT wrote:

Well, marriage may be overkill, but civil partnerships definately. For the legal reasons mostly.

Why would marriage be an overkill? Why is it mostly for legal reasons that civil partnerships should be bought in?

Boston

no I'm against gay marriage on the grounds that gay people arn't people... Their little balls of string that go Bounch, bounch bouching through the woods.


Anyway, Johnnymcg, I agree with snappie's sentament. Civil partnership would/could remove all the practical problems gay couples face as a result of not being married. I guess it all about how you look at it. Civil partnership is much more achievable then gay marriage, but political groups are afraid to put for it for fear of being told "Thats all you get".

Chillwithcian

LiouVille wrote:

no I'm against gay marriage on the grounds that gay people arn't people... Their little balls of string that go Bounch, bounch bouching through the woods.


Anyway, Johnnymcg, I agree with snappie's sentament. Civil partnership would/could remove all the practical problems gay couples face as a result of not being married. I guess it all about how you look at it. Civil partnership is much more achievable then gay marriage, but political groups are afraid to put for it for fear of being told "Thats all you get".

Your second paragraph has a point but for the first :mad:

Syth

Twas the muslim fanatics that brought in gay marraige in Spain. The right wingers were in support of the US's war. Days before the election there's a terrorist attack and opinion swings to the left wing anti-war (and pro-gay marraige) party.

Stark

Chillwithcian wrote:

Your second paragraph has a point but for the first :mad:

He may have been employing sarcasm. Just letting you know in case you ever encounter it again on the Net.

That's assuming he's not an irrational bigot who actually believes that gay people are little balls of string that go bouncing through the woods of course.

Chillwithcian

Stark wrote:

He may have been employing sarcasm. Just letting you know in case you ever encounter it again on the Net.

That's assuming he's not an irrational bigot who actually believes that gay people are little balls of string that go bouncing through the woods of course.

I am aware what scarcasm is and that praticular joke wasn't funny :cool:

UU

Actually there's a gay marriage debate being held on Thursday 26 October 7:30 with the Phil Soc in Trinity College Dublin. Here's what it says:

This House Believes That Gay Marriage Will Do Ireland No Harm

Thursday 26th October 7:30

Senator David Norris - Senator and gay rights campaigner
Brian Merriman - Director of the Dublin Gay Theatre Festival
Gerard Casey - Christian Solidarity Party

I'm not sure if this debate is open to the public or just to trinners but I'll find out for you.

abetarrush

It doesnt bother me if its legal or not, But if it was legal, i can see loads of couples just runnin and gettin married, just cause they can

Boston

abetarrush wrote:

It doesnt bother me if its legal or not, But if it was legal, i can see loads of couples just runnin and gettin married, just cause they can

1) what do you base that on? It hasn't happened in other countries.

2) Whats wrong with it if it does happen

3) It's long and difficult to divorce someone in this country, I think that alone would put allot of people off marriage for the craic.

Sangre

Legally a civl partnership is what they should be pushing for. There is so much legalese based around a male/female/church partnership in marriage that to change would need some serious legal thought.

So, yes to gay unions (for now).
Unsure about adoption though...(although not really pertinent to topic at hand but it is 'the' next step)

abetarrush

abetarrush wrote:

It doesnt bother me if its legal or not, But if it was legal, i can see loads of couples just runnin and gettin married, just cause they can

I can see loads of couples wanting to get married since they have been wanting to do so for years and haven't been able to.

Boston

Sangre wrote:

So, yes to gay unions (for now).
Unsure about adoption though...(although not really pertinent to topic at hand but it is 'the' next step)

Not to get side tracked, but gay people can adopt. Just not as a couple.

Sangre

You can adopt as a single parent?

(my original post was referring into context of legal union)

Boston

Sangre wrote:

You can adopt as a single parent?

Yes. I don't know the in's and outs of it, but single parents can adopt (it makes sense when you think about it) and sexuality isn't a criteria taken into account.

I persume when civil partnership comes it, there will be allot more homosexuals adopting.

Sangre

I assume they're way down the list of preferences. Hard enough to adopt as a couple in Ireland, assume its a nightmare of a single parent.

Annasopra

LiouVille wrote:

I persume when civil partnership comes it, there will be allot more homosexuals adopting.

You're presuming that the proposed civil partnership legislation would give Civil Patnered Couples the right to apply to adopt jointly.

Currently only married couples can adopt jointly.

Annasopra

Ok I think I should address a few points here

LiouVille wrote:

Civil partnership would/could remove all the practical problems gay couples face as a result of not being married. I guess it all about how you look at it. Civil partnership is much more achievable then gay marriage, but political groups are afraid to put for it for fear of being told "Thats all you get".

I agree Civil Partnership (UK style) could/would remove all the practical problems same sex couples face.

However there is a very real danger that Civil Partnership Legislation (French and German style) could only amend some laws (for example on finance).

I am purely looking it from a point of equality. If you look at it from that viewpoint - Civil Partnership is institutionalising inequality. It is in effect saying that same sex couples are inherently not deserving of the right to marry.

To quote the Court of Massachusetts

“A civil union is not the same as civil marriage, just as the United Kingdom’s granting the vote to women in 1918, but only at the age of 30, was not the same as the existing right of men to vote at the age of 21.”

It should also be pointed out that if Civil Partnership is enacted in Ireland it will almost certainly not have the same constitutional protections as marriage.

We have seen how this government treat LGBT equality - reversing an equality tribunal ruling to take a bus pass off an old man. Refusing to recognise to in any way transsexuals (Albania being as far as I know the only other country in Europe to do so)

You say that "political groups are afraid to put for it for fear of being told "Thats all you get";"

I don't have a problem with that - tactically I think that is quite a good move. If already you accept that marriage is not realistic - you are already conceding and lowering the goal of what you really want. Therefore if you are lowering the goals - those negotiating can see that you are willing to do so and can probably bargain you down to much less than you actually want. There is also the fear that if civil partnership is enacted then "same sex marriage" will take a very long time to come in

You say that "Civil partnership is much more achievable then gay marriage"

Yes it is more achievable but then you are automatically accepting all the barriers and arguments of same sex marriage that are put in place

*That it might be unconstitutional - there is no definition of Marriage in the Irish Constitution and the meaning of marriage has already changed since 1937- We now have divorce - is this not an "attack" on marriage
*That the Church will oppose it. The Church opposed it in Spain. We now have divorce which the Church opposed.

Sangre wrote:

There is so much legalese based around a male/female/church partnership in marriage that to change would need some serious legal thought

I think that the Church should be taken out of this argument. We are essetially talking about Civil Marriage

Shellie13

I dont think you can leave out the issue of adoption when discussing gay marrraige surely if equality is being sought well the couple should have the rights of a hetrosexualmarrieed couple including the right to adopt kids... And indeed to adopt each others kids etc from previous relationships!
People seem to have really mixed feeling on this- is it good for the children etc?! Anyone know of any kids with homosexual parents?! Any good/bad anectdotes?!

Personally i feel civial parnership is bull**** and just gives the conservatives an air of security that the "queers" arent invading "their" world of marraige!

bluto63

I think gay couples should be allowed marry. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed.

UU

Yes I want civil marriage for gay people. Although, civil partnerships might be a stepping stone towards getting civil marriage. That is how it is in Sweden. Currently the Swedish government are endeavouring to bring in full marriage for gay couples too with the exact same rights as married straight couples. Sweden already has civil partnerships since the 1980s.

danindublin

UU wrote:

Yes I want civil marriage for gay people. Although, civil partnerships might be a stepping stone towards getting civil marriage. That is how it is in Sweden. Currently the Swedish government are endeavouring to bring in full marriage for gay couples too with the exact same rights as married straight couples. Sweden already has civil partnerships since the 1980s.

I think its only a matter of time before the government caves and we get some form of restrictive 'civil union' but nothing close to marriage. I think as citizens of this country we are all entitled to love who we want without the need for the state to tell us how and when we should express this love. The issue of marriage has come bogged down by finance and entitlements but I think this is a civil liberties issue.

It is ridiculous to think that in today’s society we stand for this type of blatant discrimination but so many of us choose to believe that someone else will speak up for us and that when the day comes for us to make the decision to get married or not that the option will simply just be there!

I am not on some crusade for gay people to receive 'extra' entitlements, I am merely asking to have the same entitlements and respect that is offered to ever straight person in this country! Surely no matter what your personal opinions are on sexual orientation, you can appreciate the concept of love and give it recognition. In essence, we are allowing the government to say that the love between a man and a woman is more significant that that of love between two women or two men!

I have to give 110% support to those who have fought and continue to fight for this recognition of us as people in this country because whether the state likes it or not we are here to stay and this is not an issue which is simply going to vanish!

D

Yoda

Once again, this discussion suffers from a woeful lack of attention to language.

What Ireland needs is a separation of the two functions here, in the same way that Mexico has it. In Mexico, a couple must have a civil marriage, before a justice of the peace, in advance of the ecclesiastical church wedding. There are two kinds of marriage: one is a legal arrangement made between two people and the State, and the other is an optional benedicition by a particular social group.

It is weaselly to insist on a distinction between "civil partnership" and "marriage", because functionally (as defined in the arguments about the Irish situation) the former contains a contract between two people and the State, and the latter contains both a contract between two people and the State and a benediction from a particular social group.

It is true that at present a particular social group refuses to bless same-sex unions. But this is not a reason for the State to discriminate against same sex couples by denying them a contract which grants them rights and responsibilities with regard to each other and the State. The State has no grounds to discriminate.

What is required is a decoupling of civil marriage from ecclesiastical blessings. That is to say, civil marriage (which is the SAME THING as civil partnership) should be available to Irish citizens regardless of sex, and ecclesiastical blessings should not be legally binding. (Obviously that distinction would obtain from a particular date of enactment of legislation and would not nullify existing marriages.)

Doesn't this make sense?

Goodshape

Yoda wrote:

Doesn't this make sense?

Absolutely it does.

Annasopra

civil marriage (which is the SAME THING as civil partnership)

I disagree.

Civil Partnership is a distinctly separate institution which in some cases is afforded to same sex couples only and in some cases to Opposite Sex couples (this means that Couples in those countries can choose to marry or register their partnership). So in effect opposite sex couples (in those countries) can choose either marriage or civil partnership and they make their choice based on the difference.

I think to distinguish the difference we need to understand that in many countries Civil Partnership would be relatively similar to Marriage but in other countries Civil Partnerhip would be quite different.

In European countries that Civil Partnership (or similar) Legislation can be divided into 2 broad categories -those where the legislation is very similar to marriage e.g. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Iceland, Finland, UK and those where the legislation would differ quite a bit more such as France and Germany. (an academic discussion labels them as Semi Marriage and Quasi Marriage)

It should also be pointed out that if Civil Partnership is enacted in Ireland it will not have the same constitutional recognition or protections as marriage. (unless we change the current Constitution)

Obviously we do not know what the proposals coming from the Colley committee will be and we will have to wait and see but there is an inherent danger that they would be similar to France and Germany - not equality but a lesser form of partnership.

ANXIOUS

is that the best place for a pole like that, i hope no one takes that as an anywhere near real out-come of a referendum.