Gay marriage

Craebear

Now c'mon lads. We can't be legalising stuff like this because it might hurt the feelings of some Catholics.

CDfm

crayolastereo wrote: »

What you really should be aware of is no-one in the gay community really wanted civil partnership. We wanted marriage and we got some other **** we should never have agreed with and I think the part that affected straight people was very unfair. The entire bill was a shambles and I'd really rather it didn't exist at all.

Tbh I don't really think gay marriage and single fathers rights are inherently related. We need new legislation on fathers rights and we need same sex couples to be included in civil marriage.

My comments really refer to what happened and the mechanics of the lobbying etc. Some politicians say they would never enter government with SF and it is for this type of reason.

Craebear wrote: »

Now c'mon lads. We can't be legalising stuff like this because it might hurt the feelings of some Catholics.

Maybe so, but don't you think that Catholic groups have very little real influence on social issues and policy at the moment.

If gay couples get to foster and adopt dont you think the already short supply of children available is stretched even further.

I dont think you are dealing with reality of how laws are made in this country unless you tackle the beliefs of the actual decision makers. So these policies are made by groups such as social workers and womens groups. That is how policy is formed for government.

Politics is about getting elected.

Does any legislation prohibit gay adoption or fostering?

ScumLord

Craebear wrote: »

Now c'mon lads. We can't be legalising stuff like this because it might hurt the feelings of some Catholics.

How do you know they'll be great parents? From what I've seen and heard of Elton John he's still a big spoilt child himself.

Banjo Fella

I think that two people who love one another should be allowed to marry, irrespective of their gender. I don't get why it's such a disagreeable notion. S'just love, babeh! Aw yeah, etc.

One of the main arguments I've heard against it is that it "undermines the integrity of marriage". Which is, er, sort of a rubbish form of reasoning. There are already plenty of straight couples who don't take their marriages seriously enough, so that's being accomplished just fine as it is. Also, the gay people I'm friends with are some of the most committed, trustworthy people I could imagine, they'd do a great job of representing what loving somebody should be about. Perhaps having to deal with a lot of prejudice and pain makes you more likely to be considerate and aware of other people's feelings.

jill_valentine

I don't know who these mysterious female extremist groups are, but they seem to exist solely in boards.ie conversations about mens rights.

CDfm

jill_valentine wrote: »

I don't know who these mysterious female extremist groups are, but they seem to exist solely in boards.ie conversations about mens rights.

Ireland has a very highly defined and established system of interest group politics, and it should not be the case that it is as partisan as it is , but it is.

I always think when you speak about equality you should be able to do so across the board as that what it means.

I dont really want to engage in a debate about what happened and the only reason I posted on the issue is that I have been discussing Corporate Statism elsewhere in the context of Irish Government & Politics and I thought that it might be useful in terms of the debate here to point out the mechanics of the system and why the legislative changes were made the way they have been.

You should be able to discuss and analyse it openly and on this issue point out that what was achieved was not done without a bit of bloodletting and it may or may not be how the LGBT community want to be represented by its interest groups.

I did a google for misandry just for fun for those not familiar with the word for those not familiar with the concept.

[SIZE=-1]Tuesday, November 25, 1997[/SIZE] A hate that dares us
to breathe its name

Some readers have been puzzled by my use of the concept "misandry", as though it were one in everyday use. They have never heard of it, and cannot find it in their dictionaries. This in itself is an example of misandry.
For several decades now, if someone wanted to dismiss what a man was saying, a loud roar of "Misogyny!" was enough to activate the frowns of the guardians of our societal norms. Misogyny, as any Spice Girls fan will tell you, is "hatred of women". Misandry is "hatred of men": the hate that dares us to breathe its name.

The whole article is here

http://home.connect.ie/smacsuibhne/kids/john_waters/jw12.htm

Some cool video links on a misandry collection here for those who want a look. It came up when I googled.

http://vodpod.com/tag/misandry

Equality for everybody

Kimono-Girl

Banjo Fella wrote: »

I think that two people who love one another should be allowed to marry, irrespective of their gender. I don't get why it's such a disagreeable notion. S'just love, babeh! Aw yeah, etc.

One of the main arguments I've heard against it is that it "undermines the integrity of marriage". Which is, er, sort of a rubbish form of reasoning. There are already plenty of straight couples who don't take their marriages seriously enough, so that's being accomplished just fine as it is. Also, the gay people I'm friends with are some of the most committed, trustworthy people I could imagine, they'd do a great job of representing what loving somebody should be about. Perhaps having to deal with a lot of prejudice and pain makes you more likely to be considerate and aware of other people's feelings.

+1 million!

i also think that two people who love one another should be allowed to marry, irrespective of their gender or sexuality!

CDfm

mars bar wrote: »

I haven't read through this thread, but I'm all for gay marriage and gay parents.

Elton John and David Furnish became parents to a young Zachary on Christmas Day and they'll be great parents!

I just wonder if everyone will agree with you. The Irish feminist writer and broadcaster Brenda Power has different ideas

It is simply unfair to suggest taking a child, presumably conceived by a heterosexual couple, and placing them in an entirely different dynamic and in a family unit that makes them different from the start. That’s not about insulting or undermining homosexual partners; it’s about prioritising the rights of the child.
Which isn’t to say there aren’t loving and secure same-sex couples who could give a wonderful upbringing to an adopted child. There are plenty of single parents, too, doing a good job of bringing up children on their own, but few of them have any qualms about accepting that their arrangement is not the ideal one.
Lots of people hang on in terrible marriages because they believe that male and female role models, however flawed, are essential for a child’s early development and sense of identity. That’s not necessarily true, of course, and there’s an increasingly vocal body of opinion suggesting that a calm and happy home, rather than a fraught but outwardly conventional one, offers children a far better start in life.
An outwardly unconventional home, though, can be just as fraught. Not all homosexual couples are pillars of fidelity and cosy domesticity. And children, especially adoptive children who may have escaped strife or trauma in infancy, need to feel that they fit in.
While the gay community in this country chooses to express itself in the manner of last week’s Pride march, deliberately provoking reaction and comment, keen to shock and primed to take umbrage if the wrong pronoun is applied to a bloke in a dress, there’s not much chance of that.



http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article6637267.ece?token=null&offset=12&page=2

And before anyone has a go - I found the link here http://www.gaycork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9265

Brenda Power, my new most loathed human

Over the years years, I've rarely been so shocked and outraged as to read something and then instantly write a letter of complaint.

Her article in the 5th of July Sunday Times. Make sure to check all the comments

Chuchoter

And Brenda Power is just the picture of acceptance and non-biased opinion. She is just some broadcaster spouting her unfounded opinions.

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1994480,00.html
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids

It has been proven that a stable home environment is exponentially more important than having a man and a woman in a relationship. The issue is people listening to Power and the like instead of the facts. We pretend like we've 'grown out' of homophobia and we're too modern for those things, really we just rephrased it.

flag123

right this is thread isn't biased :rolleyes: - sarcastic by the way

Why does it say "no, I hate everyone including myself" as the one of the options.

Can it not be a simple yes or no?

flag123

Craebear wrote: »

Now c'mon lads. We can't be legalising stuff like this because it might hurt the feelings of some Catholics.

Not just Catholics. Protestants as well as any other religion.

MagicSean

flag123 wrote: »

Not just Catholics. Protestants as well as any other religion.

Thats why we should seperate the religious ceremony from the legal ceremony.

Star Bingo

i dunno about this.. aren't gay clubs in particular fundamentally about putting it about rather then a coming together to dance to the erasure?
i mean, thats what G-A-Y is isn't it; otherwise you can still love your fellow man n far as i'm aware you can't just make love its spontaneous.. well i mean you can grow to love someone, but cum-on was it love or sex on first sight or did the two get confused. passion for compassion? can you imagine the first sign of marital instability "did you fcuk scotty?" "yeah i did. long time before you did, babs.." "well fcuk you i'm going down to the club, you can look after junior tonight mr Tom Selleck ideal man :mad:"

mars bar wrote: »

Elton John and David Furnish became parents to a young Zachary on Christmas Day and they'll be great parents!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JE4zmKJFx2E

jill_valentine

CDfm wrote: »

I did a google for misandry just for fun for those not familiar with the word for those not familiar with the concept.

I don't need you to define misandry for me though. I'm a feminist; I know what misandry is, because it is absolutely antithetical to what I stand for.

Again, I do not know who these extremist female groups are, that are continuously being held up here as the boogeywomen responsible for Ireland's stupid attitude to men's rights, or even here, somewhat bizarrely, to gay rights. It seems to me that whenever such problems rear their head, it's because the legislation was written for some bygone fantasy society that never quite existed, without regard to our evolving ideas of family units. That's a problem facing both single fathers and the gay community, but they're separate battles to be fought, as you say.

In terms of making legislation gender blind, the problem is rarely if ever that things are too progressive. Rather that progress, when it comes, is slow to get going and uneven in it's pace.

CDfm

crayolastereo wrote: »

And Brenda Power is just the picture of acceptance and non-biased opinion. She is just some broadcaster spouting her unfounded opinions.

She is a very influential journalist and broadcaster in Ireland who has long been linked with mainstream Irish feminism.

If a male journalist wrote the equivalent of what she writes there would be a huge backlash.

Remember this, when Denise Charlton Ex Womens Aid Chief and now of the Immigrant Council of Ireland called for Kevin Myers to be jailed.

Is this the tolerance that our thought-police take pride in?


By Kevin Myers

Wednesday July 23 2008

ON THE one hand, I expected some uproar in Ireland over my piece about Ethiopia on July 10. But there really wasn't any. On the other, I didn't expect an attempt to jail me by a state-sponsored body. Yet Denise Charlton, of the Immigrant Council of Ireland, has urged An Garda Siochana to investigate me under a special law, by which I could be tried and imprisoned for two years without even the benefit of a jury.


http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/is-this-the-tolerance-that-our-thoughtpolice-take-pride-in-1438547.html

Maybe, you need to look at it a different way.

Mainstream feminism in Ireland has never represented the LGBT Community. If they do , do they highlight lesbian domestic violence.

They do not as they represent heterosexual women in relationships.

If you look at feminism in Ireland the client group has been heterosexual female mothers and the whole mother as parent model has been built around it. Reproductive rights are fairly fundamental to it.

I don't expect you to agree with me at all but to just consider the possibility that that might be the case and the reason might be because its ideology is based on the promotion of rights for heterosexual women and the exclusion of others -heterosexual males - homosexual males etc . So maybe that is the reason for Brenda Powers article.

49 % of the occupation of Domestic Violence Refuges are Female Travellers (0.6% of the population)

And funding for LGBT domestic violence

http://www.amen.ie/Downloads/26051.pdf

I do not know if there is any , but , when you have a system that distributes resourses based on gender and orientation & I imagine the funding is not much.

I don't know but the operation of the system is based upon competition for limited resourses.

Could it be that acknowledging that gay men make good parents would mean that straight men do. Or indeed acknowledging that lesbians engage in domestic violence that other women do.

jill_valentine wrote: »

I don't need you to define misandry for me though. I'm a feminist; I know what misandry is, because it is absolutely antithetical to what I stand for.

I accept what you say and anti-ethical is a lovely phrase.

To get into the misogyny debate would be very off topic but if you do start a thread some time I would contribute.

Coeurdepirate

Banjo Fella wrote: »

I think that two people who love one another should be allowed to marry, irrespective of their gender. I don't get why it's such a disagreeable notion. S'just love, babeh! Aw yeah, etc.

One of the main arguments I've heard against it is that it "undermines the integrity of marriage". Which is, er, sort of a rubbish form of reasoning. There are already plenty of straight couples who don't take their marriages seriously enough, so that's being accomplished just fine as it is. Also, the gay people I'm friends with are some of the most committed, trustworthy people I could imagine, they'd do a great job of representing what loving somebody should be about. Perhaps having to deal with a lot of prejudice and pain makes you more likely to be considerate and aware of other people's feelings.

God forbid Britney Spears' 55-hour marriage would lose its meaning.

DublinWriter

CDfm wrote: »

She is a very influential journalist and broadcaster in Ireland who has long been linked with mainstream Irish feminism.

I think you're confusing Brenda Power with Nell McCafferty.

If you need a 500-word rent-a-gob opinion-piece on how Ryanair are so evil and nasty about challenging you over having your passport in your maiden name when going on the family holiday, then Brenda's your man, sorry, woman.

If you want real reportage with some insightful comments and a barbed wit, Nell's yer woman.

CDfm

DublinWriter wrote: »

I think you're confusing Brenda Power with Nell McCafferty.

If you need a 500-word rent-a-gob opinion-piece on how Ryanair are so evil and nasty about challenging you over having your passport in your maiden name when going on the family holiday, then Brenda's your man, sorry, woman.

If you want real reportage with some insightful comments and a barbed wit, Nell's yer woman.

I didn't say she is a nice person, I said she is an influential person and she is synonymous with feminism in Ireland.

That as an interest group feminism has matured and become less happy clappy , and even right wing should not surprise as it is the establishment now.

The point I am making is that she is not alone in her opinions.

There is nothing wrong in a thread like this to discuss how the system works.

whatado

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

God forbid Britney Spears' 55-hour marriage would lose its meaning.

Good point but i do love Britney Spears

Coeurdepirate

whatado wrote: »

Good point but i do love Britney Spears

I love 'Toxic' and the other one where she's drowning in the bath

efb

'3' was vintage Spears though...

Sharpshooter

BrenRilley wrote: »

I'm a gay guy and I oppose LGB marriages,why? Not on religious or on any hate grounds but because marriage is so "hetrosexual" I don't want to be like me ma n da or sisters and brothers,The life of a hetro is a sick and lonely one and marriage adds to the infliction suffered by these poor people
When they find the gene that makes people hetrosexual and it's no longer taught to are poor innocent children then we may solve this illness until then i think we should let these poor unfortunates marry each other and leave the clean gene pool of LGB people unpolluted LOL

I suggest you read the Charter and start a thread of your own.

Also, feel free to contribute when and if you do.

Bumped thread from 2008 Closed.