Gay Marriage - needs proper legislation and recognition

CDfm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

I'm of the immovable opinion that civil unions are a bad thing, and should be opposed, because they create a second class of citizen- those who aren't fit for marriage but need to be "recognised".

Full equality for gays is the only acceptable situation. Marriage should be between two people, and the state should not only not care about their gender, but should go to lengths to ensure that civil servants carry out their duties equally with every couple they wed.

Call it marriage or civil union -I dont mind but it needs to be progressed for as you rightly say citizenship reasons as a civil matter regulated by the state.

Its been a while Chocalate Sauce - I thought you were an atheist philosopher and didnt believe in marriage

iptba

CDfm wrote: »

in fact if anything they are penalised as they pay thru theit taxes for a whole manner of things like education etc for children they dont benefit from but pay into the pot like everyone else

The distinction there is between people who have children and people who do not, it's not really to do with marriage.

As I say, it's quite easy to say taxes are unfair.
So in this case, one could say that people who don't have children (and haven't in the past) should pay lower taxes than those that do. One could say that is a "fairer" system.

When I get a chance, I will read up on the inheritance laws. I think brothers and sisters who live in a house may have a different status (or am I mixing that up with the UK). But money is also involved in inheritance.

CDfm

There are downsides to marriage like splitting property and maintenence would apply to them too but the numbers that you are talking about in terms of cohabiting homosexual couples are not large that the tax foregone would be a huge amount.

I dont see a huge amount of couples marrying just to avoid inheritence but more put permanence in their relationships and form a legal "unit" for homeownership and other stuff like illness etc. Its really a voluntary way of regulating their lives and its more a human right then anything else.

Funnily enough there were a pair of unmarried sisters in the UK who lost a case in the UK where they tried to claim rights as cohabitees as with the tax charge on death the survivour will be forced to move house.

I mean at Gerry Ryans recent funeral -it was his estranged wife rather than his new partner who was the chief mourner.So you need to be able to plan for that crap.

It makes you think.

keane2097

liah wrote: »

I'm actually shocked that people still think like this in 2010.

Why do people think they have the right to make decisions for anyone else due to a personal, completely unfounded belief that homosexuality will have a negative effect on the kids?

Here's a thought: maybe if you got your heads out of your arses and stopped looking down on homosexuals as if they're aliens and taught your kids that homosexuals are just normal people too, the homosexual couple's kids wouldn't be made fun of as their situation would be commonplace and accepted.

The reason of "oh but think of the children!" is ridiculous. You're not thinking of the children. You're thinking about your own bigotry. The children would be fine as long as they have caring parents, regardless of gender, and heterosexual parents teaching their kids that homosexuality is okay would eliminate the issue completely.

Way too much bullshít and unfounded hatred in this thread for my liking. I'm out. This is disgusting.

Thanks for articulating this so well and saving me the effort of doing so.

Great post.

sopick

Reflector wrote: »

Wrong, grow up, two guys kissing is a part of being gay and there's nothing unhealthy about it. you're projecting your own problem with it here.
Kids deserve a loving and stable home environment.

<MOD SNIP> them kids will grow up not knowin what the fk is goin on and i can tell you they will be bullied and probably cuicidal so tell me again thats what a child needs its wrong god created adam and eve not adam and steve

CDfm

sopick wrote: »

them kids will grow up not knowin what the fk is goin on and i can tell you they will be bullied and probably cuicidal so tell me again thats what a child needs its wrong god created adam and eve not adam and steve

This is not about Adam & Steve and kids, but the likes of Beruthiels neighbours who do not want kids.

So what are your objections to Adam & Steve themselves regularising their relationship with one another and getting on with their lives.

I don't think in Ireland there is the remotist hope of a gay couple adopting anyway so its purely hypotheical what you are saying. Heroin addicts or drunks dont have their kids automatically taken away from them so our system is not a moral standard.The social workers who approve adoptions would probably object for the reasons you are giving and the list of those given kids before a gay couple would be huge..Any homosexual couples that want to get around the rules have found ways to have kids anyway. And if I know people who have -then it is not a huge secret.

Hazys

liah wrote: »

I'm actually shocked that people still think like this in 2010.

Unfortunately Liah, I think you being v naive here.

I feel the vast vast majority of the Irish population think this way. I wouldnt even see this being seriously discussed in the country for a vote in the next 10 years, not to mention it passing.

I live in Cambridge, Massachusetts one of the most liberal thinking places in the world, where gay marriage is legal but it still faces opposition and is in constant threat of losing its legality. If I compare my friends views here to my friends views back home on the issue there is a massive difference of thinking. In Boston, its reasonably normal to see gay couples holding hands in public, i dont think i have ever seen that back home in Cork.

I couldnt imagine you would only get 10% of the vote in favour of same sex marriage in people aged over 40. Everybody over 60 will be bullied by the church and people between 40-60 would still be from an old school way of thinking. TBH i think you'd also struggle to get a majority vote between 18-39s also.

We cant even get abortion legalised, not to mention divorce was only legalised in 1996, so unfortunately gay marriage is a good 20 years off in Ireland imo.

sopick

CDfm wrote: »

This is not about Adam & Steve and kids, but the likes of Beruthiels neighbours who do not want kids.

So what are your objections to Adam & Steve themselves regularising their relationship with one another and getting on with their lives.

I don't think in Ireland there is the remotist hope of a gay couple adopting anyway so its purely hypotheical what you are saying. Heroin addicts or drunks dont have their kids automatically taken away from them so our system is not a moral standard.The social workers who approve adoptions would probably object for the reasons you are giving and the list of those given kids before a gay couple would be huge..Any homosexual couples that want to get around the rules have found ways to have kids anyway. And if I know people who have -then it is not a huge secret.

im just sayin its not right is all involving kids leave em do whatever they want to each other but leave kids out of it

CDfm

sopick wrote: »

im just sayin its not right is all involving kids leave em do whatever they want to each other but leave kids out of it

So you have no objection to civil partnership and the legal recognition of the relationship?

Is that correct?

Oh, and you have empathy for children and don't believe that currently our society is ready for non traditional family units.

Is that correct?

sam34

sopick, i have edited one of your posts

this is the second time i've had to do that, so this is your second warning

next one and you're banned

MagicMarker

sopick wrote: »

<MOD SNIP> them kids will grow up not knowin what the fk is goin on and i can tell you they will be bullied and probably cuicidal so tell me again thats what a child needs its wrong god created adam and eve not adam and steve

Must... resist... must not... post... facepalm... pic.

sopick

Saint Ruth wrote: »

Kids should have a mammy and a daddy...

best post on this thread

Hazys

sopick wrote: »

best post on this thread

so whats better then, 2 Daddys or just 1 Mammy?

or 2 Mammies or Orphanage?

keane2097

sopick wrote: »

best post on this thread

If over-simplification appeals to your brain, then yes, I suppose it is.

Unfortunately, people - children included - have to live in the real world.

CDfm

Hazys wrote: »

so whats better then, 2 Daddys or just 1 Mammy?

or 2 Mammies or Orphanage?

I know its tempting to get into the argument.

Nowadays, adoptions of Irish children is very rare and highly regulated.

I started this thread really for people to consider the usual situation of a legal framework for homosexuals,bisexuals and lesbians who do have the same parenting rights enshrined in law as everybody else. So yes they legally can be parents and that issue is a non issue at law.So the child issue is off topic -it being covered by law.

This is a seperate legal issue on same sex marriages or civil partnerships where same sex couples can be legally recognised as each others next of kin and for practical purposes have rights similar to married heterosexual couples.

I can't think of a single negative for it as a civil matter.

keane2097

CDfm wrote: »

This is a seperate legal issue on same sex marriages or civil partnerships where same sex couples can be legally recognised as each others next of kin and for practical purposes have rights similar to married heterosexual couples.

I think the lack of coherent argument against this idea on this thread tells the story pretty much.

MagicMarker

sopick wrote: »

best post on this thread

So can you explain to me, in detail, why a kid should have a mammy and a daddy, when there are millions of children in the world who get on just fine without one or the other?

CDfm

keane2097 wrote: »

I think the lack of coherent argument against this idea on this thread tells the story pretty much.

Its probably because most people don't actually disagree with the idea and would not disagree with it as a human right.Those who would benefit from this are those unlikely to campaign.

Monogamy is a fairly conservative concept & the morals that go with it cross gender/orientation/religious boundaries.Most people can understand this and have empathy with the need for stability in their lives as well as at a practical level be aware that the rights of the surviving partner need to be regulated legally.

So even where people have objections to "gay marriage" on religious grounds, I cant see how they can on moral grounds,as they are the same morals they espouse.

Kanoe

I'm not sure that there should be separate legislation to deal with same sex cohabitation but I do think the bill is probably tackling one issue too many and should have an opt out clause in cases where cohabitation isn't signed on for. It's not proferring gay marriage, its dealing with basic civil rights to anyone living outside the traditional system.
It may very well be a stepping stone to gay marriage but as this thread very clearly demonstrates that might take some time to accept and if nothing else civil partnerships offer the kind of adjustment to the national psyche that it would require in order to do so. (I couldn't give a crap about marriage myself personally but recognise the right for others to partake in it if they choose)
The issue of adoption shouldn't be an issue thereafter.

CDfm

zxy wrote: »

The issue of adoption shouldn't be an issue thereafter.

The issue of adoption is just a red herring.

I am a heterosexual divorced Dad and they couldnt regulate that via the courts -so anyone bringing kids stuff into this is spouting or not living in the real world.

Its a non issue.

sopick

keane2097 wrote: »

If over-simplification appeals to your brain, then yes, I suppose it is.

Unfortunately, people - children included - have to live in the real world.

oh my god you hurt my feelings im telling the mod hahaha thats what someone else would do because half of em runs off tellin the mods ooohhhhhhhwwwwwww im telling on you when ever someone tells em what they think so theres no point in trying to say what you want on this site

CDfm

sopick wrote: »

oh my god you hurt my feelings im telling the mod hahaha thats what someone else would do because half of em runs off tellin the mods ooohhhhhhhwwwwwww im telling on you when ever someone tells em what they think so theres no point in trying to say what you want on this site

but you dont want to discuss the OP -It has nothing to do with kids or adoption.

MagicMarker

sopick wrote: »

oh my god you hurt my feelings im telling the mod hahaha thats what someone else would do because half of em runs off tellin the mods ooohhhhhhhwwwwwww im telling on you when ever someone tells em what they think so theres no point in trying to say what you want on this site

Isn't it past your bedtime?

iptba

zxy wrote: »

I'm not sure that there should be separate legislation to deal with same sex cohabitation but I do think the bill is probably tackling one issue too many and should have an opt out clause in cases where cohabitation isn't signed on for. It's not proferring gay marriage, its dealing with basic civil rights to anyone living outside the traditional system.
It may very well be a stepping stone to gay marriage but as this thread very clearly demonstrates that might take some time to accept and if nothing else civil partnerships offer the kind of adjustment to the national psyche that it would require in order to do so. (I couldn't give a crap about marriage myself personally but recognise the right for others to partake in it if they choose)

I'm not an expert on the legislation but from what I've picked up there is:

- Civil Partnership (just available to gay couples - heterosexual couples can marry)

- (separately) Rights/responsibilities from being a cohabiting couple (2 years if have a child together, 3 years if you don't) who aren't married or aren't in a civil partnership. This applies to both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.

What people are complaining about for the latter is that after the time threshold is passed, the rules/responsibilities apply to you. You can opt out but both sides of the couple have to get independent legal advice and then go to a sollicitor to sign it - so it's called an "opt out" system. How many couples are likely to do this? What happens in many other countries is they have an "opt-in" system where a cohabiting couple can sign up if they feel somebody in the family is losing out.

Even before this legislation, parents have to support children if they separate.

There is a thread on this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055862413 - probably best to discuss it there.

ETA: I think all aspects are being discussed this coming week. And the intention is that they will be passed by the Oireachtas before the summer recess.

ETA: Time period has been extended to five years: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0519/1224270654973.html but still opt-out.

CDfm

it is a bad piece of legislation and doesnt allow people to voluntarily commit to relationships.

It demands opt out rather than opt in

sopick

MagicMarker wrote: »

Isn't it past your bedtime?

it could have been past my bed time im not sure why would you be worried about me going to bed is there something wrong with you are you ok?

sopick

CDfm wrote: »

but you dont want to discuss the OP -It has nothing to do with kids or adoption.

oh i didnt know that im very sorry for your trouble i deeply regret hurting your feelings i did not intend to hurt your feelings because you are a truly beautiful person with feelings

sam34

sopick banned for relentless trolling despite previous warnings

Kanoe

iptba wrote: »

I'm not an expert on the legislation but from what I've picked up there is:

- Civil Partnership (just available to gay couples - heterosexual couples can marry)

- (separately) Rights/responsibilities from being a cohabiting couple (2 years if have a child together, 3 years if you don't) who aren't married or aren't in a civil partnership. This applies to both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples.

What people are complaining about for the latter is that after the time threshold is passed, the rules/responsibilities apply to you. You can opt out but both sides of the couple have to get independent legal advice and then go to a sollicitor to sign it - so it's called an "opt out" system. How many couples are likely to do this? What happens in many other countries is they have an "opt-in" system where a cohabiting couple can sign up if they feel somebody in the family is losing out.

Even before this legislation, parents have to support children if they separate.

There is a thread on this http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055862413 - probably best to discuss it there.

ETA: I think all aspects are being discussed this coming week. And the intention is that they will be passed by the Oireachtas before the summer recess.

ETA: Time period has been extended to five years: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0519/1224270654973.html but still opt-out.

I didn't know there was an opt out clause and I figured the cohabitation legislation was much like common law and applied to all couples living together.
I'm not aware of any legislation that requires parents to support their children if they separate though. It's not obligatory is it?

iptba

zxy wrote: »

I'm not aware of any legislation that requires parents to support their children if they separate though. It's not obligatory is it?

Well, perhaps it's not obligatory as such but anybody can't be "chased" as it were (i.e. a parent could choose not to look for the money) - the point was that this legislation isn't required to support such children - this is for the transfer of money from one ex-partner to another. (It also applies for couples who have no children)