Arguements from the Anti CP (and the homophobic bigots)

TylerIE

I had the pleasure last night of having an interesting discussion and exchange of views with some of those protesting against the Civil Partnership Bill...

While there were 15 people present the breakdown included the following:
7 from one family - A father who had dragged his wife and children up.
1 Emotionally Disturbed Older Gentleman who was / is a career protestor
1 Concerned Religious Mother
1 Younger man (late 20s) who had serious issues with the government
1 Man (late 30s/mid 40s) who had serious issues with the government and was concerned about a descent into a chaotic society.

One of the above made some rude abusive comments but mid way through our discussions, and again at the end he made a genuine and heartfelt apology - he was even embarrassed at what he had said. Indeed overall his protest at the CP bill was moreso out of misdirected anger directed at the government.

While I had an interesting discussion with them I am afraid my ancient history and knowledge of world affairs wasnt up to the standard of the last man, and at the end of the discussion the concerned mother and younger man had certainly relaxed their views, I was unable to address the concerns of the last man, who was intelligent, reasonable and well spoken. However I know that (esp after the huge professionalism displayed by those organising pride) other members of the LGBT(Q) community will perhaps educate me!

Some of his concerns were as follows:

1 - That when homosexuality was freely allowed/ acceptable in ancient Greece it resulted in the collapse of society.

2 - That European Countries which have recently become more liberal are now facing a collapse of the social structure, family etc. e.g. Scandanavian countries.

3 - The incredibly low birth rates - 1.7 children per married Woman in Ireland is already lower than the EU Average. I was aware of this figure....

4 - That the structure and order of the family and society needs to be preserved and promoted. I suggested that CP was allowing a structure to be created and allowing gay couples to actually properly form. The argument I got was that it was rather creating order from disorder - and example given was that if everybody is ignoring red traffic lights should we say that its ok to go through traffic lights when they are RED or GREEN, and that similarly CP was just legitimizing what shouldnt be legitimate.

5 - Its not natural - I said how most species of animals have homosexual relationships - the reply was we are not animals.... The ultimate suggestion there was that gay people should live lives of chastity.

6 - That most gay people that the last guy knew were deeply unhappy, having been victims of sexual abuse as children. And that they (us gays) were pursuing lives of debouchery in the pursuit of happiness, but that when examined we are generally not happy. Unfortunately with the huge instances of depression and suicide in the LGBT(Q) community it is fair to say that many people are grossly unhappy. I proposed the unhappiness was due to the attitudes of society - he suggested reparative therapy was better.

7 - That the individual knew many people who had undergone therapy to get rid of their homosexual urges, and that it had worked for them.

8 - The lady said that she would not allow any of her children to have their girlfriends stay over until they were married. I agreed with her. However she would welcome them for dinner etc, but if her son had a boyfriend he would not be welcome. She said she would still love him but its not natural. She said that the sexual element of the relationship was not real sex as was intended. I asked what if her straight sons were engaging in non-vaginal intercourse. She stated that she would not know about it and they wouldnt be telling her and that it was still wrong. Is this not a double standard???

9 - the constitution dictates marriage as between a man and a woman. Thankfully I knew from the Front Lounge Quiz a few weeks ago (for marriage equality) that our constitution was from the 30s, and stated that at the time it was contextually appropriate to state same. The protesters stated that in that case there should have been a referendum on the bill.

10 - that as Im only 23 im still confused... maybe I should try a girl... pray... did I pray.... etc....

---- I would be much obliged if people could post comments/ thoughts / logical arguments in response to the above....

Chuchoter

lst wrote: »

1 - That when homosexuality was freely allowed/ acceptable in ancient Greece it resulted in the collapse of society.

Greece collapsed because they took over too many countries, spread their forces too thin, leaving themselves open to attack. The Roman empire did not support homosexuality, its still fell apart.

2 - That European Countries which have recently become more liberal are now facing a collapse of the social structure, family etc. e.g. Scandanavian countries.

Scandinavian countries such as Norway,Finland and Sweden have the best public services in all of Europe. They were doing pretty well last time I checked.

3 - The incredibly low birth rates - 1.7 children per married Woman in Ireland is already lower than the EU Average. I was aware of this figure....

This is because of better education of women. The more educated a woman is, the less chance she willhave more children. Very well known fact that has 0 to do with gay marriage

4 - That the structure and order of the family and society needs to be preserved and promoted. I suggested that CP was allowing a structure to be created and allowing gay couples to actually properly form. The argument I got was that it was rather creating order from disorder - and example given was that if everybody is ignoring red traffic lights should we say that its ok to go through traffic lights when they are RED or GREEN, and that similarly CP was just legitimizing what shouldnt be legitimate.

Again he had no evidence that the traditional model was the best one. There is no evidence that being in a straight family puts you at an advantage or a disadvantage over being raised by a gay couple. Just because he doesn't agree with gay people, does not mean a gay marriage is illegitimate. Just because something has been one way a long time does not make it right.

5 - Its not natural - I said how most species of animals have homosexual relationships - the reply was we are not animals.... The ultimate suggestion there was that gay people should live lives of chastity.

Scientifically we are animals. In any case, just because it is less common does not mean it is not natural. If thats the logic then red haired and green eyed people are not natural.

6 - That most gay people that the last guy knew were deeply unhappy, having been victims of sexual abuse as children. And that they (us gays) were pursuing lives of debouchery in the pursuit of happiness, but that when examined we are generally not happy. Unfortunately with the huge instances of depression and suicide in the LGBT(Q) community it is fair to say that many people are grossly unhappy. I proposed the unhappiness was due to the attitudes of society - he suggested reparative therapy was better.

Reparitive therapy has been deemed to cause harm by every single reputable medical/psychological body in the world. He is running on anecdote and generalizing. Crap argument. Being gay does not make me depressed, the enormous section of the population who hate me has a bigger part to play than anything else. He should try being happy when every time you open the paper there is some stupid person saying you're a danger to children/unnatural/an abomination etc. He should also try being rejected by his family and friends and then see how happy he is.

7 - That the individual knew many people who had undergone therapy to get rid of their homosexual urges, and that it had worked for them.

Again anecdote and generalizing. I know many people who went to counselling and it didn't work for them. Therefore all counselling is worthless.

8 - The lady said that she would not allow any of her children to have their girlfriends stay over until they were married. I agreed with her. However she would welcome them for dinner etc, but if her son had a boyfriend he would not be welcome. She said she would still love him but its not natural. She said that the sexual element of the relationship was not real sex as was intended. I asked what if her straight sons were engaging in non-vaginal intercourse. She stated that she would not know about it and they wouldnt be telling her and that it was still wrong. Is this not a double standard???

Yes. Unless she wants to quiz all her children about there sexual practices then she can't exclude one of her children, there are plenty of bizarre things straight people get up to aswell.

9 - the constitution dictates marriage as between a man and a woman. Thankfully I knew from the Front Lounge Quiz a few weeks ago (for marriage equality) that our constitution was from the 30s, and stated that at the time it was contextually appropriate to state same. The protesters stated that in that case there should have been a referendum on the bill.

Referenum sounds good to me

10 - that as Im only 23 im still confused... maybe I should try a girl... pray... did I pray.... etc....

So all the gay people who got married, had kids, were well versed in being straight, they are also confused? I've gone out with guys, didn't like it. I like girls and I am certain of that.

rainbow kirby

Addressing #9 in particular - nowhere is it explicitly stated in the Irish constitution that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Article 41

1. 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

2. 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.

2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

2° A Court designated by law may grant a dissolution of marriage where, but only where, it is satisfied that *
i. at the date of the institution of the proceedings, the spouses have lived apart from one another for a period of, or periods amounting to, at least four years during the five years,
ii. there is no reasonable prospect of a reconciliation between the spouses,
iii. such provision as the Court considers proper having regard to the circumstances exists or will be made for the spouses, any children of either or both of them and any other person prescribed by law, and
iv. any further conditions prescribed by law are complied with.

3° No person whose marriage has been dissolved under the civil law of any other State but is a subsisting valid marriage under the law for the time being in force within the jurisdiction of the Government and Parliament established by this Constitution shall be capable of contracting a valid marriage within that jurisdiction during the lifetime of the other party to the marriage so dissolved.

Aard

lst wrote: »

1 - That when homosexuality was freely allowed/ acceptable in ancient Greece it resulted in the collapse of society.

I don't know, but I would ask why that would be relevant today.

lst wrote: »

2 - That European Countries which have recently become more liberal are now facing a collapse of the social structure, family etc. e.g. Scandanavian countries.

!!! Not a chance! I've been to Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Denmark, and in all of those countries, the family unit seemed much stronger than in Ireland, or even France for example. The former three all have gender-neutral laws. I'm not implying that gay-marriage leads to better families, but more-so that a better family-oriented policy leads to gay-marriage.

lst wrote: »

3 - The incredibly low birth rates - 1.7 children per married Woman in Ireland is already lower than the EU Average. I was aware of this figure....

I have no idea how this could possibly be relevant. I wonder if the implication is that if them pesky gays weren't shacked up together, that they might find themselves a nice member of the fairer sex to settle down with, along with their 2.4 kids. This is a different topic entirely!

lst wrote: »

4 - That the structure and order of the family and society needs to be preserved and promoted. I suggested that CP was allowing a structure to be created and allowing gay couples to actually properly form. The argument I got was that it was rather creating order from disorder - and example given was that if everybody is ignoring red traffic lights should we say that its ok to go through traffic lights when they are RED or GREEN, and that similarly CP was just legitimizing what shouldnt be legitimate.

Well, that's a moral issue somebody has, which is pretty difficult to change in anybody over the age of 12.

lst wrote: »

5 - Its not natural - I said how most species of animals have homosexual relationships - the reply was we are not animals.... The ultimate suggestion there was that gay people should live lives of chastity.

See above.

lst wrote: »

6 - That most gay people that the last guy knew were deeply unhappy, having been victims of sexual abuse as children. And that they (us gays) were pursuing lives of debouchery in the pursuit of happiness, but that when examined we are generally not happy. Unfortunately with the huge instances of depression and suicide in the LGBT(Q) community it is fair to say that many people are grossly unhappy. I proposed the unhappiness was due to the attitudes of society - he suggested reparative therapy was better.

I would counter that he probably doesn't know that many gays very well; if he did, he'd probably be in favour of Civil Marriage. All of the gay people I know suffered no sexual abuse as children. Which of us is right? :rolleyes: Regarding "us" not being happy: I think that if most people were examined, they would be found not to be happy. People will get upset about whatever hand they're dealt.

lst wrote: »

7 - That the individual knew many people who had undergone therapy to get rid of their homosexual urges, and that it had worked for them.

Lol.

lst wrote: »

8 - The lady said that she would not allow any of her children to have their girlfriends stay over until they were married. I agreed with her. However she would welcome them for dinner etc, but if her son had a boyfriend he would not be welcome. She said she would still love him but its not natural. She said that the sexual element of the relationship was not real sex as was intended. I asked what if her straight sons were engaging in non-vaginal intercourse. She stated that she would not know about it and they wouldnt be telling her and that it was still wrong. Is this not a double standard???

Why does she assume that all gay men are sodomists? Just tell her to go to any porn site; she'll soon see that we're all a little bit fucked up in the bedroom.

lst wrote: »

9 - the constitution dictates marriage as between a man and a woman. Thankfully I knew from the Front Lounge Quiz a few weeks ago (for marriage equality) that our constitution was from the 30s, and stated that at the time it was contextually appropriate to state same. The protesters stated that in that case there should have been a referendum on the bill.

Actually, the only place that says that marriage is between a man and a woman is in the Civil Registration Act 2004. It was slipped in "unnoticed". Fortunately, that Act has generated a lot of upset, as it failed to be specific, and as a result over 3,000 marriaged performed are now null and void. If and when they ammend the Act, there should be strong lobbying to have the "man and woman" bit removed.

lst wrote: »

10 - that as Im only 23 im still confused... maybe I should try a girl... pray... did I pray.... etc....

I know many 23 yos who are a lot less confused than 46 yos, or even 69 yos for that matter.

PeterIanStaker

The stats these bigoted guys trot out are to suit themselves. thats the great thing about statistics - you can interpret them any way you like.

The low birth rate, to pick just one, is due I'd say to the economic difficulties we face, people cant afford kids.


As for the "Emotionally Disturbed Older Gentleman who was / is a career protestor", I think one of my friends told me about him before, and he's a few cans short of a six pack.

Aard

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

The low birth rate, to pick just one, is due I'd say to the economic difficulties we face, people cant afford kids.

I've heard the opposite, that in times of economic difficulty, the birth-rate goes up due to people having more time on their hands to have sex. </off_topic>

TylerIE

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

The stats these bigoted guys trot out are to suit themselves. thats the great thing about statistics - you can interpret them any way you like.

The low birth rate, to pick just one, is due I'd say to the economic difficulties we face, people cant afford kids.


As for the "Emotionally Disturbed Older Gentleman who was / is a career protestor", I think one of my friends told me about him before, and he's a few cans short of a six pack.

Their suggestion was that the human race was in danger of extinction, I think probably so absurd that it cannot be argued with.

The older gentleman unfortunately only roused sympathy from me - indeed he dropped one of his coir leaflets with "a nice picture of the Pope" and was a little upset that he couldnt reach it through the railings so was delighted when I got it for him.... He probably just needs the love of a good woman (or man)!

The_Minister

On the Greek thing - it was actually very rare (and mostly frowned on) for two grown men to have sex - most sex was between a man and a boy - not a model that we should follow.

TylerIE

Aard wrote: »

I don't know, but I would ask why that would be relevant today.



!!! Not a chance! I've been to Norway, Sweden, Iceland, and Denmark, and in all of those countries, the family unit seemed much stronger than in Ireland, or even France for example. The former three all have gender-neutral laws. I'm not implying that gay-marriage leads to better families, but more-so that a better family-oriented policy leads to gay-marriage.


Why does she assume that all gay men are sodomists? Just tell her to go to any porn site; she'll soon see that we're all a little bit fucked up in the bedroom.


Actually, the only place that says that marriage is between a man and a woman is in the Civil Registration Act 2004. It was slipped in "unnoticed". Fortunately, that Act has generated a lot of upset, as it failed to be specific, and as a result over 3,000 marriaged performed are now null and void. If and when they ammend the Act, there should be strong lobbying to have the "man and woman" bit removed.

I know many 23 yos who are a lot less confused than 46 yos, or even 69 yos for that matter.

Unfortunately I do believe that research has shown the social structure in those Scandanavian countries to have disimproved...

And am personally acquainted with a number of the more prominent gay individuals who were abused as children, but asked that in the unlikely event that that is the case - does that mean that the people should be forced to live single lives and continue suffering????

I did advise them that many hetero relationships involve non vaginal sex... They agreed.

I should have mentioned that one of their chief points was that children need a father and a mother - I advised them that approx 25% of Dublin children currently dont have same - they said "everybody has else they wouldnt be here" - I advised that they currently dont live in that setting which they said was bad but better than with two men... two men (this was aimed mainly at men) couldnt look after a child blah blah blah... If im not mistaken the American literature suggests that children to same sex couples are just as well rounded as their friends in the traditional two parent family?

What can one say to the above? what can you say to them when they insist that a family is man and woman? yet forego this rule for single parents, but not same sex couples?

Re the 23 year old comment she suggested maybe I "should try it [straight] sex".... I didnt ask her if shed ever had lesbian sex, but, perhaps more appropriately, asked her was she advocating sex before marriage... she said no - so apparently is advocating a sham marriage?????

Aard

lst wrote: »

What can one say to the above? what can you say to them when they insist that a family is man and woman? yet forego this rule for single parents, but not same sex couples?

Just keep asking, "Why?" Eventually, you'll get to the core question of why they feel intimidated by two men or two women being in love. It's not likely to end pretty, but at least you'll get them thinking, and you may get a somewhat satisfactory answer.

Re the 23 year old comment she suggested maybe I "should try it [straight] sex".... I didnt ask her if shed ever had lesbian sex, but, perhaps more appropriately, asked her was she advocating sex before marriage... she said no - so apparently is advocating a sham marriage?????

As above, the more you question them, the more holes that appear in their arguments.

LookingFor

People have done a pretty good job answering these points already, but on #6, I'm not sure how if he thinks gay people are unhappy or engage in debauchery and promiscuous lifestyles etc... how those facts would do anything but support the case for civil and social support and recognition of healthy long-term committed gay partnerships.

I would suggest perhaps that so many gay people write their own rules because society's has given them none. There is no blueprint. They've been swept under the carpet and ignored. This culture we have today is in part at least product of generations of this treatment.

This is in a way a good thing and a bad thing. I'm not sure I think the opposite extreme is good either - i.e. the culture many heterosexual couples endure where there is endless pressure to marry and settle down, which is probably a root cause of much marriage breakdown; see comparative divorce rates between straight and gay people in the Netherlands et al - but I think in the longer term if you want gay people to 'settle down' and pursue healthy and happy relationships, it makes every bit of sense of invite them and encourage them to enjoy the rights and responsibilities of the social structures afforded to every other adult couple. It benefits not only them, but society as a whole.

For more on that kind of sentiment, this is a good article:

The Conservative case for Gay Marriage by Ted Olson, 'lifelong Republican & a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations'

TylerIE

LookingFor wrote: »

see comparative divorce rates between straight and gay people in the Netherlands et al - but I think in the longer term if you want gay people to 'settle down' and pursue healthy and happy relationships, it makes every bit of sense of invite them and encourage them to enjoy the rights and responsibilities of the social structures afforded to every other adult couple. It benefits not only them, but society as a whole.

Many thanks for that reply. As I dont have ready access to the Netherlands figures is it that the figures in that divorce is relatively higher among straight couples than gay couples?

LookingFor

lst wrote: »

Many thanks for that reply. As I dont have ready access to the Netherlands figures is it that the figures in that divorce is relatively higher among straight couples than gay couples?

Actually in the netherlands the rates are the same. The study I looked at covered two or three countries, I thought the netherlands was among them...but in the other countries the rates were quite lower. I can't find the link to the study I'm thinking of, but this wikipedia page has references to studies that have mixed findings (e.g. higher rate in Sweden, lower in Denmark & UK etc.):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce_of_same-sex_couples

Regardless, I believe it's still not necessarily healthy to have the level of pressure that many heterosexual couples do endure to get hitched, but I certainly think the opposite extreme that gay people currently occupy isn't particularly healthy either.

PeterIanStaker

lst wrote: »

Their suggestion was that the human race was in danger of extinction, I think probably so absurd that it cannot be argued with.

The older gentleman unfortunately only roused sympathy from me - indeed he dropped one of his coir leaflets with "a nice picture of the Pope" and was a little upset that he couldnt reach it through the railings so was delighted when I got it for him.... He probably just needs the love of a good woman (or man)!

I seriously doubt the human race is in danger of extinction. Have you ever watched the Maury Show?

As for the older guy, maybe I was a wee bit harsh in labelling him as being not "with it" mentally, but he's quite fixated on the issue. I wonder has he family or even any friends.

28064212

lst wrote: »

3 - The incredibly low birth rates - 1.7 children per married Woman in Ireland is already lower than the EU Average. I was aware of this figure....

Other people have already pointed out the flaws in most of the arguments, but this really jumped out at me. What does the birth rate against married women have to do with homosexuality? Ireland has the highest birth-rate per head of population in the EU 27 (Source)

Pink Adoptions

rainbow kirby wrote: »

Addressing #9 in particular - nowhere is it explicitly stated in the Irish constitution that marriage is strictly between a man and a woman.

Plus, according to the constitution, "marriage is the foundation of family".
And in the constitution, Family = Teaghlach.
When in doubt about the meaning of a word in the constitution, refer to the Irish wording.

"Teaghlach" means "household".
As opposed to biological forms of "family" (the Irish language has many other words for "family"), the term "teaghlach/household" is not gender specific.

It is all about a home where children are raised.

Therefore there is no need for a referendum.
A simple law can explicitly extend marriage to same-gender couples, and it will not be unconstitutional!

We do not have a constitutional "right" to be married, but the constitution does not forbid it either.

Once such a law is passed (we will have to wait for a Labour gvt), there will be a constitutional challenge, which is likely to fail.
If, by miracle, it succeeds, then and only then let's go for the expensive and divisive referendum... the time spend on the constitutional challenge will have prepared the electorate in our favour anyway.

A constitutional challenge would fail because it would need to prove any one of the following:
- Marriage is between man and women.
The constitution does not say it... the law just assumed it.
- Same-gender couple's marriage is a threat to civil marriage.
How could it be: they want to get married to raise children! The present situation denying children to be raised in a marital family is the real threat to marriage. People just confuse civil marriage, with religious marriage. Religious marrige is more of a threat to civil marriage... than an extended civil marriage.
- The best interest of the child.
It is the bets interest of the children of gay couples to be raised in a marital family. The only ones who wil bully them about it are the ones who are against CP and Extended Civil Marriage
- The extension of marriage to same-gender couple would breach the constitutional rights of mix-gender couples.
Good luck with that one! The rights of A cannt breach by giving similar right to B... when those rights do not impact A in any way.

Divorce needed a referendum because it was a threat to the institution of civil marriage, and had an impact on other people's rights (e.g., the one who does not want to part).

The constitution is fine as it is.
It could be improved, but it does not need to be changed in this instance.

Nothing stops Extended Civil Marriage to be voted in law within a week, nothing but the lack of balls of the politicians, or they desire to stop us from accessing to our human and civil rights.

TylerIE

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

Plus, according to the constitution, "marriage is the foundation of family".
And in the constitution, Family = Teaghlach.
When in doubt about the meaning of a word in the constitution, refer to the Irish wording.

"Teaghlach" means "household".
As opposed to biological forms of "family" (the Irish language has many other words for "family"), the term "teaghlach/household" is not gender specific.

I want to adopt you now for that masterful discovery!

I love being able to turn their own argument back on them!!!!!

Pink Adoptions

And you can even show them the Wiki dictionary entry for the word Teaghlach to prove it :P

norrie rugger

I am straight and completely 100% opposed to the CP.

It enshrines discrimination into law, in this country, and guarrantees that people in a loving gay relationship will be denied all the rights of my GF and I, when we decide to wed.

Not everyone against the bill is like those mentioned in the OP

Pink Adoptions

norrie rugger wrote: »

I am straight and completely 100% opposed to the CP.

It enshrines discrimination into law, in this country, and guarrantees that people in a loving gay relationship will be denied all the rights of my GF and I, when we decide to wed.

Not everyone against the bill is like those mentioned in the OP

Imagine an old man whose lover will die within 6 months: are you going to tell him that he will not get any benefits offered by Civil Partnership because you dream of a better deal for him... when it is too late for him to avail of it?

Senator Norris has the same position as you, but he eventually supported CP because he knew it was not good enough, but better than nothing.

Being 100% against CP is being a lot against the people who will benefit from it.

I prefer to be 50% against it: use what it gives, and keep fighting.

Posturing helps, but once reality hits, posturing has to become realism.

CP is not good enough, it is not what we wanted, but it is all we can hope for in the current climate.
Let's work to change that climate instead of rejecting the rights we get out of it.

Should the slaves in the USA refuse to be given their freedom just because there was still discrimination, and remain in the farms as slaves?
No: they took the end of slavery and lived to fight as free men and women against discrimination. They are still fighting.

You can afford the posturing, but that old man who will need the pension from his dying lover cannot.

norrie rugger

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

Imagine an old man whose lover will die within 6 months: are you going to tell him that he will not get any benefits offered by Civil Partnership because you dream of a better deal for him... when it is too late for him to avail of it?

Senator Norris has the same position as you, but he eventually supported CP because he knew it was not good enough, but better than nothing.

Being 100% against CP is being a lot against the people who will benefit from it.

I prefer to be 50% against it: use what it gives, and keep fighting.

Posturing helps, but once reality hits, posturing has to become realism.

CP is not good enough, it is not what we wanted, but it is all we can hope for in the current climate.
Let's work to change that climate instead of rejecting the rights we get out of it.

Should the slaves in the USA refuse to be given their freedom just because there was still discrimination, and remain in the farms as slaves?
No: they took the end of slavery and lived to fight as free men and women against discrimination. They are still fighting.

You can afford the posturing, but that old man who will need the pension from his dying lover cannot.

I can be 100% against it and still appreciate what it grants.
I am cmpletely opposed to somthing that pushes inequality. Just because it does "some good" does not mean that I (or anyone else) should just have to accept it.
It can be viewed as a stepping stone but for me it is a stone that was not required and that a full recognition marriage for all could have been brought about just as easily.
I may agree with the rights granted but I can damn well be opposed to the method that they were brought in with

you are posturing more than I ever could.

Pink Adoptions

norrie rugger wrote: »

I can be 100% against it and still appreciate what it grants.
I am cmpletely opposed to somthing that pushes inequality. Just because it does "some good" does not mean that I (or anyone else) should just have to accept it.
It can be viewed as a stepping stone but for me it is a stone that was not required and that a full recognition marriage for all could have been brought about just as easily.
I may agree with the rights granted but I can damn well be opposed to the method that they were brought in with

you are posturing more than I ever could.

I agree that it was not required, as full marriage would have been possible and constitutional if the gvt had had the guts to do it, or the will.
And I agree that it will allow the gvt to delay the introduction of marriage for over 10 years, like they did in France.

But being 100% against it means that you would have been happy to see it fail to be passed in Law or if it was successfuly challenged. Such a failure would have simply meant that "the gays don't even want it" as a Justice Minister once put it.
It means you would have wanted David Norris and others to shoot it down. David knew better.

It is up to us to keep on putting the pressure.

Out of curiosity, have you written or spoken to your local TD about it?

norrie rugger

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

I agree that it was not required, as full marriage would have been possible and constitutional if the gvt had had the guts to do it, or the will.
And I agree that it will allow the gvt to delay the introduction of marriage for over 10 years, like they did in France.

But being 100% against it means that you would have been happy to see it fail to be passed in Law or if it was successfuly challenged. Such a failure would have simply meant that "the gays don't even want it" as a Justice Minister once put it.
It means you would have wanted David Norris and others to shoot it down. David knew better.

It is up to us to keep on putting the pressure.

Out of curiosity, have you written or spoken to your local TD about it?

I accept it based on there being no alternative, that does NOT mean that I have to agree with it and still be against it.
We are arguing semantics here. It is possible to be opposed to something but accept that it is the best that you are going to get, for the moment. Hence my intent to march on Sunday, regarding full marriage rights.

Yes I have and intend on bringing it up at next branch meeting. Also sent a mail to the equality officer, regarding anything I can do in this area.
I do not know why this issue bothers me so much, to be honest. It does not affect me, or close family/friends, but I just can not let this one slide, in good faith

Pink Adoptions

norrie rugger wrote: »

Hence my intent to march on Sunday, regarding full marriage rights.

Then I hope to see you there, hopefully wearing a "white knot" :-)

norrie rugger

noticed that in your sig. Where can i get one?

Pink Adoptions

norrie rugger wrote: »

noticed that in your sig. Where can i get one?

To have them on time for Sunday, make it yourself:
http://irishpinkadoptions.com/2010/07/19/faq-white-knot-why-not-where-can-i-find-the-knots/

LegacyUser

lst wrote: »

1 - That when homosexuality was freely allowed/ acceptable in ancient Greece it resulted in the collapse of society.

Many Greek philosophies, secular ideals have been incorporated into Christian doctrine. The early church fathers read and adopted Platonic thought. Plato is one of the chief sources for the existence of 'erotic- educational' relationships between older males and younger males. The older male (the lover) gains sexual benefit and in return offers help and friendship to (the loved) younger man.Anyway homosexuality is a post-Freudian category the ancient Greek notion of homo- eroticism is a little different. The 'collapse' (if you can even call it that) of Greek society was precipitated in part by their foreign policy.

Annasopra

norrie rugger wrote: »

Yes I have and intend on bringing it up at next branch meeting. Also sent a mail to the equality officer, regarding anything I can do in this area.
I do not know why this issue bothers me so much, to be honest. It does not affect me, or close family/friends, but I just can not let this one slide, in good faith

Which party are you in?

norrie rugger

labour

norrie rugger

Some pics of the rally yesterday.
I only got there for the speeches and not the march, match traffic caught me.

I thought it was a good enough crowd but the lads were saying that it was only about 50% of last year.
Made enough noise anyway

Oh and I managed to go to the rally, give my support and come away without catching the Ghey. Amazing considering what I have heard from homophobic people

dory

I think in time we're going to going to regret the CP Bill. It certainly seems to have taken some of the steam from the marraige cause.

It's so silly though. Gay people have been shacking up, having committment ceremonies and producing children in one way or the other for a long time. These protesters seem to think this will magically stop happening if CP/Gay Marraige is not allowed. They'd need to take away people inate want to merge and reproduce to get their way, and I don't see them bring very successful at that.

Annasopra

dory wrote: »

I think in time we're going to going to regret the CP Bill.

No, I don't think so at all

norrie rugger

dory wrote: »

I think in time we're going to going to regret the CP Bill. It certainly seems to have taken some of the steam from the marraige cause.

It's so silly though. Gay people have been shacking up, having committment ceremonies and producing children in one way or the other for a long time. These protesters seem to think this will magically stop happening if CP/Gay Marraige is not allowed. They'd need to take away people inate want to merge and reproduce to get their way, and I don't see them bring very successful at that.

I can imagine that adoption is difficult for gay couples. Someone please correct me if i am wrong.

Male couples have very limited rights to children born, to one of them, if the mother decides to keep a child. The non biological father has no rights as far as i can see. If the biological parent dies, who has rights to care for the child?
If the couple split, does the non biological parent have any rights?
To me gay marriage and rights is more than just a ceremony. Family law will need an overhaul also, for male or female couples, where a child of biological decent is wanted and not adopted.

Aard

I also don't think that we'll regret Civil Partnerships. I would probably be fully behind it, if only it were to be gender-neutral. (How ironic that an Act inteded to reduce the gender-specific nature of Civil Marriage is carrying over that specificity into "equality"-driven legislation.)

Nonetheless, CP will be invaluable to hundreds of people in Ireland. Any kinship, taxation, or inheritence rights it provides will save countless hours of stress, not to mention the money, for couples. Obviously, it's pretty lame in comparison to Civil Marriage, but in comparison to what we've got, it's better than a kick in the teeth.

brandodub

dory wrote: »

I think in time we're going to going to regret the CP Bill.



Remember a certain M Collins-freedom to achieve freedom. It certainly is NOT a marriage bill but its on the statute books now so scope for expansion to FULL marital rights may take longer but does now exist.

IMHO it is better to be in the Arena rather than shouting from the pavement outside. We are now more visible in Ireland than I ever remember being and if we stick to our principles marriage -full marriage with the same rights and obligations as available to straight couples-can still be available to us.

Division suits the naysayers.

shoegirl

Let me try!

lst wrote: »

1 - That when homosexuality was freely allowed/ acceptable in ancient Greece it resulted in the collapse of society.....

It wasn't generally accepted at all - this is a modern myth. It was barely tolerated in a limited number of city states and most men and women who indulged were also involved in heterosexual relationships which were very much regarded as the more important of the two. The fall of Greek culture was due to the rise of more significant millitary powers in Rome and the spread of Greek millitary might over a wider area which was harder to govern.

lst wrote: »

2 - That European Countries which have recently become more liberal are now facing a collapse of the social structure, family etc. e.g. Scandanavian countries.

I call this "the sky is falling down." Remember the chldrens story "Chicken Licken"? Basically where the protagonist panics around telling everybody basically the world is coming to an end - which of course it doesn't. This is also more commonly known as "moral panic" and spread heavily in right wing newspapers, conservative political parties - the dark side is how it goes on to basically marginalise groups who were previously made suffer in society - like lone parents, broken families, immigrants etc. Of course far easier to blame traditional targets than tackle the more complex and hidden culprits today.

lst wrote: »

3 - The incredibly low birth rates - 1.7 children per married Woman in Ireland is already lower than the EU Average. I was aware of this figure....

Many scientists and intellectuals would strongly argue that population reduction in highly consuming countries is a very good thing indeed! On the whole bigger families tend to be associated with poverty and low life expectancy.

lst wrote: »

4 - That the structure and order of the family and society needs to be preserved and promoted.

Similar to "the sky is falling down" argument above.

lst wrote: »

6 - That most gay people that the last guy knew were deeply unhappy, having been victims of sexual abuse as children. And that they (us gays) were pursuing lives of debouchery in the pursuit of happiness, but that when examined we are generally not happy. Unfortunately with the huge instances of depression and suicide in the LGBT(Q) community it is fair to say that many people are grossly unhappy. I proposed the unhappiness was due to the attitudes of society - he suggested reparative therapy was better.

I'd guess he probably doesn't know any gay people at all. You often find that people like him go out of their way to avoid having gay friends and would socially marginalise gay people in company. My own mother did this for years, sure! Lots of gay people are quite happy - and conversely lots of straight people are not.

lst wrote: »

7 - That the individual knew many people who had undergone therapy to get rid of their homosexual urges, and that it had worked for them.

Thats something that is very much open to debate. I do know a few people who have tried to "change" and all of hem went back eventually.

lst wrote: »

10 - that as Im only 23 im still confused... maybe I should try a girl... pray... did I pray.... etc....

Most people I know felt an awareness of their sexuality as young as 5 or 6 - does this make it more or less legitimate? You can drive, drink and vote at 18 - you're 5 years older than that! Praying is not relevant.

shoegirl

dory wrote: »

I think in time we're going to going to regret the CP Bill. It certainly seems to have taken some of the steam from the marraige cause.

I don't think so. What is has taken the steam away from is the continuing reality that many gay people in Ireland are not equals when it comes to social life, work life, even sometimes being able to walk down the street or go to school unharassed. Gay people still are beaten on the streets and there is a bit of an assumption that discrimination is dead and gone. It is not.