Civil Partnership bill, can you explain something to me?

sasser

It's being debated at the moment, I keep hearing that it will undermine /threaten marriage. Can someone explain how, really, I just don't undertstand this argument?

Viper_JB

My understanding of this is that they're saying that if you can have all the rights that married couples are afforded or even some of the rights then there's allot less encouragment to get married.

sasser

But gay/lesbian people can't get married?

southsiderosie

Viper_JB wrote: »

My understanding of this is that they're saying that if you can have all the rights that married couples are afforded or even some of the rights then there's allot less encouragment to get married.

The current welfare system does far more to dis-incentivize marriage than "expanding the franchise" ever could.

Viper_JB

It covers everyone in a relationship - well cohabitating couple reguardless on sexual preference.

sasser

The current welfare system does far more to dis-incentivize marriage than "expanding the franchise" ever could.

Did you know that when being means tested for dole/job seekers allowance, they take what your partner is earning into consideration. However, you don't get any extra tax credits for being a couple, double standard there.

Gone Drinking

Its like hayfever, for gays. I call it.. gayfever

Robbo

By opening up the number of potential unions, existing marriages are now devalued, like when taxis were deregulated. This means their value decreases and many will be left in negative equity on existing marriages and will never be able to sell on their wives. Many will be left stuck with a "starter wife" which will be of a completely unsuitable size in years to come.

I call for a NAMA for the recently married.

fontanalis

sasser wrote: »

It's being debated at the moment, I keep hearing that it will undermine /threaten marriage. Can someone explain how, really, I just don't undertstand this argument?

It will utterly destroy it. Those priests and bishops marriages will be the same as some infidels living in sin.

enniscorthy

if gays dont like the law of the land nobodys forcing them to stay

us irish on the other hand are a charitable and understanding race

how many gays are in the country surely we can clear off some rocky island somewhere out west and put them all on that and they can have their own little country

do what they like then

j1974

sasser wrote: »

It's being debated at the moment, I keep hearing that it will undermine /threaten marriage. Can someone explain how, really, I just don't undertstand this argument?

basically it means that if gay people are given similar rights to straight married couples, then it takes away from the conventional idea of the mammy/daddy 2.4 children scenario. Basically you should only have tax breaks etc if your straight. What do you expect in a roman catholic country. the church tell you, what you can do, who you can marry, whether you can wear a condom etc etc. They keep the juicy decisions for themselves, like should I have one or two children today!!!!!:D

dRNk SAnTA

As Stephen Colbert said:

Marriage is a basic building block of society. If gay men get married then that threatens my marriage immediately, because I only got married as a taunt toward gay men, because they couldn't. I don't know why else I got married other than to rub it in gay peoples faces.

And

If gay marriage is legalised, what's to stop some guy breaking into my house and gay-marrying me in my sleep.

fontanalis

enniscorthy wrote: »

if gays dont like the law of the land nobodys forcing them to stay

us irish on the other hand are a charitable and understanding race

how many gays are in the country surely we can clear off some rocky island somewhere out west and put them all on that and they can have their own little country

do what they like then

Sweet jebus!

Caoimhín

I think the real reason that this is causing a stir is not so much the legal contract that marriage is but the resulting rights the couple will have to adopt and rear children.

sasser

I think the real reason that this is causing a stir is not so much the legal contract that marriage is but the resulting rights the couple will have to adopt and rear children.

What do you mean, I thought everyone was giving out that this bill doesn't give rights and protection to children of same sex couples.

Piste

Does the civil partnership bill give couples the right to adopt children?

starbelgrade

Piste wrote: »

Does the civil partnership bill give couples the right to adopt children?

No.

sasser

No couples (be it same sex or opposite sex) can currently adopt in Ireland. The bill does not give that right to either. However, someone can adopt as a single person, sexual orientation is irrelevant. The problem for unmarried gay and straight couples is that the 2nd partner gets no legal rights.

Piste

How does it "undermine" marriage then? (not specifically asking you, just in general).

Personally I think it's an awful Bill in that it's opt-out, not opt-in. I don't want the government deciding I have some sort of obligation to a boyfriend if I live with him for a certain period of time.

Sulmac

The Civil Partnership Bill will "undermine" marriage in the same way legalising homosexuality, divorce and pornography "undermined" marriage - in that IT WON'T.

sasser

It doesn't undermine marriage, the same argument was rolled out for the divorce referendum. That's my question, how?

fontanalis

Sulmac wrote: »

The Civil Partnership Bill will "harm" marriage in the same way legalising homosexuality, divorce and pornography "harmed" marriage - IT WON'T.

Youmean treating people like adults and letting them make their own decisions.
I hope god doesn't get mad, he might strike the country down with a famine . . . . again

starbelgrade

sasser wrote: »

It's being debated at the moment, I keep hearing that it will undermine /threaten marriage. Can someone explain how, really, I just don't undertstand this argument?

It's a nonsensical argument put forward by the type of backward, idiotic, conservative f*ckwit politicians that represent the voice of a percentage of the electorate that still live in the dark ages.

Caoimhín

sasser wrote: »

What do you mean, I thought everyone was giving out that this bill doesn't give rights and protection to children of same sex couples.

I havent read the bill, nor am I likely to, but looking at the Frontline on Monday the issue with the gheys raising kids seemed to be the problem the crazy god people had.


For the record, i think anyone who wants to get married is daft.

GLaDOS

People who don't like homosexuality use it as an excuse to try and stop it becoming more accepted in society, it's nonsensical and bigoted.

humanji

Basically, about 1000 years ago the Irish were oppressed by Viking raiders. The Vikings went off, and in came the British, who oppressed the Irish for 800 years give or take. After that, the British left (most of) us alone and the Catholic Church came along and oppressed us.

Now that the Church's power is waining, people are wising up and getting on on the ground floor this time around. We're going to oppress a minority before someone else oppresses us. It just happened to be homosexuals.

v2

enniscorthy wrote: »

if gays dont like the law of the land nobodys forcing them to stay

us irish on the other hand are a charitable and understanding race

how many gays are in the country surely we can clear off some rocky island somewhere out west and put them all on that and they can have their own little country

do what they like then

Such a place already exists: It's called the Isle of Man.

v2

humanji wrote: »

Basically, about 1000 years ago the Irish were oppressed by Viking raiders. The Vikings went off, and in came the British, who oppressed the Irish for 800 years give or take. After that, the British left (most of) us alone and the Catholic Church came along and oppressed us.

Now that the Church's power is waining, people are wising up and getting on on the ground floor this time around. We're going to oppress a minority before someone else oppresses us. It just happened to be homosexuals.

In other words: the Irish are incapable of self governance.

AnonoBoy

Oh people will be marrying potatoes and horses and microwave ovens next I suppose.

I think we should ban marriage altogether for everyone, then we wouldn't have this problem. :mad:

Mike 1972

Sulmac wrote: »

The Civil Partnership Bill will "undermine" marriage in the same way legalising homosexuality, divorce and pornography "undermined" marriage - in that IT WON'T.

Unfortunately ?

kylith

Sulmac wrote: »

The Civil Partnership Bill will "undermine" marriage in the same way legalising homosexuality, divorce and pornography "undermined" marriage - in that IT WON'T.

Agreed. The only people who are argueing that it will 'undermine' marriage are bigots who feel that homosexuals are not normal, and don't like the idea of them being able to form a legally binding partnership for some reason, the bigots.

v2

kylith wrote: »

Agreed. The only people who are argueing that it will 'undermine' marriage are bigots who feel that homosexuals are not normal, and don't like the idea of them being able to form a legally binding partnership for some reason, the bigots.

As a Catholic, I have no problem with two men (or multiple men, or man and his camel for that matter) entering into a legally binding agreement. But be careful who you jump into bed with: homosexuals are a promiscuos bunch. When they hit 40, youth is long gone and they're staring old age in the face, they think that going off with a 21 year-old lad will satisfy their sexual lust.

Caoimhín

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Oh people will be marrying horses next I suppose.
:

Dont knock it.

At least they wouldnt nag you to put the bins out :pac:

v2

Caoimhín wrote: »

Dont knock it.

At least they wouldnt nag you to put the bins out :pac:

The Dutch legalised sex with horses at one stage. They had to back-track on that logical extension of liberalism when they sat down and thought out the consequences...

Caoimhín

v2 wrote: »

The Dutch legalised sex with horses at one stage. They had to back-track on that logical extension of liberalism when they sat down and thought out the consequences...

Half man half horse babies?

Agent J

v2 wrote: »

As a Catholic, I have no problem with two men (or multiple men, or man and his camel for that matter) entering into a legally binding agreement. But be careful who you jump into bed with: homosexuals are a promiscuos bunch. When they hit 40, youth is long gone and they're staring old age in the face, they think that going off with a 21 year-old lad will satisfy their sexual lust.

That sounds like a common Hetrosexual problem as well.....

v2

Agent J wrote: »

That sounds like a common Hetrosexual problem as well.....

There's only three dots in an ellipsis...

Pyr0

There's people in the world who realise that regardless to their personal opinion on someone's sexuality there is still a need to practise that sexuality freely. Sadly, these people are not very common as one would like. Instead we're stuck with people who refuse to accept anything other than the "normal" that has been shoved down their throat by the Catholic Church or *insert influence here*, it's a backwards and un-progressive way of thinking that gets us nowhere as a society.

v2

Pyr0 wrote: »

There's people in the world who realise that regardless to their personal opinion on someone's sexuality there is still a need to practise that sexuality freely. Sadly, these people are not very common as one would like. Instead we're stuck with people who refuse to accept anything other than the "normal" that has been shoved down their throat by the Catholic Church or *insert influence here*, it's a backwards and un-progressive way of thinking that gets us nowhere as a society.

The Catholic Church are not the only organisation in the world who teach the immorality of non-monogamous relations between humans. Even the Dalai Lama has something to say on the use of sexual organs contrary to their purpose (albeit from a totally different philosophical standpoint from the Catholic Church).

Homosexuals aren't singled out: sexual immorality can be engaged in by single and married persons too. Even ordained priests have done terrible things: they'll face a much worse penalty when facing ultimate justice.

Karl Hungus

Caoimhín wrote: »

Half man half horse babies?

That explains Sarah Jessica Parker so.

kylith

v2 wrote: »

As a Catholic, I have no problem with two men (or multiple men, or man and his camel for that matter) entering into a legally binding agreement. But be careful who you jump into bed with: homosexuals are a promiscuos bunch. When they hit 40, youth is long gone and they're staring old age in the face, they think that going off with a 21 year-old lad will satisfy their sexual lust.

For every promiscuous homosexual man who'd run off with a younger partner there are an equal number of promiscuous hetrosexuals of both sexes who would do the same. Why should they not be given the opportunity to get enter a civil partnership because they 'might' split up later? Should we ban hetrosexual marriage because 50% or so end in divorce*?

*probably stats for the US.

v2

kylith wrote: »

For every promiscuous homosexual man who'd run off with a younger partner there are an equal number of promiscuous hetrosexuals of both sexes who would do the same. Why should they not be given the opportunity to get enter a civil partnership because they 'might' split up later? Should we ban hetrosexual marriage because 50% or so end in divorce*?

*probably stats for the US.

Compelling...

Karl Hungus

Karl Hungus wrote: »

That explains Sarah Jessica Parker so.

No it wouldnt. She is a full on horse, a pure breed if you will.

v2

Deleted User wrote: »

No it wouldnt. She is a full on horse, a pure breed if you will.

That's some mare! ROFLCOPTER!

twinQuins

v2 wrote: »

The Dutch legalised sex with horses at one stage. They had to back-track on that logical extension of liberalism

Here we fuckin' go...

Caoimhín

So we are all agreed then, having ghey sex with a horse will lead to Sarah Jessiac Parker lookalike horsebabies that will go to hell?

Karl Hungus

Deleted User wrote: »

No it wouldnt. She is a full on horse, a pure breed if you will.

That's an insult to a beautiful horse.

CrazySnakeLady

enniscorthy wrote: »

if gays dont like the law of the land nobodys forcing them to stay

us irish on the other hand are a charitable and understanding race

how many gays are in the country surely we can clear off some rocky island somewhere out west and put them all on that and they can have their own little country

do what they like then

They already did that with one county...I believe it was called Wexford hense the "Pet shop boys" song, everyone thinks they were singing "Go West" but in actual fact they were singing "Go Wex" and they all went and did "what they like" but shagging each other became boring so they started breeding with vegetables instead and you are a product of it.

kylith

v2 wrote: »

Compelling...

Well, it's not been legal for long. According to Wiki it's 40% as of 2008 in the US and 33% in Australia. Statistics for Europe show a 20% rise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce#Statistics

ETA: Here we go: http://www.balbriggansolicitor.ie/divorcestatistics.html In ireland 1 in 6 marriages ends in divorce

Karl Hungus

Karl Hungus wrote: »

That's an insult to a beautiful horse.

It is rather good looking isnt it

Karl Hungus

Deleted User wrote: »

It is rather good looking isnt it

Indeed, far more attractive than Sarah Jessica Parker.