Civil Partnership, the end of gay Culture?

Freiheit

A great article on page 11 of issue 5 of 'The Magazine', curious as to what others think?. The synopsis is that Civil Partnership could lead to the assimilation of lgb into wider society and the loss of their distinctive 'culture'. I think it could be right.

The below link is just to the magazine website, am not very literate, so wasn't able to provide a direct link to page 11, but it's easily reached from here!:)



http://www.themagazine.ie/index.php

baby and crumble

I have no problem becoming seen as normal.

But there will always be a place for different cultural groups to come together, especially self identifying groups.

I've long wondered about 'gay culture' really, I don't REALLY get it. I enjoy going to Panti for the shows, and cos it's a nice bar, not cos it's gay. I like going to Kehoes for coffee and scones, because its relaxed (and the raspberry muffins are soooooooooooo good!!).

Also, I object to the assumption that being part of a long standing gay couple is not to be strived for. That by committing to each other you're spitting on the gayness.

L.Jenkins

At the end of the day, I don't think 'the gay culture' will disappear. It's a move in the right direction finally and I suppose being bi it opens up more possiblities for me

Dr. Baltar

Certainly not. Civil Marriage is just a stepping stone and Gay Pride will still be there highlighting the gay community and the yearning for full civil marriage.

Furthermore, there are those that totally reject heteronormativity altogether and who like and want to be "different".

Personally, I'll be happy as soon as we have civil marriage and are able to give blood. I think I'll start shouting at other countries then.

ixoy

Surely a culture would only disappear if people let it? And people would only let if if they felt it no longer held any value for them. I would have thought then, if anything, it would allow for various areas to truly thrive without having to get too bogged down in crusades.

Chuchoter

I'm glad this guy is having such a great time living on the fringes of society not being recognized by the law but some of us want the 'normal life'. I have no interest in spending my whole life being flamboyantly different for the sake of it, I want the wife, house, job and 2 kids. I think the argument that gay culture will disappear is both very immature and disregards that just because we get (in fact we're not even getting marriage!) CP does not mean that suddenly the prejudice that exists now will suddenly disappear. There will still be people rejected by family and friends who need somewhere to go, and they will be around for a long time to come. I also don't think we should want to live as a little clique outside of the rest of society, especially if that means being legislated against.

Nebit

i think civil partnerships is a stepping stone in getting rid of the BAD stereotypes associated with this 'Gay culture'

baby and crumble

Nebit wrote:

i think civil partnerships is a stepping stone in getting rid of the BAD stereotypes associated with this 'Gay culture'

Yeah, I totally agree. So many people have this idea in their heads that gay relationships don't last as long as heterosexual ones... People so often sound surprised that I'm still with my first gf, after a good few years, and it's still going 100% strong.

I think having the option to commit publicly and assume the rights and responsibilities of a married couple, for all intents and purposes, will dispel some of these notions... And the truly 'alternative' sexualities and people will still exist and have a culture. It's just perhaps going to lead to a more 'refining' of the strata that make up what are now deemed alternative lifestyles, maybe.

Donnaghm

The Article said something about the disappearance of gay meeting places in the post-gay world and that this has happened in Norway. So how does one indentify gay people there then?

Miss Ogyne

Freiheit wrote: »

A great article on page 11 of issue 5 of 'The Magazine', curious as to what others think?. The synopsis is that Civil Partnership could lead to the assimilation of lgb into wider society and the loss of their distinctive 'culture'. I think it could be right.

The below link is just to the magazine website, am not very literate, so wasn't able to provide a direct link to page 11, but it's easily reached from here!:)



http://www.themagazine.ie/index.php

To call homosexuallity a "Culture" is to imply it's a choice and therefor say being gay isn't something you are born as but something you chose or has been chosen for you. Arrange marriages are a culture choice, Circumcission is a culture choice, no one on this planet has ever said "My child will be gay because thats my culture"

Aard

Donnaghm wrote: »

The Article said something about the disappearance of gay meeting places in the post-gay world and that this has happened in Norway. So how does one indentify gay people there then?

They walk down the street holding hands. One week in Oslo and I saw as many male couples holding hands as I've seen in Dublin in my life.

If you're talking about where to meet them, there are as many gay bars/nights in Oslo as in Dublin. People are a lot more open there, so the friends-of-friends thing would work better than in Ireland.

wonderfulname

Hmm I find myself disagreeing with him quite a bit.

While major battles remain to be won - primarily over marriage equality and the rights of LGBT parents - it is doubtful if these will draw the same breadth of support now that civil partnership has become a reality.

I myself think that once the honeymoon period of civil partnership is over it will suddenly dawn on people that we are now legislatively second class people in our own country, before civil partnership there was merely no provision or thought given to same sex couples, now a decision has been made which pits them beneath heterosexuals, in time we will see a huge level of demonstration again.

...we may sacrifice the cultural, aesthetic and philosophical impacts of homosexuality

^^can anyone tell me what he's on about??

In any case there will always be gay bars and the like, unless "I'm sorry, are you gay?" is to become the new classy chat-up line.. I truly hope within a generation or two there is no distinction between gay and straight beyond sexuality but I find it unlikely. I would love it if the gay "culture" died a quick and painful death as I think it's severely damaging to young LGBT peoples emotional and social development, but again, highly highly unlikely.

Annasopra

wonderfulname wrote: »

I would love it if the gay "culture" died a quick and painful death as I think it's severely damaging to young LGBT peoples emotional and social development, but again, highly highly unlikely.

Now that is something I strongly disagree with, I think the sense of a community, the celebration of pride are quite healthy and I really hate this kind of crap. It's almost like telling people that because they are drag queens or transvestites or trans that they are unacceptable - It seems to me that there is a new discourse of Heteronormativity, that everyone who is LGBT must now conform to heterosexaul normality and if you don't then you will be ostracised. It kind of reminds me of Brenda Powers rejection of Pantis arguments just cause they came from a man in a dress. I kind of agree with the author in a way and it seems to me as if diversity within the LGBT community is threatened - how often for example do you hear people saying they are satisfied with CP and don't particularly want marriage - and can you imagine the howls of indignation!

baby and crumble

Johnnymcg wrote:

I kind of agree with the author in a way and it seems to me as if diversity within the LGBT community is threatened

I can understand your point, but I don't agree. I see very little of myself in 'gay culture'. I have no problem with wanting to know people who have/ are experiencing some of the same things as you, but I actually think that in an unusual way, diversity now has a chance to actually truly occur within LGBT circles. Being married will be quite 'diverse'. No?

Annasopra

Personally I'm actually not particularly into gay culture myself - I'm quite straight acting, not really into campness or other parts of gay culture etc but I will strongly defend the rights of others to be camp, to be radical Queers, to reject Heteronormativity - I don't particularly like a homogenisation where some people are told - you're not an acceptable gay cause you're a drag queen or you're camp and flamboyant or because you take a radical stand against the institution of marriage!

dermo88

There was a time when I would miss the end of it, but thats from a younger perspective. I might go to a gay bar once every 3 or 4 months these days, but previously, it was 3 nights a week, considering my office was above one (Happy days indeed.....out of bed, into work, out of work into pub, out of pub into.....)

The whole labelling of gay bars, straight bars, and other meeting places comes from a group that is marginalised. They will continue to exist, but will become gay friendly over time, rather than purely gay.

Its getting to the stage where noone really gives a damn anymore, and that can only be a good thing.

I'll admit to being old fashioned, and have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy. My sexuality is on a need to know basis, not a tell all basis, but people can draw their own conclusions if they have to.

Its a sign of a mature modern society, and its taken just over 40 years to get there in the western world.

As for "normal", there is no such thing, except for insurance corporations who would like everyone to be teetotal, non smoking, vegetarian, female primary school teachers in county Leitrim, since the aspect of insuring would be risk free.

wonderfulname

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Now that is something I strongly disagree with, I think the sense of a community, the celebration of pride are quite healthy and I really hate this kind of crap. It's almost like telling people that because they are drag queens or transvestites or trans that they are unacceptable - It seems to me that there is a new discourse of Heteronormativity, that everyone who is LGBT must now conform to heterosexaul normality and if you don't then you will be ostracised.

Oh dear there is a difference between LGBT support structures which are something to be glad for and the poor ejits who are pretending to be someone their not just because they think its the only way not to pretend to be someone even further removed from themselves. It is damaging to a young persons social development if they pigeonhole and stereotype themselves in some form of self protection, shielding themselves from the wider community and refusing to interact, the barrier between gay and straight people, purpose built by what I suppose can only be called the gay community, out of nothing more than fear, needs to disappear and people need to cop on and grow the balls to be themselves in the real world regardless of who that happens to be from an incredibly camp straight man to a gay woman who fulfills all her gender stereotypes.

Dwn Wth Vwls

I've been talking about this subject with a couple of people lately and I find it quite interesting. A couple of points;

Before being gay was acceptable, yes I can see that gay culture was important to people who felt isolated. It helped people bond over shared interests and even find each other. I just don't see any need for that anymore though, since every day it becomes more and more normal for people to come out. There's also the internet; anonymous and global.

The other side of it, I think it's silly to call it gay culture. Lots of theatre, drama, performance, art, music, etc etc is considered gay culture. Why? What does it have to do with same sex attraction? I don't think gay culture will die out at all, I think it'll simply cease to be associated so strictly with sexuality.

I think you could separate this interest in gay culture from sexuality and, for lack of a better word, call it being queer. Straight people can be queer. Gay people aren't automatically queer. There are other things that could fall into the category of being queer, like body modification.

To me, it makes a lot more sense that this is a separate thing to sexuality. There just happens to be a large overlap. When you separate it, you can see that it's not a big deal if gay people "become normal", they were normal all along. Culture isn't going anywhere.

Nebit

i find it amusing that people out there in the LGBT community moan about not being perceived as normal people within society who can have normal long term relationships etc
THEN go on to moan about it being a loss of culture.
What the hell does legalising same sex marriages or partnerships have to do with gay culture?
There will still be gay bars, still have pride etc
tbh as i stated earlier i think its the start of getting rid of bad stereotypes like all gay men and lesbians are permiscuous.

Also i would point out that the same sex marriages or partnerships in my opinion has nothing to do with being percieved as normal whatever, i think of it as two people who want to commit to each other. How is this a loss of gay culture?

Annasopra

wonderfulname wrote: »

Oh dear there is a difference between LGBT support structures which are something to be glad for and the poor ejits who are pretending to be someone their not just because they think its the only way not to pretend to be someone even further removed from themselves. It is damaging to a young persons social development if they pigeonhole and stereotype themselves in some form of self protection, shielding themselves from the wider community and refusing to interact, the barrier between gay and straight people, purpose built by what I suppose can only be called the gay community, out of nothing more than fear, needs to disappear and people need to cop on and grow the balls to be themselves in the real world regardless of who that happens to be from an incredibly camp straight man to a gay woman who fulfills all her gender stereotypes.

again I disagree, firstly why do you assume that a person is pretending anything, secondly - it's certainly not my choice of lifestyle to be a scene queen and I don't particularly understand it but at the same time I have absolutely no problem with people who choose that lifestyle, that's their choice and they have a right to choose it. If people want a safe space where they can be themselves what is wrong with that?

Annasopra

Nebit wrote: »

Also i would point out that the same sex marriages or partnerships in my opinion has nothing to do with being percieved as normal whatever,

Of course it does! It's a societal norm for people in long term relationships to commit to each other - what worries me is how LGBT people will treat other LGBT people who don't want this, who prefer to do anything outside of this norm - will they be ostracised?

Nebit

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Of course it does! It's a societal norm for people in long term relationships to commit to each other - what worries me is how LGBT people will treat other LGBT people who don't want this, who prefer to do anything outside of this norm - will they be ostracised?

No i doubt that very much, in fact its more likely that those in long term relationships will be ostracised, this can be seen in hetrosexual relationships, people are excluded from social outings etc because they are a couple.

Also a large amount of the LGBT community still like to be single, i say fair play if thats what they want then good luck to them. Why should it bother me?

if people do say oh its dodgey he's/she's not settling down etc then they aren't going to say it to there face are they?? in the same way if a hetrosexual man or woman was still single. (and lets be honest they wont be doing that as it is still accosiated with a gay stereotype)

wonderfulname

Johnnymcg wrote: »

again I disagree, firstly why do you assume that a person is pretending anything

There are an awful lot of people who think to be gay means to be stereotypically so and so assume the stereotype, I'm not saying everyone is (to be honest i think thats obvious..) but a hell of a lot of people are, its not an assumption its an observation.
And yes they should have the right to choose but freely, I've seen a crap load of people assume that identity because it fits their sexuality, surely people finally viewing sexuality and personality as separate can only be a good thing?

PeterIanStaker

Nebit wrote: »

i think civil partnerships is a stepping stone in getting rid of the BAD stereotypes associated with this 'Gay culture'

I think that Civil Partnership is a step in getting rid of catholofascist Ireland, and as such is a move in the right direction.

Pink Adoptions

Freiheit wrote: »

A great article on page 11 of issue 5 of 'The Magazine', curious as to what others think?. The synopsis is that Civil Partnership could lead to the assimilation of lgb into wider society and the loss of their distinctive 'culture'. I think it could be right.

The below link is just to the magazine website, am not very literate, so wasn't able to provide a direct link to page 11, but it's easily reached from here!:)



http://www.themagazine.ie/index.php

There has always been a sub-culture in the gay community that consisted of parents raising kids.
And another one consisting of couples living as a couple.
The Civil Partnership will recognize the existence of the latter.
Only Civil Marriage can recognize the existence of the former.

In all cases, only these too subculture in the community are really impacted.
The community as a whole is impacted by section 15 in the exact same way as the rest of the Irish Nation.

I really do not see how this can even start to being seen as an issue, unless you have a nostalgia of when being gay was a crime.

All we lose is a bit of the feeling of being persecuted.
We can live with that because our lives are not 100% defined by "being gay". We care more for being proud and happy, than for being persecuted and brave.

We cannot lose anything by earning our right to be a couple, with Civil Partnership.
We will not lose anything when our kids earn the right to be a family, with Civil Marriage.

LegacyUser

Dwn Wth Vwls wrote: »

To me, it makes a lot more sense that this is a separate thing to sexuality. There just happens to be a large overlap. When you separate it, you can see that it's not a big deal if gay people "become normal", they were normal all along. Culture isn't going anywhere.

I've just come out to my parents after realising in the last few months that I'm gay, and as someone who doesn't fit the stereotypical campness and drama or whatever you want to call it, it made me feel a lot more uncomfortable about being gay.

If being gay wasn't made into such a big deal by the gay community, I feel I would have been more comfortable coming out before now. I have gay friends, but none of my best friends that I socialise with are, that suits me. It makes it more difficult to find gay men, but I don't "get" the whole thing of groups of gay men and lesbians hanging out, it makes me uncomfortable, it kind of sexualises socialising. I'm just looking to have a bit of craic.

If anything can contribute to normalising being gay, and by that I mean gay people themselves realising that there is nothing wierd or special about being gay over being straight and stop celebrating gayness, then I welcome it.

Annasopra

Nebit wrote: »

No i doubt that very much, in fact its more likely that those in long term relationships will be ostracised, this can be seen in hetrosexual relationships, people are excluded from social outings etc because they are a couple.

Also a large amount of the LGBT community still like to be single, i say fair play if thats what they want then good luck to them. Why should it bother me?

if people do say oh its dodgey he's/she's not settling down etc then they aren't going to say it to there face are they?? in the same way if a hetrosexual man or woman was still single. (and lets be honest they wont be doing that as it is still accosiated with a gay stereotype)

Interestingly maman poulet was dicssuing my point as well
http://theantiroom.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/not-the-marrying-kind-ready/

Nebit

Johnnymcg wrote: »

Interestingly maman poulet was dicssuing my point as well
http://theantiroom.wordpress.com/2010/08/16/not-the-marrying-kind-ready/

That's an interesting article, and although i appreciate the view, i still would have to disagree.
Marriage is simply the big 'right' missing at the moment and when two people feel so strongly about each other and are told im sorry you cant marry because the state doesnt recognise your type of relationship of course this is going to be the key focus .
However if say being caught kissing a guy in public could get you arrested we would all protest and strive for that to be changed.
What im trying to say is that LGBT peoples have more rights than ever and at the moment the big issue is marriage equality.

Hardaway

I think the mamanpoulet piece posted above brings important issues to the discussion that have been missing so far.

When we demand marriage rights, in the rush for "equality" it should remain clear to us exactly what we are buying into. As is pointed out in the piece, marriage does not exactly have a beautiful history. She reminds us that, historically, marriage has provided a social technology for the subjugation of women at various levels of discursivity both explicit and tacit. It has normalised and perpetuated oppressive gender relations and has even provided a legal justification for rape.

Not only has marriage been part of the institutionalisation of sexism, it has also helped to marginalise those that do not fit within its narrow limits. That is: those whose relationships do not conform to a particular standard. It does not just exclude gays, but also perpetuates an ideal.

What I mean to say in a nutshell, is that it seems ironic at best to see our search for equality contingent upon admittance to an institution which has been so helpful for engendering inequality.

Hardaway

also "hey hi whatup"

wonderfulname

The maman poulet piece, whilst interesting, is not something I would agree with. I don't care for the negative history associated with marriage, nor can I see a future where unmarried gay people are viewed as loose. As it stands the unspoken message is that gay unions are not as unbreakable or meaningful as that wonderful bond between a man and a woman. None of the rights that come with marriage matter as much to me as the idea of making a lifelong commitment to someone and it being taken seriously, and I think gay couples being able to do that will reflect well on the community as a whole. I actually think this will kill off the loose stereotype and unmarried people will just be unmarried people, gay or straight.

Hardaway

what do you mean when you say you "don't care for the negative history associated with marriage." I think what I and a lot of others would object to is mainly the view that an institution (aside from just the fact that it is so problematic historically) such as marriage is needed to legitimise gay relationships. Marriage codifies and regulates human romantic and sexual interaction at a state level, it uses these things to confer specific privileges. Its very structure is inherently unequal (the piece points out that one party will "dependent" on the other).

I think the thing that has made me most thankful for being born queer is that it has always forced me to look at things from a perspective that immediately questions what is normal, how our idea of what is normal implicitly marginalises whatever falls outside it (do you see the heavyhanded metaphor). It's just depressing to me that the perspective that we get as queers, to be able to see the falsehood that leads to expectations of what is normal (and how this results in self-policing etc.) doesn't lead to a desire for the dismantling of the institutions that perpetuate these falsehoods. In fact we look to these very institutions of oppression for approval and how these legitimised relationships will "reflect well on the community as a whole." We should be fighting for the understanding that relationships, families, sexual and social relationships take many forms outside of those that are reflected in privileges for a few. We should be rejecting the assumptions that have resulted in our historical marginalisation and oppression, rather than trying to appropriate them for some veneer of respectability.

wonderfulname

Hardaway wrote: »

what do you mean when you say you "don't care for the negative history associated with marriage."

the article has a good rant about it, personally I couldn't care less. I don't think its that hard to get

Hardaway wrote: »

I think what I and a lot of others would object to is mainly the view that an institution such as marriage is needed to legitimise gay relationships.

Actually I would argue that gay marriage would be a coming of age, it would simply be a symbol that gay relationships were, to use your term, legitimate, in the eyes of the people.

Hardaway wrote: »

Marriage codifies and regulates human romantic and sexual interaction at a state level, it uses these things to confer specific privileges.

And thats it is it? Try saying that in the weddings forum...

I think the thing that has made me most thankful for being born queer is that it has always forced me to look at things from a perspective that immediately questions what is normal, how our idea of what is normal implicitly marginalises whatever falls outside it (do you see the heavyhanded metaphor). It's just depressing to me that the perspective that we get as queers, to be able to see the falsehood that leads to expectations of what is normal (and how this results in self-policing etc.) doesn't lead to a desire for the dismantling of the institutions that perpetuate these falsehoods. In fact we look to these very institutions of oppression for approval and how these legitimised relationships will "reflect well on the community as a whole." We should be fighting for the understanding that relationships, families, sexual and social relationships take many forms outside of those that are reflected in privileges for a few. We should be rejecting the assumptions that have resulted in our historical marginalisation and oppression, rather than trying to appropriate them for some veneer of respectability.

I don't want approval, I want to get married not bloody civially partnerified and I don't give two sh1ts whats normal and whats not. Whats wrong with wanting to commit to someone in that manner without being a second class citizen? Funnily enough being a queer hasn't lead me to question normality as I know that everyone and everything is simultaneously normal and abnormal,it hasn't changed my perspective as I'm not so hung up on my sexuality as to let it define me. I just want to get on with my life, and marriage is something I see as being a part of it, it may be false to you but it means something to me and I'm not alone in that.

Hardaway

w/e fair enough, i'm not interested in trying to hinder anybody's desire to get married, esp. as i'm pretty sure that homophobia is the only cause motivating those who are so motivated. I think for the reasons i've outlined above that its pretty depressing that this has become the telos of gay liberation as we understand it now. Other civil rights groups have generally found that placating moves such as this have largely served to mask and normalise residual inequality. But then I suppose my amivalence about the historically sexist, misogynistic, racist and homophobic institution of marriage is because I let my sexuality define me, if you wanna get on board be my guest.

wonderfulname

Hardaway wrote: »

Other civil rights groups have generally found that placating moves such as this have largely served to mask and normalise residual inequality.

Equality in the law generally leads to equality in society. Yes when the time comes for a referendum it sure as hell won't pass with 100% yes votes but as the years role on acceptance will be far far more predominant as those who hate a concept come face to face with real people and find the notions in their head were wrong.

Pink Adoptions

Bottom line about marriage: it may have been used badly in the past, and abused, but it is never about the couple themselves.
It is about family, it is about children.

The bourgeois marriage was imposed for one main reason: stopping men from abandoning children and their mothers.
The bourgeoisie used it to keep land and enslave women, but it also forced men to be more responsible towards their children when women were not liberated yet.
Today marriage, as per the constitution, is the only way for children to be protected, as the constitution only recognizes one family: the married family.

And the family in question, before someone asks, does not have to be a man and a women having a baby together: it is a household where a couple raises a child.
The child can be adopted, the parents can be same-gender, the constitution does not care. But there must be marriage.

The other bottom line is: same-gender couples should have the same right to refuse marriage as an institution, as mix-gender couples have.
Not having this right is the inequality.

Some people think that employed work is slavery. Still no one would argue that women would be freer if they were denied the right to work.
Some people think that smoking is bad. Still no one argues that the gays should be protected from the evil of smoking by making it illegal for them to buy cigarettes.

People who do not like marriage are free to not get married.
We do not have that choice, nor do our children get the constitutional protection they deserve.
We are not people?

That, is the bottom line: will someone think of the children!

Let me finish with an extract from a blog we did for human Rights in Ireland:

Denying marriage to me and my husband (the husband is, etymological the household manager), is denying our rights to be a full fledge family.

It is denying the right of our daughter to be protected in adversity.

She used to be denied that right by a bullying marriage law, because of who we were, because we were her parents.

Now she is denied that right because she is our daughter, because of who she is. She is still treated by the law as a second class citizen, less valuable than a piece of furniture or a pet. Why?

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2010/08/05/cpcroca-2010-naurice-on-family-protection-and-pink-adoption/

Annasopra

Pink Adoptions wrote: »

Bottom line about marriage: it may have been used badly in the past, and abused, but it is never about the couple themselves.
It is about family, it is about children.

what about childless couples? Gay or straight

Hardaway

that kind of underlines my point, that the more work that is done to apparently expand and liberalise the concept of marriage, the more you tacitly reinforce the narrow ideal for what a "family" is. Children are protected and nurtured in many environments that do not conform to this ideal (single parent families, children raised by other relatives). If the rights of children are what is at stake then this should be addressed directly instead of further marginalising those whose families do not fit within its frameworks. I guess I just find the veiled conservatism mildly distressing, a lot of it rests on rhetoric that was in the past used to marginalise women and trap them in marriages (necessity of two parents for eg.) that is outright insulting to many people whose arrangements do not conform to these standards.

wonderfulname

Hardaway wrote: »

that kind of underlines my point, that the more work that is done to apparently expand and liberalise the concept of marriage, the more you tacitly reinforce the narrow ideal for what a "family" is. Children are protected and nurtured in many environments that do not conform to this ideal (single parent families, children raised by other relatives). If the rights of children are what is at stake then this should be addressed directly instead of further marginalising those whose families do not fit within its frameworks. I guess I just find the veiled conservatism mildly distressing, a lot of it rests on rhetoric that was in the past used to marginalise women and trap them in marriages (necessity of two parents for eg.) that is outright insulting to many people whose arrangements do not conform to these standards.

In case you didn't notice, the pressure coming from LGBT groups for marriage equality is bringing the issue of the de facto family unit to the fore, and legislatively as LGBT people gain rights for themselves they will also drag single and unmarried parents amongst others along with them, as the very definition of the word family will have to change. Below is some reading for you on just what the difference between nuclear and de facto couples is in this country. It is hard to see that reports like this would have been commissioned had there not been such controversy over same sex couples.

IHRC Report

Pink Adoptions

Johnnymcg wrote: »

what about childless couples? Gay or straight

For them, the constitutional protection is not at stake, and they are more or less equally cattered for with Civil Marriage (CM) and Civil Partnership (CP).

When writing Civil Partnership legislation, TD's have more or less copied amd pasted the marriage provisions, and removed anything relating to chidlren's rights.

For couples who do not have, and do not plan to have children, the CP is pretty much the same as a civil marriage, except a few differences that will be ironed out with time.

The big difference between CM and CP is chidlren's rights.
The fact is that CM, as things are in real life, protects children best.
It is not a moral judgement on unmarried couples, or single parents: it is an objective assessement of what the Law and the Constitution say.

In any ase, let people be the judge of whether or not they want to marry: they do not need anyone to "protect them from the institution of marriage."
Same-gender couples (or their life0style) are not a threat to the institution of marriage.
And the institution of marriage is not a threat to same-gender couples. (Or their life-style)

The worth of marriage in itself is a different debate.

Hardaway

again I think that what we should be doing is changing our position on adoption to fit the socialreality that many children are raised, and raised well, by unconventional families. Gay marriage seems to only narrowly address that. ("The rights of defacto couples" doesn't address my misgivings because again it underlines the romantic/sexual couple as being central to the idea of a family)

wonderfulname

Hardaway wrote: »

("The rights of defacto couples" doesn't address my misgivings because again it underlines the romantic/sexual couple as being central to the idea of a family)

My oh my you must be awkward , fine so, an ICCL report on equality for all families, if you actually read the rights of de facto couples you would realise it deals with de facto families further on and in a more thorough way but anyway.. If you must judge a book by its cover I think you'll like this one, Its yet another report that most definitely would not have been comissioned had it not been for the marriage equality movement. The push for marriage equality is making changes where you insist its supporting our backward system!

Ambersky

I too am uneasy about an unquestioning acceptance of a kind of assimilation into the norms of heterosexuality and of marriage as the way forward into that.
Maybe Im not moving with the times and maybe lesbian and gay marriage will bring with it a kind of social acceptance I havent yet allowed myself to dream of.
It seems to me that as lesbians and gay men we will usually be born into heterosexual families, that being the statistical norm. Perhaps it wil remain desirable to find ways for lesbians and gays to socialise together as it seems to be a general principal for minority groups to know more about the dominant groups than for the dominant group to know or care about minorities.

People say that young people have it so easy nowadays with most people not really caring whos gay or straight. Yet I still read and hear stories from young people coming out having a difficult time at home and at school.
What if we reach this time of assimilation and it still isnt cool to declare your minority status, your difference from the norm, and there are no support services, no clubs to go to.

Also on civil partnerships, I would be happier if it was something you had to opt into, rather than an automatic thing that happened unless you opted out of after five years. Im all on for fairness in the division of property in the case of a seperation but I object to this degree of state interference in automatically declaring people civily partnered. Im against the opt out tactic on principal After all I dont like it when a subscription to an online service decides to automatically renew my yearly membership and charge my credit card for it unless I contact them to op out. I think its an unfair tactic.

I would also like to hear more diversity in the conversation about lesbian and gay marriage and tend not to trust something untill I have heard the down as well as the up sides to things.

For some of the other side of the argument on Lesbian and Gay marriage click here
http://www.irishleftreview.org/2008/04/29/wedded-single-option-forsaking-critique-current-drive-sex-marriage/

Annasopra

The ICCL report was mostly written by the author of the Irish Left Review blog post

Freiheit

I'm actually interested in a pre-nuptial agreement...said that to Mum only this morning....Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce....Isn't romantic but if ever I enter a civil partnership or full marriage I'll consider such...or else find someone with more money than me!:)

Annasopra

I've moved part of this thread of rights of cohabitants to a separate thread

Annasopra

And yet another feminist critique

http://www.humanrights.ie/index.php/2010/08/23/guest-post-barker-on-raining-on-the-civil-partnership-parade/