A little bit of extreme prejudice for your Sunday

Annasopra

Perhaps if you want a discussion on privilege then start a separate one.

apache

indeed "privilege" has nothing do do with this. how ludicrous!

wonderfulname

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

I'm sorry but I've lost a lot of respect for you as you are clearly completely clueless as to the concept of privilege. I have never denied that as a white person in a a first world country, I am privileged. However compared to others who are - I am desperately underprivileged.

Oh dear lord, you respect people according to how knowledgeable they are on one viewpoint of one issue of mediocre importance? Lets say privilege can be measured in %, with the straight son of a fortune 500 CEO at 100%, you are at 99.9%, there are people you could place in single digits, there are people worse off than Irish livestock, you are "desperately" nothing.

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

I am very worried if you've never heard of the privilege checklists etc. as an LGBT activist type.

Whatever the bit in bold is, I'm pretty sure it's not me... boy you guys must be pretty privileged to be able to make checklists...

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

Whether or not I am privileged compared to starving africans has nothing to do with this argument - as I already own up to the privilege. There was never any indication that I did not. Privileges don't cancel each other out.

No they don't, and you are clearly misrepresenting what I am saying, I'm saying harping on about how you are underprivileged is as scummy as a D4 teen harping on about how impoverished they are because daddy won't buy them a new car, sure, compared to that fortune 500 CEO they are, but in real world terms it's appallingly tasteless to b1tch about it.

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

However in this case people such as him do not own up to their privilege. They make remarks that assume a level playing ground that does not exist - make arguments to suit them and their little world bubble. This is privileged.

You should read up:

http://borderhouseblog.com/?page_id=54

I do actually know what your position is here I just find it repulsive and ironic in the extreme.

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

Note in particular the article on privilege, and intersectionality(as you know, you can get gay people who are starving too). This is not about an "Oppression Olympics" - however some groups do clearly have it easier than others, that needs to be recognised. It is about being sensitive to each groups needs & difficulties, and there is little that only straight white people have to deal with. If I make privileged remarks about POC - and sooner or later I will - they have every right to be sickened too - the only difference is I am far more likely to own up to it than these social conservatives.

No, no you're not, calling yourself "desperately underprivileged" is by your own definition privileged, just not with regard your particular interest group. Your "oppression olympics" guff is again, irrelevant, and a desperate and pathetic argument, also a logical fallacy by the way, actually several I believe but anyway, you're keen on those I gather?

CrystalLettuce wrote: »

Irish & British LGBTs seem to be particularly clueless on privilege for whatever reason. But just because you're not familiar with the concept doesn't mean I'm wrong.

I would argue that LGBT people from the british isles are actually particularly knowledgeable about privilege, and hence don't like referring to themselves as "under-privileged", when they are in fact the opposite.

wonderfulname

mango salsa wrote: »

Perhaps if you want a discussion on privilege then start a separate one.

Sorry, didn't see you there, to be fair the majority of this thread has nothing to do with the article so you should probably start a shed load of separate discussions.

histories

Newsite wrote: »

Guys, your reaction is on the level of someone advocating the extermination of an ethnic group.

Marriage is, has been, and will always be the coming together of man and woman. The dogs in the street would tell you that. Why do you feel the need to hijack this? Why indeed can you not be happy with civil partnerships?

And it is alarming how quickly you come out with the 'prejudice' card when someone voices their opinion in a considered way.



'allowed to be published' - are you serious?!

Marriage is defined by those who have access to it. In the US previous to the case of Loving v Virginia marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman of the same race. After this case it was changed to between a man and a woman, the race being irrelevant and rightly so.

Countries that allow same-sex marriage include Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Protugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden and parts of the US. We are thankfully moving forward and away from silly predjudices. Allowing people of the same-sex to marry is not going to bring about the end of the world or damage society (society is and always has been fairly fecked up).

Civil partnership, while affording certain rights married people have is still insufficient. The question is not why can't same-sex couples be happy with civil partnership, it is why should people of the same-sex settle for civil partnership?

Cameron J.A. in the South African Supreme Court in the case of Fourie and Another v Minister for Home Affairs and Another (2005) stated "it is necessary to look beyond the unavoidable specifities of our condition such as race, gender, sexual orientation and consider our intrinsic human capacities and what they render possible for all of us. In this case, the question is whether capacity for commitment, and the ability to love and nuture and honour and sustain, transcends the incidential fact of sexual orientation. The answer... is, Yes".

Dr A.L. Goodhart stated (1954) "if the law becomes too rigid and inflexible, there is always the danger that it will be in conflict with the needs of the people, with all the unfortunate consequences to which such a conflict gives rise." (Law Reforem - Judicial and Legislative)

glic71rods46t0

histories wrote: »

Marriage is defined by those who have access to it. In the US previous to the case of Loving v Virginia marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman of the same race. After this case it was changed to between a man and a woman, the race being irrelevant and rightly so.

Countries that allow same-sex marriage include Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Protugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden and parts of the US. We are thankfully moving forward and away from silly predjudices. Allowing people of the same-sex to marry is not going to bring about the end of the world or damage society (society is and always has been fairly fecked up).

Civil partnership, while affording certain rights married people have is still insufficient. The question is not why can't same-sex couples be happy with civil partnership, it is why should people of the same-sex settle for civil partnership?

Cameron J.A. in the South African Supreme Court in the case of Fourie and Another v Minister for Home Affairs and Another (2005) stated "it is necessary to look beyond the unavoidable specifities of our condition such as race, gender, sexual orientation and consider our intrinsic human capacities and what they render possible for all of us. In this case, the question is whether capacity for commitment, and the ability to love and nuture and honour and sustain, transcends the incidential fact of sexual orientation. The answer... is, Yes".

Dr A.L. Goodhart stated (1954) "if the law becomes too rigid and inflexible, there is always the danger that it will be in conflict with the needs of the people, with all the unfortunate consequences to which such a conflict gives rise." (Law Reforem - Judicial and Legislative)

I agree, I think that the definition may change in time. The issue is that the change will be by way of referendum.
Are the people of Ireland ready to extend the institution of marriage to include same sex unions? Maybe.
The biggest hindrance to this imo is the (perceived?) related issues of family definition/ parenting rights

Annasopra

4ihgeyd6atcx32 wrote: »

I agree, I think that the definition may change in time.

The definition has changed over time. 12 and 13 olds used to be able to marry in Ireland.

foggy_lad

mango salsa wrote: »

The definition has changed over time. 12 and 13 olds used to be able to marry in Ireland.

But we are now talking about the partner of a father or mother who has no blood ties with the child(ren) of the relationship having rights which supercede the rights of the child(ren)s other biological parent.

For most people this is a far greeater issue than what age people should get married at, Travellers and roma people still get married at 14.

apache

damn you foggy! you beat me re travellers and romas. they also marry their first cousins too.

wonderfulname

4ihgeyd6atcx32 wrote: »

I agree, I think that the definition may change in time. The issue is that the change will be by way of referendum.
Are the people of Ireland ready to extend the institution of marriage to include same sex unions? Maybe.

No maybe about it, it's a resounding yes.

If we're talking about perceptions that hinder the push for equal rights I would have to say the perception of people on the pro side that Ireland is a socially backward hell-hole that should be tiptoed around is most certainly the worst of these, it's the reason it is so preposterous that we don't have marriage equality, everyone wants it, not just the gays.

Annasopra

foggy_lad wrote: »

But we are now talking about the partner of a father or mother who has no blood ties with the child(ren) of the relationship having rights which supercede the rights of the child(ren)s other biological parent.

Or looked at in a different way the rights of the child to have a legal relationship with both people who care for and parent the child.

wonderfulname

foggy_lad wrote: »

Travellers and roma people still get married at 14.

Not legally they don't, be careful where you blur the lines on that one.

Again the biological parentage thing is overplayed and irrelevant in most instances, and most people know that.

Annasopra

wonderfulname wrote: »

everyone wants it, not just the gays.

A large majority but not quite everyone

glic71rods46t0

wonderfulname wrote: »

No maybe about it, it's a resounding yes.

If we're talking about perceptions that hinder the push for equal rights I would have to say the perception of people on the pro side that Ireland is a socially backward hell-hole that should be tiptoed around is most certainly the worst of these, it's the reason it is so preposterous that we don't have marriage equality, everyone wants it, not just the gays.

I dont have an IT subscription. I presume thats the same opinion poll that showed only a minority in favour of adoption rights for same sex couples. This just highlights the need for a full and transparent debate on ALL the issues involved in gay marriage.
I dont doubt for a second that the Irish people wouldn't want to deny a benign version of marriage to gay people. When fully analysed during a referendum campaign I suspect that support would fall and a referendum would fail.

foggy_lad

apache wrote: »

damn you foggy! you beat me re travellers and romas. they also marry their first cousins too.

We could all marry our 1st cousins with a dispensation if we wanted, and afaik the travellers and roma must get a court order for the marriage to have legal standing.

But within their own communities they have their own laws and rules which apply to them more than the laws of the state. Their culture is more important to them than the rules as laid down by the Irish state.

apache

wonderfulname wrote: »

Not legally they don't, be careful where you blur the lines on that one.

Again the biological parentage thing is overplayed and irrelevant in most instances, and most people know that.

the romas and the travellers don't accept or recognise our laws. they have their own laws. be careful with that one yourself :P

foggy_lad

mango salsa wrote: »

Or looked at in a different way the rights of the child to have a legal relationship with both people who care for and parent the child.

All while the rights of another who should ultimately have as much right because they are a biological parent are trampled upon.

apache

foggy_lad wrote: »

We could all marry our 1st cousins with a dispensation if we wanted, and afaik the travellers and roma must get a court order for the marriage to have legal standing.

But within their own communities they have their own laws and rules which apply to them more than the laws of the state. Their culture is more important to them than the rules as laid down by the Irish state.

i don't think they care about legal standing. they are married in their eyes. that is all that matters to them. legally they are down as wife and husband on some official documents.

glic71rods46t0

mango salsa wrote: »

Or looked at in a different way the rights of the child to have a legal relationship with both people who care for and parent the child.

Maybe include uncles, aunts, helpful family friends? Boundaries exist for good reason. This would need a national debate to inform public opinion

wonderfulname

mango salsa wrote: »

A large majority but not quite everyone

Ah yea shh

4ihgeyd6atcx32 wrote: »

I dont have an IT subscription. I presume thats the same opinion poll that showed only a minority in favour of adoption rights for same sex couples. This just highlights the need for a full and transparent debate on ALL the issues involved in gay marriage.
I dont doubt for a second that the Irish people wouldn't want to deny a benign version of marriage to gay people. When fully analysed during a referendum campaign I suspect that support would fall and a referendum would fail.

Go you and your random assumptions, I'll quote from my first link for you;

Three in five also believe that gay couples should be allowed to adopt children, according to the poll.

I agree with you however, that full and transparent debate is needed, primarily because a lot of people don't actually know what adoption rights mean, they assume it means there is either a willing parent left out or that children external to the relationship/family will suddenly be adopted by gay couples, they also assume that it means the introduction of children into an environment in which they are currently not found, rather than the introduction of necessary rights for a child in an environment where they are to be found.

apache wrote: »

the romas and the travellers don't accept or recognise our laws. they have their own laws. be careful with that one yourself :P

So? The important thing is not what they recognise, it's what the law recognises. Lots of gay people will call themselves married, or their partners a husband or wife, doesn't mean they are.

apache

wonderfulname wrote: »

So? The important thing is not what they recognise, it's what the law recognises. Lots of gay people will call themselves married, or their partners a husband or wife, doesn't mean they are.

not at all. their life is no different. i'm not particularly interested in what the law recognises. its how you feel and believe.

wonderfulname

foggy_lad wrote: »

All while the rights of another who should ultimately have as much right because they are a biological parent are trampled upon.

You do realise that the rights would be the same as those for straight people? So, for example, a lesbian wanting to adopt her partners child from a previous relationship would go through the same thing as a straight man doing the same, same deal with the non-biological partner where a surrogacy or donor is involved, or ultimately with regard adoption of children as a couple.

Any "trampling" of a biological parents rights will be ones which already exist in our system, gay marriage will not create or amplify them.

wonderfulname

apache wrote: »

not at all. their life is no different. i'm not particularly interested in what the law recognises. its how you feel and believe.

That's fine for you, I agree on one level (with regards the validity of a relationship), but with regards the conferring of rights upon a couple, which is something incredibly important, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.

glic71rods46t0

wonderfulname wrote: »

Ah yea shh
Go you and your random assumptions, I'll quote from my first link for you;

I agree with you however, that full and transparent debate is needed, primarily because a lot of people don't actually know what adoption rights mean, they assume it means there is either a willing parent left out or that children external to the relationship/family will suddenly be adopted by gay couples, they also assume that it means the introduction of children into an environment in which they are currently not found, rather than the introduction of necessary rights for a child in an environment where they are to be found.
So? The important thing is not what they recognise, it's what the law recognises. Lots of gay people will call themselves married, or their partners a husband or wife, doesn't mean they are.

So 60% of the Irish people support gay adoption? If that was really the case the changes desired by the LGBT would be made and a referendum would pass with flying colours. Lets have a referendum and see what happens

apache

wonderfulname wrote: »

That's fine for you, I agree on one level (with regards the validity of a relationship), but with regards the conferring of rights upon a couple, which is something incredibly important, I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.

i personally don't believe in church or state laws regardless straight or gay. if you love someone you don't need a piece of paper. make a commitment, make a will.
i understand i am in the minority. but it is my viewpoint. i'm not wrong in my mind but thanks for saying i am.

Keaton

The two purposes of marriage are procreation and the union of spouses. Man and woman can do that in an authentic way: their bodies are complimentary, as their bodies are intrinsic to who they are as men and women. Masculinity and femininity complement each other.

Homosexual unions cannot be marriage in any real sense; their bodies are not complementary, nor can they produce offspring from such an arrangement. The act itself is an offense to the dignity of the human person and the design of the human body.

wonderfulname

apache wrote: »

i personally don't believe in church or state laws regardless straight or gay. if you love somone you don't need a piece of paper. make a commitment, make a will.
i understand i am in the minority. but it is my viewpoint. i'm not wrong in my mind but thanks for saying i am.

Okay, lets say there were no recognition of any relationships, what happens?

Visitation rights remain with the parents, as do any medical decisions.
Taxation changes, including removal of tax credits for married couples, changes in taxation on that estate you're planning on leaving in your will, meaning your partner gets less, you don't leave a will, or leave out bits re: burial etc then they get screwed over.
You have zero rights upon the breakdown of the relationship, no safety net, paternal or non-biological parents can wave goodbye to their kids should the legal guardian/mammy see fit.
Social security benefits, insurance, family leave, bereavement leave.
Em, what else is there? Legal rights with regard taking civil action against a third party, immigration and residency rights, anybody got more to add?

Yeah, like I said, I agree you don't need a piece of paper to validate your relationship, but there is a lot more than a declaration of love and automatic inheritance rights in marriage.

wonderfulname

Keaton wrote: »

The two purposes of marriage are procreation and the union of spouses. Man and woman can do that in an authentic way: their bodies are complimentary, as their bodies are intrinsic to who they are as men and women. Masculinity and femininity complement each other.

Homosexual unions cannot be marriage in any real sense; their bodies are not complementary, nor can they produce offspring from such an arrangement. The act itself is an offense to the dignity of the human person and the design of the human body.

Oh my, I think I've had an epiphany... Or not, you should give reading this thread a shot before you post mindless religious prejudice.

marienbad

wonderfulname wrote: »

No maybe about it, it's a resounding yes.

If we're talking about perceptions that hinder the push for equal rights I would have to say the perception of people on the pro side that Ireland is a socially backward hell-hole that should be tiptoed around is most certainly the worst of these, it's the reason it is so preposterous that we don't have marriage equality, everyone wants it, not just the gays.

I am afraid you may be in for a surprise there wonderfulname, sure the support would appear to be there in polls and such. But in a referendum I would'nt be so sure. It will be the dirtiest campaign this country has ever seen and that is saying something. Rememember in the divorce referenda polls were around 60% in the run up. Then the s*&t was thrown in and that classic slogan ''If you don't know vote know'' and we all know what happened.

wonderfulname

marienbad wrote: »

Rememember in the divorce referenda polls were around 60% in the run up.

No, actually

But have a think about modern Ireland, what way would the media push go? What demographics would be stirred to vote? I think you might be in for the surprise actually, at any rate negativity does nobody any good, Is féidir linn and all that jazz.