Is gay marriage a threat to humanity?

Pacifist Pigeon

prinz wrote: »

Just because we have the ability to do something as a race, doesn't mean we should go ahead and do it because it will "make somebody happy".

Maybe it would make me happy if my child could be half human half computer. Who knows what the lifespan could be. Well let's work on making that a reality shall we. Maybe somebody else just wants to clone themselves five times. Well if it makes them very, very happy off you go...

For every leap in technology/and leap in social terms there follows somebody with a new found dream which they desperately need fulfilled. Suddenly it stops becoming a dream and turns into a right. I am making a general statement by the way, not restricting it to mice zygotes. It's the world we live, 'because you're worth it', the car you have defines you as a person, buy the latest mobile phone because you need it and it's your right, we'll bring out another edition in six months and tell you the same thing but it doesn't matter, buy this perfume it will fulfill you, sleep around as much as you want if that's what you want,....... consquences? Responsibilites to ourselves and others? Nah. F*ck it. If it makes you happy go for it.

By that logic, I could say that any straight couple who wanted to have a child are in fact selfish too.

hightower1

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Why should I play by the rules set down by a religion I don't believe in?
I want Civil Partnership to confer exactly the same rights and responsibilities as a Civil Marriage - religion has nothing to do with it.

Why should my cousin be able to have a Civil Marriage with her male partner (second marriage for both of them) and automatically be granted a range of 'rights' as a couple that is denied to my OH and myself?

Why will my nephew be granted rights unavailable to my OH and myself when he and his girlfriend have a Civil Marriage in November that myself and my OH cannot avail of - yet we have been together for longer then this couple even know each other?

If the RCC doesn't want to perform gay marriages -that is their prerogative. It is not a reason for the Irish State to refuse to legislate for them.

Sorry, I didt realize the differences between civil partnership and a civil marrage and assosiated legal differences between a civil marrage and religious marrage.

I totally agree though, civil marrages should have the exact same benefits as a religious one. Theres no logical reason as to why they shouldnt. Just seems like more political and legal baggage carried around from the old days when the church was the real government here. About time we move on from that period of history imo.

prinz

iguana wrote: »

Either you are ok with reproductive science or you aren't. Anything else is hypocrisy and prejudice.

No I don't think testing a couples fertility is the same as fusing one egg with another to create a zygote in a lab, then put it back into a woman to develop. As it happens I have discussed things like IVF with my wife and we're both agreed we would rather adopt.. as it happens we plan on adopting anyway if the circumstances allow, and I don't care that we are a heterosexual couple. Reproductive science is a massive area so lumping it all together as one package is disengenuous to the extreme. What happens when it comes to the person (gay or straight) who wants one of their eggs fused with another in the future? Do I agree with that no, does the sexual orientation of the woman involved make a difference? No.

prinz

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

By that logic, I could say that any straight couple who wanted to have a child are in fact selfish too.

Could you point out where I mentioned gay or straight in my post? I could give you a hint, I didn't.


Edit: Just to add, even though it is unneccessary because I didn't restrict my earlier comments to any orientation despite the usual attempts to pretend otherwise, I think that many straight couples are selfish too when it comes to having kids.

prinz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Sadly, we as a people haven't yet managed to move beyond the if it's not FF as the main party it must be FG school of Irish politics..

I agree.. but it's redundant to turn around and condemn them for not being representative of the people, when it was the people who voted them into office knowing full well what they are about to begin with.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The Secularist Labour Party also made great gains - who voted them in? The LP have made no secret of their secularist agenda yet are frequently attacked for this - as evidenced again by the furore over the Vatican embassy closure and Quinn's moves to remove some of our National Schools from the control of the RCC...

As a christian myself I will say I voted Labour.... (and for a man once caught in a compromising position with anohter man in the Phoenix Park IIRC :eek:). I also fully support the closing of the Vatican embassy (I don't see any reason why a state our size and in our financial position needs two embassies in Rome a stones throw from one another) and I fully support a state run secular particularly at primary level education system.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

During the Presidential campaign the candidates were questioned about their religious beliefs on RTE (I think it was The Frontline but open to correction on that)- what exactly did have to do with the selection of the President - a civil office in which the holder of the office of the Presidency is the 'personification' of the civil state and guardian of our Constitutional rights - which include freedom of conscience and a clear statement that the State will not favour one particular religion? ...

Again good question. However it's not only the religious people who make an issue of the religious affiliation or lack thereof of candidates. You'd also have to take it up with the people who attack various candidates on nothing other than their religious beliefs. That's a broader issue than Catholics or Rome of the Vatican. I should be just as entitled to choose someone based on their religious beliefs as another person feels entitled not to vote for someone on their relgious beliefs. It's something that I saw many times here during the presidential debate, sort of 'anyone who votes for Dana must be some Catholic crazy fundamentalist nutbag..... and on a side note I refuse to vote for Dana because I refuse to vote for a Catholic.'

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The 'other' main religion in Ireland is the Church of Ireland - a very socially liberal organisation that has no issue with gay marriage, female clergy or even - gasp- gay clergy. But our legislators prefer to listen to the pronouncements from Rome and it's Irish cheerleaders and ignore what the Polls are telling them (73% in favour of full gay marriage) - this being the same Rome that offered a loving home to any Anglican clergy fed up of the CoE/CoI's social liberalism...

I don't think anything is to be gained from various churches continually moving with society so to speak personally. That's not what they are about, and in many cases undermines their own message. I'd rather see a church stand for something and die out completely than go with the flow in the interests of maintaining their position.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

There is a vocal and powerful Catholic lobby in this country which believes it speaks for the majority of Irish citizens - unfortunately many of our public representatives also believe this so listen to this lobby group.
Personally, I do not believe they do not actually speak for the majority - but most of our lily-livered politicos are afraid to directly challenge them.

Vocal perhaps, but like any lobby group that is their right. As for the power, I don't think it's still as powerful as people like to imagine and blaming the puppet-masters in Rome just lets the people on the ground here with the real power to represent the people off the hook. "It's not us it's Britain the EU the Vatican.." Time to take responsibility for ourselves rather than indulging in endless fingerpointing.

Bannasidhe

hightower1 wrote: »

Sorry, I didt realize the differences between civil partnership and a civil marrage and assosiated legal differences between a civil marrage and religious marrage.

I totally agree though, civil marrages should have the exact same benefits as a religious one. Theres no logical reason as to why they shouldnt. Just seems like more political and legal baggage carried around from the old days when the church was the real government here. About time we move on from that period of history imo.

The issue is that religious marriages are also civil marriages as the celebrant - be they Priest, Rabbi, Iman, Vicar, Pastor etc - is recognised by the State as legally entitled to perform marriages but marriage is currently is defined by the State as being between 2 people of opposite genders - so people of the same gender who wished to get legal recognition for their relationship were offered Civil Partnership instead. Now, if Civil Partnership conferred exactly the same rights and responsibilities as Civil Marriage there would be no issue. The problem is, it doesn't.

For example - Civil Partnership makes no reference to children. Many justify this by saying - well, a gay couple cannot actually make a baby together but say a man marries a women who had children outside marriage - as her husband that man can legally adopt those children even though biologically he has no relationship with them. His 'rights' as her husband could actually supersede the biological father's unless the biological father had taken legal steps to have his relationship to his children recognised.

So what we have is the potential for a situation where a gay couple have a child - one of them being the biological parent. That couple enter a civil partnership which grants certain inheritance rights to each other - 'family home' etc- should the biological parent of the child die, the home becomes the property of their surviving partner. That person legally has no relationship to the child - so could lose custody - and can not will the property to the child without that child being faced with a possibly huge tax bill.

An extreme case - but possible - gay couple are in a car crash, biological parent killed outright so surviving partner inherits all property held in common as a couple. Partner dies some days later. Child has now not only lost both parents - but has also been effectively disinherited due to discriminatory legislation which prevented the non-biological parent from adopting them. Yet the option already exists within civil marriages for the partner of a child's biological parent to legally adopt that child - why is this being denied to gay couples?




The other much discussed issue is 'gay' adoption - yet - a gay person can already adopt a child in this country but they have to do so as a single person. A gay couple - even if they have entered a civil partnership - cannot adopt as a couple but a heterosexual couple in a civil marriage can.


There are hundreds of children in this country who were/are being raised by gay couples (some of these 'children' are now adults with children of their own), people may not like to admit they exist - but they do and are citizens of this State and entitled to the same rights as the children of straight couples - but they are being denied the right to two parents for no other reason then those two parents are of the same gender.

Caliden

It's been legal in Canada for years and the world has yet to come apart at the seams.
That lad needs reality check

Bannasidhe

prinz wrote: »

Vocal perhaps, but like any lobby group that is their right. As for the power, I don't think it's still as powerful as people like to imagine and blaming the puppet-masters in Rome just lets the people on the ground here with the real power to represent the people off the hook. "It's not us it's Britain the EU the Vatican.." Time to take responsibility for ourselves rather than indulging in endless fingerpointing.

Personally, I lay the blame firmly at the feet of our legislators who allow their personal religious beliefs to influence policies which result in a situation where some citizens of this country are denied access to rights under the law that are not only available to other citizens but to non- citizens as soon as they arrive here.

A married heterosexual couple who move to Ireland have more rights under Irish law then homosexual Irish citizens have - that is patiently unjust.

A heterosexual couple who marry in Canada or Spain, for example, would have the same rights in Canada and Spain as any other married couple, if they moved here they would automatically have all the same rights as an Irish heterosexual married couple have.

A gay couple who married in Canada or Spain would have the same rights in Canada and Spain as any other married couple, if they moved here they would not have all the same rights as an Irish heterosexual married couple have but would have to settle for those limited rights granted under civil partnership.

prinz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Personally, I lay the blame firmly at the feet of our legislators who allow their personal religious beliefs to influence policies..

On the first part I don't know if that's fair to say. Religous beliefs especially when it comes to social issues aren't something you can just put aside. For many their religious beliefs, their moral position, their ethical position etc etc all combine, and I think it's unfair to say automatically say 'oh because he/she is x religious beliefs therefore it has influenced their vote' on whatever topic. Sometimes it doesn't matter, opening the pubs on Good Friday for example.. I can't see any real reason why a Roman Catholic could vote against it on religious grounds it has no bearing on the faith or core principles of the religion, nor does it have a bearing on their right to mark the day as they see fit.

However when it comes to something like abortion then I can see why somebody would, and I feel the people we elect should be allowed to vote according to their conscience on those kind of issues. I don't think you can have religion in one box, and conscience in another, and morals in a third. It's just not that simple when it comes to life and death matters. However I think politicians should be totally upfront about where they stand on these issues and then you can vote for them or not.. but I think it's a bit much to vote people into office and then expect them to go against the very moral fibre of their being.

On the issue of a civil gay marriage I'd probably vote for it to a point and that point is kids. I'm even coming around to the rights of gay couples to adopt where all external legal claims to the child have been severed, so that the only people to have parental rights to the child are the couple raising it as it should be.

However I am not sure the state should be giving the green light to sperm donors and surrogates etc and be standing over that as something that is acknowldged as good for a kid. I don't know how it could be organised and policed. The family courts are messy enough without cases with three people laying claim to a poor child as if it's a stereo or TV. How much of a part is a donor or surrogate going to play in a their child's life for example? What about the rights of a child to know their biological parents? What responsibilities are going to be imposed on a donor? Monetary? Are we going to end up with people signing away all rights or interests in their own biological children officially? We already have them doing it unofficially. Is that in the child's best interests long term? Oh here you go Timmy, this is where your biological father/mother signed a form and said he/she wanted nothing more to do with you whatsoever... and the courts will protect his right to do that.. Even worse you'll have couples doing it unofficially and then when things go sour there'll be a three way tug of war over a child between it's parents.... and then it's parent........ It would be horrific to see kids being turned into pawns to satisfy the selfish needs of the parents any more than they already are with heterosexuals, which is itself horrible enough.

My concern would be for the kids, and again the sexual orientation of the couple raising the child is irrelevant. There are many heterosexual couples who I think have proven themselves incapable of caring properly for a child and should have theirs taken into care.

And I know people laugh at the slippery slope argument but I can see the time come when people are arguing that the state should be recognising other forms of marriage and longterm I don't think that's beneficial for society.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The issue is that religious marriages are also civil marriages as the celebrant - be they Priest, Rabbi, Iman, Vicar, Pastor etc - is recognised by the State as legally entitled to perform marriages but marriage is currently is defined by the State as being between 2 people of opposite genders

On another point you mentioned earlier about the religious marriage and civil marriage being one and the same in this country again I wholeheartedly agree. I think the state should take charge of the civil side of things and have a civil acknowledgment of the marriage and then if the couple choose they can have a religious/humanist/whatever ceremony of whatever persuasion. It should be two different matters, and the state should only recognise those who have a civil marriage.

By the by, thanks for responding in an intelligent and level-headed, mature way. I'm sure you can see we actually agree on more things than we disagree about... and I'm religious. There was another poster earlier in the same boat. Someone said earlier on the thread that we all have something to learn from each other and that's true, but all too often if you are religious or conservative then your views and opinions and swept aside as irrelevant by the so-called more "socially liberal" amongst us.

Bannasidhe

prinz wrote: »

On the first part I don't know if that's fair to say. Religous beliefs especially when it comes to social issues aren't something you can just put aside. For many their religious beliefs, their moral position, their ethical position etc etc all combine, and I think it's unfair to say automatically say 'oh because he/she is x religious beliefs therefore it has influenced their vote' on whatever topic. Sometimes it doesn't matter, opening the pubs on Good Friday for example.. I can't see any real reason why a Roman Catholic could vote against it on religious grounds it has no bearing on the faith or core principles of the religion, nor does it have a bearing on their right to mark the day as they see fit.

However when it comes to something like abortion then I can see why somebody would, and I feel the people we elect should be allowed to vote according to their conscience on those kind of issues. I don't think you can have religion in one box, and conscience in another, and morals in a third. It's just not that simple when it comes to life and death matters. However I think politicians should be totally upfront about where they stand on these issues and then you can vote for them or not.. but I think it's a bit much to vote people into office and then expect them to go against the very moral fibre of their being.

On the issue of a civil gay marriage I'd probably vote for it to a point and that point is kids. I'm even coming around to the rights of gay couples to adopt where all external legal claims to the child have been severed, so that the only people to have parental rights to the child are the couple raising it as it should be.

However I am not sure the state should be giving the green light to sperm donors and surrogates etc and be standing over that as something that is acknowldged as good for a kid. I don't know how it could be organised and policed. The family courts are messy enough without cases with three people laying claim to a poor child as if it's a stereo or TV. How much of a part is a donor or surrogate going to play in a their child's life for example? What about the rights of a child to know their biological parents? What responsibilities are going to be imposed on a donor? Monetary? Are we going to end up with people signing away all rights or interests in their own biological children officially? We already have them doing it unofficially. Is that in the child's best interests long term? Oh here you go Timmy, this is where your biological father/mother signed a form and said he/she wanted nothing more to do with you whatsoever... and the courts will protect his right to do that.. Even worse you'll have couples doing it unofficially and then when things go sour there'll be a three way tug of war over a child between it's parents.... and then it's parent........

And I know people laugh at the slippery slope argument but I can see the time come when people are arguing that the state should be recognising other forms of marriage and longterm I don't think that's beneficial for society.



On another point you mentioned earlier about the religious marriage and civil marriage being one and the same in this country again I wholeheartedly agree. I think the state should take charge of the civil side of things and have a civil acknowledgment of the marriage and then if the couple choose they can have a religious/humanist/whatever ceremony of whatever persuasion. It should be two different matters, and the state should only recognise those who have a civil marriage.

Unless someone running for office clearly outlines how their religious beliefs will influence any decisions they make then no - they do not have the right once elected to say - well, everyone knows I'm Catholic/Muslim/Jewish so obviously that will influence me'. Our public representatives are charged with representing all of their constituents - not just those who share their religious views. Is Alan Shatter the Minister of Justice for Jews? No - he is the minister for Justice for all Irish citizens - Jew, Gentile, Muslim, Methodist, Catholic, Presbyterian, Buddhist, Agnostic, Atheist and even Jedi.

Do you think only gay couple use sperm donors and surrogacy? Really?????

The fact is - there are hundreds of children already growing up in families headed by gay couples - yet our Family Courts haven't been swamped by such cases as you describe. Why should allowing a gay couple to adopt as a couple or the gay non-biological parent adopt their partner's biological children change that? Have our family courts been inundated with cases where unmarried biological father's are seeking to prevent the children's husband from adopting?

Children of already gay couples exist - and a 'what might happen' scenario is no justification for denying those children the same right to two loving, legally recognised, parents as extended to the children of heterosexuals.

We need to legislate for what is - not what may or may not happen.

prinz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Unless someone running for office clearly outlines how their religious beliefs will influence any decisions they make then no - they do not have the right once elected to say - well, everyone knows I'm Catholic/Muslim/Jewish so obviously that will influence me'..

Actually they do. Just like they have the right to say 'well I'm an atheist so that will influence me..', or the right to say well I support Free Tibet so that will influence x decision... or the right to basically say anything else. We elect people do do the job for us. Just like they have a right to say well I'm left wing/right wing/socially liberal/whatever. You cannot elect an observant Muslim and then expect him to vote against his conscience left right and centre. Why would you vote for him in the first place?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Our public representatives are charged with representing all of their constituents - not just those who share their religious views...

There is no way they can accurately represent all of their constituents unless every single constituent agrees and there is a public record of that. We don't have constituency referenda every time a TD goes to vote. They vote along the lines of what they think the people who voted them into office would want. Exchange religious views for political views... our public reps don't represent all of their constituents believe/want there either. Do you expect a FG TD to start embracing communism because x numbers of their constituents are communist? This argument that a TD has to represent anyone is a nonsense, they are there to represent as they see fit the people who elected them.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you think only gay couple use sperm donors and surrogacy? Really?????...

I don't know what gave you that idea.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The fact is - there are hundreds of children already growing up in families headed by gay couples - yet our Family Courts haven't been swamped by such cases as you describe. Why should allowing a gay couple to adopt as a couple or the gay non-biological parent adopt their partner's biological children change that? Have our family courts been inundated with cases where unmarried biological father's are seeking to prevent the children's husband from adopting?

Could it be because the legal grounds don't exist yet?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Children of already gay couples exist - and a 'what might happen' scenario is no justification for denying those children the same right to two loving, legally recognised, parents as extended to the children of heterosexuals..

..and the third parent? The biological one? What rights do the children have to them and vice versa?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We need to legislate for what is - not what may or may not happen.

No, we also need to take what may be into account.

OldNotWIse

prinz wrote: »

Not unexpected response, nothing in what I have written so far differentiated between straight and not straight so perhaps you could drop that angle.

I like plugging a kettle into the wall. I don't like that people put so much energy, time and resources into making and improving nuclear weapons. Just because I agree with vaccinations, doesn't mean I should be ok with microchipping. Just because you agree with some advances in medical science, doesn't you have to be perfectly fine with all advances.

Convenient...your a la carte acceptance of science just happens to include medical assistance for straight people but nor for gay people....what a funny coincidence... :rolleyes:

prinz

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Convenient...your a la carte acceptance of science just happens to include medical assistance for straight people but nor for gay people....what a funny coincidence... :rolleyes:

Once again for the slow learners, could you point out where I mentioned gay versus straight?

Seriously this has been mentioned 3 or 4 times now and nobody I have asked has been able to show me...

FFS I even went on to elaborabate by explicitly referring to how I wouldn't agree with two eggs being used to create a zygote for a straight person even though I didn't have to because I never differentiated between gay and straight in my response to begin with.

Bannasidhe

prinz wrote: »

Actually they do. Just like they have the right to say 'well I'm an atheist so that will influence me..', or the right to say well I support Free Tibet so that will influence x decision... or the right to basically say anything else. We elect people do do the job for us. Just like they have a right to say well I'm left wing/right wing/socially liberal/whatever. You cannot elect an observant Muslim and then expect him to vote against his conscience left right and centre. Why would you vote for him in the first place?

I completely disagree. If a person's religious beliefs will impact on how they legislate they have a duty to inform the electorate before they are elected. Someone with left/right wing political views will campaign on those issues. When was the last time you say a candidate apart from Dana make it clear that their religion will influence their actions if elected? Candidates on the whole campaign on political issues - not religious. They are elected to serve the civil state - not a particular religion.

There is no way they can accurately represent all of their constituents unless every single constituent agrees and there is a public record of that. We don't have constituency referenda every time a TD goes to vote. They vote along the lines of what they think the people who voted them into office would want. Exchange religious views for political views... our public reps don't represent all of their constituents believe/want there either. Do you expect a FG TD to start embracing communism because x numbers of their constituents are communist? This argument that a TD has to represent anyone is a nonsense, they are there to represent as they see fit the people who elected them.

Actually they vote the way the party whip tells them to.

I don't know what gave you that idea.

Ummm the children I know who were born to heterosexual couples who used sperm donors for a start. Many single, heterosexual women also use sperm donors BTW. They want the babby - but not a daddy.

If sperm donation is only used by lesbians there must be a hell of a lot of lesbians in Ireland to keep the 3 clinics the country in business http://www.whatclinic.com/fertility/ireland/sperm-donation.

Surrogacy is so common that Shatter issued guidelines for Irish couples - do you think he would have done that if only a few gay couples were involved?
http://www.mcsolicitors.ie/mcsolicitors/main/News_Surrogacy_Feb2012.htm

prinz

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I completely disagree. If a person's religious beliefs will impact on how they legislate they have a duty to inform the electorate before they are elected.

So we agree completely.. I said..

However I think politicians should be totally upfront about where they stand on these issues and then you can vote for them or not..

Which is exactly the same thing.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Candidates on the whole campaign on political issues - not religious. They are elected to serve the civil state - not a particular religion.

Which is why I said it shouldn't have any bearing on the vast majority of decisions. Are you paying any attention to what I am saying at all? On the handful of issues where it could be an issue then I think a politician should be upfront about where they stand for whatever reasons, religious or otherwise and let people decide who to elect.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Actually they vote the way the party whip tells them to.

Which is why we don't elect 166 independents.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Ummm the children I know who were born to heterosexual couples who used sperm donors for a start. Many single, heterosexual women also use sperm donors BTW. They want the babby - but not a daddy.

And I'd include that in my selfish comment earlier. They are putting their selfish wants to have the baby, before the child's rights to have a father.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

If sperm donation is only used by lesbians there must be a hell of a lot of lesbians in Ireland to keep the 3 clinics the country in business http://www.whatclinic.com/fertility/ireland/sperm-donation. Surrogacy is so common that Shatter issued guidelines for Irish couples - do you think he would have done that if only a few gay couples were involved?
http://www.mcsolicitors.ie/mcsolicitors/main/News_Surrogacy_Feb2012.htm

Again I'll say it for the second time. I never said that only gay couples were involved in surrogacy and sperm donations.

wonderfulname

prinz wrote: »

They are putting their selfish wants to have the baby, before the child's rights to have a father.

You're mixing up your rights, a child only has a right to a father if they actually have one, they have the right to two mothers if they have two mothers and that's a right currently being denied to them at a legal level.

A child has a right to be cared for, looked after, loved, to have a good solid guardian, but it doesn't matter one iota if there's one or two, what sex they happen to be or what involvement they had in conception.

Bannasidhe

Well, well, well - Looks like FF have been paying attention to the polls...

FF delegates back equal marriage and adoption rights for same-sex couples
Saturday, March 03, 2012 - 11:57 AM

Delegates at the Fianna Fáil Ard Fheis in Dublin have voted in favour of giving equal marriage rights to all people regardless of race, religion. gender or sexual orientation.

They have also backed a motion calling for same-sex couples to be given full adoption rights.

Delegates backed both motions, despite the justice spokesperson Dara Calleary asking for the issue to be debated out as part of the party's planned response to the Government's constitutional convention.

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/ff-delegates-back-equal-marriage-and-adoption-rights-for-same-sex-couples-542112.html

Pacifist Pigeon

Fianna Fáil doesn't really have a legitimate perspective on politics anymore - they're just desperate for votes. Fianna Fáil has always been an electioneering machine, nothing else. While this news is welcoming, I honestly don't think they give a damn.

FF = Flip Flop.

Bannasidhe

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Fianna Fáil doesn't really have a legitimate perspective on politics anymore - they're just desperate for votes. Fianna Fáil has always been an electioneering machine, nothing else. While this news is welcoming, I honestly don't think they give a damn.

FF = Flip Flop.

Oh I agree - I just think it is amusing they suddenly think the 'gay' vote is worth targeting considering they are the ones who insisted on civil partnership in the first place when the Greens wanted full marriage. :D

My heart would stop if I even tried to vote for them....

tigger123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well, well, well - Looks like FF have been paying attention to the polls...

http://www.examiner.ie/breakingnews/ireland/ff-delegates-back-equal-marriage-and-adoption-rights-for-same-sex-couples-542112.html

Was genuinely delighted to hear this on the news this morning. Although FF are not in power anymore they're still in a position provide leadership and direction to their supporters around the country. Fair play to them!

grindle

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Fianna Fáil doesn't really have a legitimate perspective on politics anymore...

There are politicians with legitimate perspectives on politics? How did that happen?

Doctor Jimbob

vixen chaser wrote: »

Gay marraige is wrong, full stop. I don't consider myself conservative or a gay basher, but gay marraige is unnatural. It's not just the religious aspect of it, itvis also the social. If countries allow this to happen, and in some cases it has, society will simply become disturbed. Marraige is sacred between man and woman. Now in my opinion there are many straight people who only consider marraige simply a day out and before you know it divorce papers are on the table. Divorce in my opinion was the worst thing to happen to this country. Marraige should be for life between man and woman, who then may create a family of their own by reproducing. Gay's can't do that, simply because life wasn't created that way. full stop. I say that with obviously no disrespect to childless hetro couples.

Ah let's see where to begin..
You might not condiser yourself conservative or a gay basher, but you clearly are both of these things. How will society become disturbed? Go on. I'd love to hear your reasons. You say it's not just the religious aspect, but every bit of your post shows you're saying this for religious reasons. Talking about marriage being 'sacred'. Raving on pointlessly about how divorce was the worst thing to happen to this country. Yes, I agree, things were much better when people had no choice to stay trapped in loveless marriages. Becuase actually being in love is so much less important than doing what the church tells you, right?

And what about married couples who don't want to start a family? Are you against that too. Or couples who can't start a family? Do they not deserve to marry the ones they love either. When you say 'life wasn't created that way. full stop.' Well I can agree with you there because life wasn't created. Full stop.

Go crawl back under whatever rock you came from.

wonderfulname

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

Fianna Fáil doesn't really have a legitimate perspective on politics anymore - they're just desperate for votes.

This was always the case, don't you remember how civil partnership came round in the first place? Labour presented the concept whilst in opposition, FF batted it down, waited a few months, then came out with a lesser version presenting it as their own forward thinking idea :rolleyes:

Pacifist Pigeon

wonderfulname wrote: »

This was always the case, don't you remember how civil partnership came round in the first place? Labour presented the concept whilst in opposition, FF batted it down, waited a few months, then came out with a lesser version presenting it as their own forward thinking idea :rolleyes:

I'm just sick of FF. Vincent Brown had the right idea (loaded gun --> bottle of whiskey --> dark room). The people who vote for this shower are the very people who support all that is wrong with this country.

44leto

Gay unions are entitled to the same rights and privileges as a married straight couple, anything less as civil union is, it is blatant discrimination.

But I think gay marriage would need a change in our constitution, I think a change like that would have broad support in modern Ireland and it would pass a referendum. We have come a long way.

A little off topic, but in general rip up Devs prayer book which is the constitution and rewrite or reform it all.

Pacifist Pigeon

44leto wrote: »

Gay unions are entitled to the same rights and privileges as a married straight couple, anything less as civil union is, it is blatant discrimination.

But I think gay marriage would need a change in our constitution, I think a change like that would have broad support in modern Ireland and it would pass a referendum. We have come a long way.

A little off topic, but in general rip up Devs prayer book which is the constitution and rewrite or reform it all.

You don't need to change the Irish Constitution to make same-sex marriages legal. There isn't even the slightest hint in the Constitution that suggests marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. Here's the only thing the Constitution says on marriage:

The Family

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.

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/upload/static/256.htm

However, I think that the constitution does need to liberalise its position on the conditions for divorce and to recognise the equal rights for both parents in the family.

Constitutionally, there's nothing wrong with gay marriage. It's government legislation where the problem lies, this can be easily overturns in the Dáil or in the Supreme Court. The only problem is that there are ignoramuses occupying both arenas. You could have gay marriage tomorrow without any problem if it wasn't for them - it only requires the single stroke of a pen.

44leto

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

You don't need to change the Irish Constitution to make same-sex marriages legal. There isn't even the slightest hint in the Constitution that suggests marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. Here's the only thing the Constitution says on marriage:



However, I think that the constitution does need to liberalise its position on the conditions for divorce and to recognise the equal rights for both parents in the family.

Constitutionally, there's nothing wrong with gay marriage. It's government legislation where the problem lies, this can be easily overturns in the Dáil or in the Supreme Court. The only problem is that there are ignoramuses occupying both arenas. You could have gay marriage tomorrow without any problem if it wasn't for them - it only requires the single stroke of a pen.

I believe the problem arises with the interpretation of family, what you will get is the Christian muppets hauling the constitutionality of gay marriage in and out of the courts, forever.

I truly hope I am wrong as gay marriage has my 100% support and a government just passes the fair legislation in the Dail.

Fozzydog3

I just hope Catholics aren't the gullible type

Pacifist Pigeon

df1985 wrote: »

As a young gay man, the one thing i take heart in is the fact if this went to a referendum tomorrow on people under 40 itd pass with a landslide. im only out a year but ive yet to meet a single person with any problem towards me, people simply dont care,it doesnt affect them.

I actually think it would pass today too....matter of time. I can wait but feel bad for people in lovng relationships for years who want it now.

In everyday life, the only people who seem to care about my sexual orientation are those who shove the Alive! Ragazine through my letterbox every month. I took pleasure in burning the latest copy to come throw my door today. In this month edition, the second page had an article full of fiery hate for gay marriage and gays in general, the rest seemed to be about how all atheists are condemned to hell ... oh and the cover was about how young kids tend to think that Easter is more about Easter bunnies than the graphic torture and slaughter of Jesus on the cross ... how cute!

Other than that, no-one could give less of a shite about me being gay.

a-ha

vixen chaser wrote: »

Gay marraige is wrong, full stop. I don't consider myself conservative or a gay basher, but gay marraige is unnatural. It's not just the religious aspect of it, itvis also the social. If countries allow this to happen, and in some cases it has, society will simply become disturbed. Marraige is sacred between man and woman. Now in my opinion there are many straight people who only consider marraige simply a day out and before you know it divorce papers are on the table. Divorce in my opinion was the worst thing to happen to this country. Marraige should be for life between man and woman, who then may create a family of their own by reproducing. Gay's can't do that, simply because life wasn't created that way. full stop. I say that with obviously no disrespect to childless hetro couples.

Yes, Ireland will fall apart just like Canada.



I think you need to google same-sex relationships in the animal kingdom, quite widespread and certainly not unnatural.

Also google the naturalistic fallacy, so that you can avoid falling into error in future.

Finally, google Canada and best country in the world in which to live. Any Canadian will tell you, by any measure Canada is one of the most advanced countries in the world.

Then google Maine divorce rate - and note how the divorce rate actually fell when same sex marriage was introduced.

Finally, read the amicus curiae submissions the worlds' leading psychological and child psychiatric associations in Perry v. Schwarzenegger concluding that the children of same-sex couples would benefit if their parents were allowed to marry.

That's one of many problems with religion it allows people to be certain about subjects they know little about whilst discouraging further investigation. God said it, end of discussion right?