Opinions on same sex marriage in Ireland

1ZRed

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I see. So if you incorporatex those 160 differences into civil partnership that would do fine?

If you took into account the one obvious difference between the two relationships would that be fine for me? Yes.

Isn't this issue easily solved?

That'd be a great start but why have two meanings for the same thing? I'm just interested to know why you think gay people should still be kept separate from marriage.

Madam_X

I don't agree that marriage should only be between a man and a woman - if a person wanted to marry their motorbike and got the ok on it, it wouldn't make any difference to me. But if someone believes marriage should just be between a man and a woman, but also believes civil partnership should match marriage exactly in terms of rights/securities, while I don't understand their reasoning, is it really such a terrible opinion to have? Does it automatically make them homophobic?

shopaholic01

Corkfeen wrote: »

There's already gay couples raising children however those children have less rights. Only one of their parents is recognised as the parents which creates serious issues if one parent dies as the other is not recognised as a parent. These are people who are already effected. That's just one of the issues.

There's no difference in the quality of life between children adopted by same sex couples and heterosexual couples so an objection to same sex couples adopting is in itself irrational.

I wonder do they have as little concern for the lack of parental rights afforded to unmarried fathers? Or are they different because they're not gay?

Morag

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Nothing major?

Not being able to bring your civil partner to live here with you or for them to become an Irish citizen is nothing major?

For your family home to not be considered a family home under law, is nothing major?

For your civil partner not to be able to adopt your child as your legal spouse can, giving the child another legal guardian is nothing major?

For that child to be then denied access to the parent who had a hand in raising them as they were not your spouse but only civil partner and not legally family to each other is nothing major?

For your civil partner not to be able get correction to medical records or insurance records when you are incapacitated but you spouse can, is nothing major?


You honestly think that these things which cause upset, stress and denies peoples rights are nothing major?

R0ot

A great man once said "Hey if Gays want to be unhappy for the rest of their lives who are we to stand in there way?"

darced

This post has been deleted.

mrkiscool2

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Equal rights in two different relationships. One involving different sexes and another involving same sexes? All for it. Everyone happy now?

OK, now we are getting somewhere. I accept that some religions won't allow gays to marriage in their church/place of worship. Grand, apart from the religious aspect what's wrong with calling a union between two men or women marriage?

sniperman

MAYBE A CURE MIGHT BE FOUND SOME DAY

Mod edit

Banned.

Take your unfunny opinions somewhere else.

jjjd

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Equal rights in two different relationships. One involving different sexes and another involving same sexes? All for it. Everyone happy now?

It wouldn't be equal then, would it? That's what's called gender discrimination.

Petey89

shopaholic01 wrote: »

I wonder do they have as little concern for the lack of parental rights afforded to unmarried fathers? Or are they different because they're not gay?

I think a lot of the laws in this country need to be changed, like unmarried father not having any rights, it is disgraceful and it is time for change in many areas.

shopaholic01

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Good luck to you then.

Morag

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Until they bite you in the ass.

shopaholic01

sniperman wrote: »

MAYBE A CURE MIGHT BE FOUND SOME DAY

Yes, ignorance is a terrible affliction. :rolleyes:

Sarky

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't think you realise what any of those differences actually mean...

Phill Ewinn

1ZRed wrote: »

That'd be a great start but why have two meanings for the same thing? I'm just interested to know why you think gay people should still be kept separate from marriage.

Thats the way I roll, being a big fat racist bigotted homophobe and all. Nothing to do with logic, reasoning or anything.

Is it common now to have different things being called the same? Seriously, I don't think I'm being old fashioned or prejudice.

Marriage is what it is. Life is confusing enough. People are tired of having chalk and cheese compared or mixed together. It's not the same thing. They're two different relationships. I'm done here.

1ZRed

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Did you not see this?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=84169323&postcount=184

ahnowbrowncow

I had previously thought I wouldn't bother voting because it doesn't affect me.

But after hearing so many bigots on the radio lately saying it's not right and disgusting etc. I've decided I'll get off my arse and vote for equality.

Can't stand people preaching and dictating how others should live even though it doesn't affect them in the slightest.

darced

This post has been deleted.

Sarky

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Seriously, I don't think I'm being old fashioned or prejudice.

Old fashioned and prejudiced people rarely do.

1ZRed

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Thats the way I roll, being a big fat racist bigotted homophobe and all. Nothing to do with logic, reasoning or anything.

Is it common now to have different things being called the same? Seriously, I don't think I'm being old fashioned or prejudice.

Marriage is what it is. Life is confusing enough. People are tired of having chalk and cheese compared or mixed together. It's not the same thing. They're two different relationships. I'm done here.

Only difference is that it's two men or two women instead of a man and a woman.

How the fuk is this such a massive "chalk and cheese" argument with you?

wonderfulname

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

They're two different relationships.

How?

jjjd

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Thats the way I roll, being a big fat racist bigotted homophobe and all. Nothing to do with logic, reasoning or anything.

Is it common now to have different things being called the same? Seriously, I don't think I'm being old fashioned or prejudice.

Marriage is what it is. Life is confusing enough. People are tired of having chalk and cheese compared or mixed together. It's not the same thing. They're two different relationships. I'm done here.

That's the most prejudiced post I've ever read and the really sad thing is you don't even realise it!

darced

This post has been deleted.

shopaholic01

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Thats the way I roll, being a big fat racist bigotted homophobe and all.

Too much chalk and cheese, Phil.

Morag

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

It's not the same thing. They're two different relationships. I'm done here.

What reasons do you have for saying they are two different relationships?

Phill Ewinn

wonderfulname wrote: »

How?

What? Seriously now. You don't see a difference? Jeez. Leave me out of it so. This is obviously some kind of closed discussion.

Night.

old hippy

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

What? Seriously now. You don't see a difference? Jeez. Leave me out of it so. This is obviously some kind of closed discussion.

Night.

The difference is in your head, Phill.

Jezek

A semantic point: dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. This means that they record what a word means at a point in time in common usage, not what it should mean. So giving a dictionary definition is just giving the definition that most people would give at a specific point in time. This can be useful in reflecting societal usage of words, but cannot actually serve as a moral guide.

I actually went to the OED online, and here is what I found:

Marriage: The condition of being a husband or wife; the relation between persons married to each other; matrimony.The term is now sometimes used with reference to long-term relationships between partners of the same sex

Here. This is what this word means now. Debate ahead, if you would deny certain people certain rights, but be warned that history might judge you harshly. This is a bit too far gone in the game to declare ignorance, and we have the benefit of recorded history with very similar situations to guide us. The dictionary definition changing is a sign that already, most people do not think like you. i would bet that in 15 years the definition will not make any mention of husbands or wives.

ShooterSF

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

What? Seriously now. You don't see a difference? Jeez. Leave me out of it so. This is obviously some kind of closed discussion.

Night.

When you get up could you offer a suggestion as to what we should rename marriage between a black and white person? Inter-racial partnership?

Morag

Currently we are denying people the right to get married which they have under Article 16 of the Universal declaration on human rights and Article 9 of the EU charter of fundamental rights.