nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Civil Marriage Protest! 9th August!

Daisy D

I will be there....will you? Everyone is being asked to bring 10 people, friends, family, etc...There were about 1000 people at the last assembly so for this march they're thinking 10,000 people. Civil Partnerships (CP) doesn't give nearly enough rights to lgb people as they should be! Who's going to the march??

LGBT NOISE are asking you, your friends, your family and your co-workers to MARCH FOR MARRIAGE in Dublin on Sunday 9th August 2009 @ 1.30pm.
The march will gather at Dublin's City Hall, Dame Street, and will end with a rally at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform on St Stephen's Green.

MARRIAGE EQUALITY

LGBT NOISE

Find more posts tagged with

protest

gay marriage

civil marriage

lgbt noise

Quick Links

Comments

rainbow kirby

Norris vs Ireland, 1988
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act, 1993

kabuk1

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again you're not seeing my point. Raising awareness to whom ? The only people who can call a referendum ar ehte Government, the Government won't call a referendum unless there's evidence that the people want one and any evidence that is supplied is declared null because it is biased.

True but the only reason the Berlin wall fell was because the USSR fell.
Had it not been rife with political and economic instability The German Democratic Republic (East Germany) would never have fallen.

Again because the white electorate voted 68% in favour of dismantling apartheid through negotiations.

Divorce was legalised through a referendum. When was Homosexuality ever illegal here ?

Change wil not happen untill the people want it to happen, as it should be.

Maybe, but domestically it is a huge issue.

My personal feelings have nothing to do with the debate however when I was younger I was a staunch anti-Homosexual [I hate the term Homophobe] but really all children are and the term Gay is a huge insult in the Schoolyard. Now my view was softened allot, I accept Civil Partnership and Gay rights but draw the line at Gay marriage and Adoption rights.

I was in Awe the first time. Now I'm abit in awe because black people are still quite a novelty down in the country.

Thoughts don't come into consideration when talking about constitutional referenda. We need to work on tangible evidence that people are ready for the change.

Yes, homosexuality was illegal in Ireland and was only descriminalised in 1993. You can find the details on Wikipedia, which offers enough details for you to look up the specific laws on an Irish government website:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_for_Homosexual_Law_Reform
I'm not going to waste my time looking up the details because I doubt you will look at them. You obviously have your opinion and you don't seem to care to change it. Also, you seem to be ill informed and don't care to really inform yourself, so I'm not going to bother. But honestly, if you're so against something and willing to expend energy on trying to persuade people to your opinion, you should really do the research and inform yourself of the actual issue.

If everyone sat back and waited on governments, nothing would ever get done, especially in Ireland.

Untense

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Again you're not seeing my point. Raising awareness to whom ? The only people who can call a referendum ar ehte Government, the Government won't call a referendum unless there's evidence that the people want one and any evidence that is supplied is declared null because it is biased.

That's circular. What better show of evidence that a referendum is needed than a protest? But besides that, of course protests raise awareness to both the public and the government. The government and the public are not these two distinct entities. They're just the same folks who walk through town every day and of course public and government alike see protests or hear about them from their great-aunt while attending bingo or whatever.

My personal feelings have nothing to do with the debate however when I was younger I was a staunch anti-Homosexual [I hate the term Homophobe] but really all children are and the term Gay is a huge insult in the Schoolyard. Now my view was softened allot, I accept Civil Partnership and Gay rights but draw the line at Gay marriage and Adoption rights.

Your personal feelings of course have everything to do with it. Why else would you want to make your point heard so strongly on an LGBT forum if not because you personally take issue? And i'm sure you have your reasons, I wish you would be more forthcoming with them so we could discuss that rather than talking about this evasive entity known as The Public.

I'm also surprised you call this thread a debate, since I gather the reason Daisie D posted this thread was to let people (mostly lgb people) know there was a protest going on so that if people were not aware of it and would to go, they could. But then you usurped the thread to disagree with people off topic. It was actually a bit odd and seems to have caused quite a bit of reaction in people who have no idea why you're actually arguing, because you haven't really said.
If you wanted to have a discussion on the merits or folly of public protests it would have made more sense to start another thread on a more appropriate forum.

Anyway, it's started now and I think it would be a shame to just ignore you since you obviously have an issue with the idea of gay marriage. And I'm carrying on off-topic because I'm interested to know why you would draw the line at gay marriage?

I was in Awe the first time. Now I'm abit in awe because black people are still quite a novelty down in the country.

So you can see that things do change over time, once you exposed to something that once seemed strange, often it's no longer strange. Sometimes the idea of something is stranger than the actuality of it. I was very surprised when I saw a black person for the first time walking down the street, I thought they were only on d'telly. But now coloured people are a part of my every day life and when I think back to my first reactions it makes me feel a bit embarrassed.

Thoughts don't come into consideration when talking about constitutional referenda. We need to work on tangible evidence that people are ready for the change.

Others have already posted surveys done by the gay community on public opinion, but that was one piece of tangible evidence you declined them as being biased. That's fair enough. Of course the gay community have a vested interest in bringing about equality for themselves, which is why they would have spent the money required to organise surveys in the first place.

Again it comes across like this isn't about the public, but that you're looking for reasons for why you personally are ready for change. You obviously are not ready at the moment, but to get an appropriate response, or to at least address the real issue as to why you feel so strongly about all this, you would need to give your own reasons why you feel you personally are not ready for gay marriage in Ireland.

Otherwise we can go on endlessly about 'The Public', as if it's some sort of entity on its own which has its own opinions.

Jakkass wrote:

Leaving aside the argument about the merits of gay marriage, how did this protest actually turn out?

I'd be interested to know also.

Iwasfrozen

Untense wrote: »

That's circular. What better show of evidence that a referendum is needed than a protest? But besides that, of course protests raise awareness to both the public and the government. The government and the public are not these two distinct entities. They're just the same folks who walk through town every day and of course public and government alike see protests or hear about them from their great-aunt while attending bingo or whatever.

No it isn't, when people are ready for Gay marriage they will call for it and it will become a major electional issue. As of yet Gay marriage is not an issue save for a few people within the gay community pushing for it.

Untense wrote: »

Your personal feelings of course have everything to do with it. Why else would you want to make your point heard so strongly on an LGBT forum if not because you personally take issue? And i'm sure you have your reasons, I wish you would be more forthcoming with them so we could discuss that rather than talking about this evasive entity known as The Public.

No my feelings do not come into it as we are talking about an issue that would require a remerendum. The points of view of one voter makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things.

Untense wrote: »

I'm also surprised you call this thread a debate, since I gather the reason Daisie D posted this thread was to let people (mostly lgb people) know there was a protest going on so that if people were not aware of it and would to go, they could. But then you usurped the thread to disagree with people off topic. It was actually a bit odd and seems to have caused quite a bit of reaction in people who have no idea why you're actually arguing, because you haven't really said.
If you wanted to have a discussion on the merits or folly of public protests it would have made more sense to start another thread on a more appropriate forum.

So the LGBT forum is not the place to discuss LGBT issues ?
And Yes this wasn't origionally a debate but it has developed into a debate about the publics acceptance of Gay marriage.

Untense wrote: »

Anyway, it's started now and I think it would be a shame to just ignore you since you obviously have an issue with the idea of gay marriage. And I'm carrying on off-topic because I'm interested to know why you would draw the line at gay marriage?

The OP was about a Gay marriage protest, we are discussing the effectiveness of said Gay marriage protest, how is that off topic ?
Regardless it is up to the mods to decide what is on or off topic.

Untense wrote: »

So you can see that things do change over time, once you exposed to something that once seemed strange, often it's no longer strange. Sometimes the idea of something is stranger than the actuality of it. I was very surprised when I saw a black person for the first time walking down the street, I thought they were only on d'telly. But now coloured people are a part of my every day life and when I think back to my first reactions it makes me feel a bit embarrassed.

Yes some things do change but they should only change at the invitation of the public at large, this is why discussing one person's opinions such as my own or yours is futile but the onis is on the Government to follow the demands of society and not the individual.
This is why we live in a Democratic Republic and this is why one persons opinion in unimportant in this debate.

Untense wrote: »

Others have already posted surveys done by the gay community on public opinion, but that was one piece of tangible evidence you declined them as being biased. That's fair enough. Of course the gay community have a vested interest in bringing about equality for themselves, which is why they would have spent the money required to organise surveys in the first place.

Yes, surveys posted by Gay communities are obviously biased, you've admitted this yourself.

Untense wrote: »

Again it comes across like this isn't about the public, but that you're looking for reasons for why you personally are ready for change. You obviously are not ready at the moment, but to get an appropriate response, or to at least address the real issue as to why you feel so strongly about all this, you would need to give your own reasons why you feel you personally are not ready for gay marriage in Ireland.

As I said before the opinions of one does not make any difference.
But personally [and please don't be offended!] I don't believe in Gay marriage because I believe it cheapens a bond that has remained unchanged in one form or another since Ancient times.
[/quote]

Dwn Wth Vwls

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

But personally [and please don't be offended!] I don't believe in Gay marriage because I believe it cheapens a bond that has remained unchanged in one form or another since Ancient times.

If you don't mind me asking, what's your sexual orientation?

Untense

No my feelings do not come into it as we are talking about an issue that would require a remerendum. The points of view of one voter makes very little difference in the grand scheme of things.

Notice that you're the one bringing up the issue. I'm not interest in your abstract ideas, I'm looking at why you personally have an issue in the first place.

This is why we live in a Democratic Republic and this is why one persons opinion in unimportant in this debate.

If your opinion was truly unimportant to you, you wouldn't be here arguing with strangers on the internet to defend it. :rolleyes: The only person you're deceiving is yourself.

Yes surveys posted by Gay communities are obviously biased, you've admitted it yourself.

Gee, you caught me.
There is a difference between my stating an obvious fact, "a gay rights group has an interest in producing public opinion surveys", and you saying the surveys themselves are biased.
It's actually kind of lame that I have to point this out to you.

As I said before the opinions of one does not make any difference.

That can be true. I should be glad you're more in the minority than you seem to think.

But personally [and please don't be offended!] I don't believe in Gay marriage because I believe it cheapens a bond that has remained unchanged in one form or another since Ancient times.

I find nothing offensive about that. It's a bit ill-informed to say the least, since it's easy to learn that marriage has been changing constantly over the centuries - but it's not offensive.

When you say, "it cheapens a bond", that's just a string of words, like me saying "it strengthens a cupcake". You aren't actually explaining anything.

Can you expand on how allowing same-sex couples the same legal rights as everyone else affects the value of these already existing bonds? And can you elaborate on what you mean by a bond ?

philologos

Dwn Wth Vwls wrote: »

If you don't mind me asking, what's your sexual orientation?

Why does that matter?

People are entitled their own views irrespective of their sexuality.

hot2def

I was at this today. I was very impressed with the turn out, and the dignified air of the whole thing. I saw a little old lady with a sign that said "marriage for al our children", and I cried a little bit.

On another note:

Originally Posted by Untense
30 Years ago blacks and whites were segregated in South Africa...
Originally Posted by Iwasfrozen
Again because the white electorate voted 68% in favour of dismantling apartheid through negotiations

Its disgusting to me that you would think that is acceptable. I shouldn't be bothered arguing points with anyone who feels that situation played out as it should.

I'm not shocked to discover that people who enjoy a privilege are not eager to relinquish it. Nor am I willing to wait for them to come round to it. I shouldn't have to ask nicely to be seen as a fully fledged human being, an adult citizen who can decide to enter into a contract of my choosing with another adult. I won't second guess my status as an adult citizen, nor seek to limit my civil right based on a constitution written nearly a hundred years ago my religious people who believed people like me should be punished.

I'm not asking. I want my damn rights. I don't care how other people feel about it - some of these people don't think I am a person. and that is fine, they are entitled to feel that way. I personally think people who believe in floating white guys in the sky are dangerous and bad for society. I won't try and stop them marrying or raising kids.

MicraBoy

Untense wrote:

Can you expand on how allowing same-sex couples the same legal rights as everyone else affects the value of these already existing bonds? And can you elaborate on what you mean by a bond ?

Because in the same way if you let women be full members of the golf club and blacks to sit at the front of the bus, it kinda ruins it for everybody. :rolleyes:

LegacyUser

was there today too! about 5000 there apparently-it was fantastic. the amount of tourist on buses, little old ladies on footpaths and passing cars cheering, waving, beeping and showing their support was heart warming. well done to all involved in today's arrangements

Iwasfrozen

Untense wrote: »

Notice that you're the one bringing up the issue. I'm not interest in your abstract ideas, I'm looking at why you personally have an issue in the first place.

And I'm telling you that when it comes to referenda peoples personal issues are not important, what is important is the topic of discussion i.e the effectivness of Protests in forcing a referendum.

Untense wrote: »

If your opinion was truly unimportant to you, you wouldn't be here arguing with strangers on the internet to defend it. :rolleyes: The only person you're deceiving is yourself.

Who said my opinion was unimportant to me ? I said my views are unimportant in referendum debates as are yours or any other sigulary person. Lobby groups are made up of many people who want an issue pushed or rejected for a number of reasons. Take for example Libertas, each member wanted the treaty defeated but for different reasons Joe the Plumber did not come onto the Radio and give his reasons for wanting the Treaty defeated because that was unimportant.
Do you understand now ?

Untense wrote: »

Gee, you caught me.
There is a difference between my stating an obvious fact, "a gay rights group has an interest in producing public opinion surveys", and you saying the surveys themselves are biased.
It's actually kind of lame that I have to point this out to you.

Point what out ? That Gay rights groups obviously only publish the material that is compatible with their cause ? I think you'll find I pointed that out to you.

Untense wrote: »

That can be true. I should be glad you're more in the minority than you seem to think.

I don't know whether I am in the minority or not bacause there has never been an unbiased poll published. Certainly all of my friends think the same way as I do. [Gay Rights and Civil Partnership but no Gay marriage or Adoption.]

Untense wrote: »

I find nothing offensive about that. It's a bit ill-informed to say the least, since it's easy to learn that marriage has been changing constantly over the centuries - but it's not offensive.

Yes marriage has constantly changed but has never been between two people of the same Sex regardless of the time period.

Untense wrote: »

Can you expand on how allowing same-sex couples the same legal rights as everyone else affects the value of these already existing bonds? And can you elaborate on what you mean by a bond ?

Same Sex marriage cheapens the Bond of Hetrosexual marriage by taking away the fundemental ideal of marriage, to provide children the security of a settled couple.
Two men or two women obviously can't have children thus the need for marriage is void. Save for Tax and legal reasons that Civil partnership will cover if it's passed.

Dwn Wth Vwls wrote: »

If you don't mind me asking, what's your sexual orientation?

I'm not answering that.

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Two men or two women obviously can't have children thus the need for marriage is void. Save for Tax and legal reasons that Civil partnership will cover if it's passed.

Infertile and elderly people are allowed marry. The children argument is the weakest one out there whilst people who are unable to have children are allowed marry.

Also, we're closer to years than decades away from two women being able to have a child without any male involvement whatsoever. You can have the hysterical take from a suitably right-wing rag here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1198132/Ethical-storm-flares-British-scientists-create-artificial-sperm-human-stem-cells.html

Iwasfrozen

hot2def wrote: »

I was at this today. I was very impressed with the turn out, and the dignified air of the whole thing. I saw a little old lady with a sign that said "marriage for al our children", and I cried a little bit.

I'm glad to here it went well for you.

hot2def wrote: »

Its disgusting to me that you would think that is acceptable. I shouldn't be bothered arguing points with anyone who feels that situation played out as it should.

What situation the Black Rights or Gay rights, I'm confused.

hot2def wrote: »

I'm not shocked to discover that people who enjoy a privilege are not eager to relinquish it. Nor am I willing to wait for them to come round to it. I shouldn't have to ask nicely to be seen as a fully fledged human being, an adult citizen who can decide to enter into a contract of my choosing with another adult. I won't second guess my status as an adult citizen, nor seek to limit my civil right based on a constitution written nearly a hundred years ago my religious people who believed people like me should be punished.

Well actually, being under 18 I don't enjoy the privilege to marry, but you don't see me organising parades about it.

hot2def wrote: »

I'm not asking. I want my damn rights. I don't care how other people feel about it - some of these people don't think I am a person. and that is fine, they are entitled to feel that way. I personally think people who believe in floating white guys in the sky are dangerous and bad for society. I won't try and stop them marrying or raising kids.

So you demand to change the constitution ?
Well I demand to remove your freedom of speech but it's Not nice when people demand to change the highest law in the Land is it ?

Iwasfrozen

MYOB wrote: »

Infertile and elderly people are allowed marry. The children argument is the weakest one out there whilst people who are unable to have children are allowed marry.

Not really, I'm talking about the fundamentals of marriage, maybe some Elderly people can't have children and maybe some Hetro couples are infertile but all gay couples are infertile so that arguement doesn't quite stack.

MYOB wrote: »

Also, we're closer to years than decades away from two women being able to have a child without any male involvement whatsoever. You can have the hysterical take from a suitably right-wing rag here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1198132/Ethical-storm-flares-British-scientists-create-artificial-sperm-human-stem-cells.htm

lol at the link, tbh one could read the constitution as outlawing that as well. Only time will tell.

ixoy

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well actually, being under 18 I don't enjoy the privilege to marry, but you don't see me organising parades about it.

Daft point - you can wait a couple of years and you'll be able to marry. As it currently stands we could wait 80 years and still couldn't marry the person we love.

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Well actually, being under 18 I don't enjoy the privilege to marry, but you don't see me organising parades about it.

The age for marriage is 16, not 18.

If you're under 16, I don't see how you could possibly have enough maturity and life experience to debate on this matter. If you're 16/17, I think my point still stands...

Looking back over the thread, your knowledge of the fundamentals of the position you're trying to argue are atrociously poor, at that.

philologos

People are quite entitled to agree with traditional marriage in Ireland without being referred to as a "bigot" or a "homophobe". Supporting the traditional family in Ireland doesn't mean that one hates people who are gay. It merely means that people disagree with you. That happens in several areas of life, and guilt tripping people into accepting your position will ultimately do your cause more harm than help I think.

I think it is rather bigoted for people not to accept that other people have their viewpoints on this issue, and that this needs to be discussed fairly so as to alleviate concerns for all in the community and of course it will need to be dealt with in a democratic manner.

Iwasfrozen

MYOB wrote: »

The age for marriage is 16, not 18.

Really ? I thought it was 18.

MYOB wrote: »

If you're under 16, I don't see how you could possibly have enough maturity and life experience to debate on this matter. If you're 16/17, I think my point still stands...

I'm 17 and I have plenty of life experience.

MYOB wrote: »

Looking back over the thread, your knowledge of the fundamentals of the position you're trying to argue are atrociously poor, at that.

Care to give examples ?

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

People are quite entitled to agree with traditional marriage in Ireland without being referred to as a "bigot" or a "homophobe". Supporting the traditional family in Ireland doesn't mean that one hates people who are gay. It merely means that people disagree with you. That happens in several areas of life, and guilt tripping people into accepting your position will ultimately do your cause more harm than help I think.

I think it is rather bigoted for people not to accept that other people have their viewpoints on this issue, and that this needs to be discussed fairly so as to alleviate concerns for all in the community and of course it will need to be dealt with in a democratic manner.

Could you explain the relevance of quoting my post, which didn't use the term bigot or the term homophobe, please?

Iwasfrozen

MYOB wrote: »

Could you explain the relevance of quoting my post, which didn't use the term bigot or the term homophobe, please?

RAI not RAW.

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Really ? I thought it was 18.

And you also thought it was never illegal to be gay here... you're sitting in front of the internet, you've got plenty of opportunity to check your facts

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I'm 17 and I have plenty of life experience.

Generally 17 year olds who think they have plenty of life experience... haven't.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Care to give examples ?

Assuming you couldn't get married for one!

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

RAI not RAW.

Could you repeat that in English, not text-ese?

philologos

MYOB wrote: »

Could you explain the relevance of quoting my post, which didn't use the term bigot or the term homophobe, please?

I had an urge to pre-empt it.

L1011

Jakkass wrote: »

I had an urge to pre-empt it.

You pre-empted wrong. Care to remove the quote? You're attempting to load a statement with something I never said.

ixoy

Jakkass wrote: »

I had an urge to pre-empt it.

Try not to - the poster didn't show any signs of accusations of homophobia. I'm pretty aware of your position on all this stuff but don't jump the gun.

Iwasfrozen

MYOB wrote: »

And you also thought it was never illegal to be gay here... you're sitting in front of the internet, you've got plenty of opportunity to check your facts

We learn new things everyday, how could I check what I never heard off ?
Also I don't like your tone, you really aren't doing your cause any favours by acting as if marriage is a right.

MYOB wrote: »

Generally 17 year olds who think they have plenty of life experience... haven't.

Generally is not always, you don't know me and you don't know what life experiences I've had.
Your arguement is not reduced to guesses.
Also can we ease up on the personal attacks please, I don't want o see this get locked.

MYOB wrote: »

Assuming you couldn't get married for one!

That has relevence how ?

BTW,
RAI = Read as intended
RAW = Read as written.

anoisaris

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

No it isn't, when people are ready for Gay marriage they will call for it and it will become a major electional issue. As of yet Gay marriage is not an issue save for a few people within the gay community pushing for it.

[/quote]
Over 5000 called for it in Dublin today-that's a start!

L1011

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

We learn new things everyday, how could I check what I never heard off ?
Also I don't like your tone, you really aren't doing your cause any favours by acting as if marriage is a right.

The entire point of "my cause" is that marriage is a right of two consenting adults. That you've not managed to grasp this yet is going to be a problem...

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

That has relevence how ?

If you're going to argue about something where you don't know the fundamentals of it, you're going to fall short very quickly.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

W
BTW,
RAI = Read as intended
RAW = Read as written.

Except it wasn't read as intended.

Iwasfrozen

anoisaris wrote:

Over 5000 called for it in Dublin today-that's a start!

Indeed it is, and if Gay marriage is what the majority of the irish public want I will be more than happy to see democracy at work.
If it is just a loud minority though...

Iwasfrozen

MYOB wrote: »

The entire point of "my cause" is that marriage is a right of two consenting adults. That you've not managed to grasp this yet is going to be a problem...

My arguement is and always was that parades do not force legislation especially referenda. I don't see what any of your posts have to do with my points indeed it seems you are attacking me purely for having an opinion different than yours.

MYOB wrote: »

If you're going to argue about something where you don't know the fundamentals of it, you're going to fall short very quickly.

Am I now ?

MYOB wrote: »

Except it wasn't read as intended.

You didn't state that.