Gay couple kicked out of bar for kissing on the dancefloor

MagicSean · 24-08-2011 09:16PM

lst wrote: »

The same sex partner is not hypothetical. Its the situation dozens of Irish parents are in. And the husband in your situation can adopt the child with the birth fathers agreement.

And if he changes his mind he can reassert his rights can't he?

lst wrote: »

You said you like to define yourself by what you do!!!

Yes, my actions in life. Your orientation is not about what you do. It's just who you are and shouldn't play a major role in how you live your life.

Goodshape · 24-08-2011 09:25PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Yes that is what i meant. But i am referring to the issue of custody. It has been taken up as a gay rights issue when it is actually an issue that affects many more people.

Well, it always seems to be the straights that drag it into these conversations :P

I think (and I think I illustrated it in my post) the important issue for gay rights is having our partnerships recognised on an equal footing to heterosexual partnerships.

It might not be perfect but "everyone else" has the option to get married and raise a child with the person they love -- that's like the goal of life for many, if not most, individuals and I'm told I simply can't have it. If we can achieve that equality first I'll be more than happy to help you fight for better laws around joint custody for unmarried, long-term, couples.

MagicSean · 24-08-2011 09:28PM

Goodshape wrote: »

Well, it always seems to be the straights that drag it into these conversations :P

I think (and I think I illustrated it in my post) the important issue for gay rights is having our partnerships recognised on an equal footing to heterosexual partnerships.

It might not be perfect but "everyone else" has the option to get married and raise a child with the person they love -- that's like the goal of life for many, if not most, individuals and I'm told I simply can't have it. If we can achieve that equality first I'll be more than happy to help you fight for better laws around joint custody for unmarried, long-term, couples.

Cheers

EDIT: Personally I think marriage should be exclusively a religious union and civil partnerships should be the legal union. The two parts should be completely seperated with marriage providing no extra benefits at all over the civil partnership. As an agnostic, i'd be happy with a civil partnership.

TylerIE · 24-08-2011 09:33PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

And if he changes his mind he can reassert his rights can't he?

I dont know - AFAIK once you allow your child to be adopted its final after a short cooling off period.

Yes, my actions in life. Your orientation is not about what you do. It's just who you are and shouldn't play a major role in how you live your life.

It does play a massive role in who your partner is and how your life is affected by that. But I agree, other than that it shouldnt affect your life.

I think that Goodshapes post at 21.25 sums it up perfectly, and would happily leave this discussion

Goodshape · 24-08-2011 09:33PM

As an aside; it's a bit funny when you think about those people complaining that gay's are too loud, in your face, party too much, no responsibilities... usually the same ones to deny us equal marriage and/or adoption rights.

So... not allowed to marry, not allowed to raise a child... and you wonder why we party so much?

Related, funny: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOzWAxJtybc

Goodshape · 24-08-2011 09:38PM

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

EDIT: Personally I think marriage should be exclusively a religious union and civil partnerships should be the legal union. The two parts should be completely seperated with marriage providing no extra benefits at all over the civil partnership. As an agnostic, i'd be happy with a civil partnership.

But marriage doesn't have anything to do with religion. Going to a church is completely optional.

A civil partnership is for two people living together for a long time. Love needn't play a part. Marriage is for two people in love who want to make a lifetime commitment to each other. The church needn't play a part.

I've been to plenty of weddings which had no church, catholic or otherwise, affiliation and those couples are no less married.

Monty. · 24-08-2011 10:08PM

When are the Irish people going to be given a referendum on gay marriage ?
Let democracy decide, as in the case of divorce, abortion etc.

SayWhaaat · 24-08-2011 10:18PM

end a eknny wrote: »

finally an admission by an openly gay person that it is not normal.

Did you read my post? I said it's people like you that caused me to think that I wasn't normal. That I'd never fit in. This negative thinking caused me to think sucidal thoughts for a VERY dark time in my life.

I am normal.

end a eknny wrote: »

as for shove opinions where you like sticking your willy no thanks.

LOL. Yes. Your hole, good one. Do you write comedy for a living?

end a eknny wrote: »

its fair to say nobody here has said anything against gays but a lot of people just dont want to see two men kissing. where is the problem with that

It's not fair. In the same sense that I don't want to see morbidly obese girls rocking mini skirts. Do I call for them to be banned? No, because I'm a f*cking adult.

Your problem, your eyes. Look away.

Goodshape · 24-08-2011 10:19PM

Monty. wrote: »

When are the Irish people going to be given a referendum on gay marriage ?
Let democracy decide, as in the case of divorce, abortion etc.

I'm not so sure that civil equalities should be decided by vote. You can't vote away an individual's rights, no matter how many people agree with you.

end a eknny · 24-08-2011 10:20PM

SayWhaaat wrote: »

Did you read my post? I said it's people like you that caused me to think that I wasn't normal. That I'd never fit in. This negative thinking caused me to think sucidal thoughts for a VERY dark time in my life.

I am normal.

LOL. Yes. Your hole, good one. Do you write comedy for a living?

It's not fair. In the same sense that I don't want to see morbidly obese girls rocking mini skirts. Do I call for them to be banned? No, because I'm a f*cking adult.

Your problem, your eyes. Look away.

i thought yous gays liked fat chicks

Goodshape · 24-08-2011 10:24PM

end a eknny wrote: »

i thought yous gays liked fat chicks

No, you're thinking of fat dicks. Different thing altogether.

PK2008 · 24-08-2011 10:26PM

Ewwww......... kissing!!!!!

Thats how cooties get spread

lastlaugh · 24-08-2011 10:29PM

Goodshape wrote: »

No, you're thinking of fat dicks. Different thing altogether.

:pac:

SayWhaaat · 24-08-2011 10:33PM

end a eknny wrote: »

i thought yous gays liked fat chicks

About as much as I like generalisations. STFU

Monty. · 24-08-2011 11:00PM

Goodshape wrote: »

I'm not so sure that civil equalities should be decided by vote. You can't vote away an individual's rights, no matter how many people agree with you.

What are you talking about ? Divorce and Abortion was decided this way, people would also argue they have a right to these as well.

Why are you so afraid of giving the people a referendum in a democracy ?

Goodshape · 24-08-2011 11:31PM

Monty. wrote: »

What are you talking about ? Divorce and Abortion was decided this way, people would also argue they have a right to these as well.

There's a couple of ways I could tackle that. I'm a bit of an idealist and I'm not sure that divorce or abortion should have been decided that way. No point in making the same mistake thrice. But I wouldn't really be prepared to argue that; it's just an opinion.

More so, I think that divorce and abortion are different issues. Mostly because you're talking about changes to the way things work for everyone (potentially), not deciding which sub-set of people get excluded from what society offers as a whole, as is the case with gay marriage.

Why are you so afraid of giving the people a referendum in a democracy ?

Bigotry and misunderstanding. A same sex couple getting married has no affect on most people and I'd be afraid that pushed to vote on the goings on of total strangers, there's not going to be much for them to base a decision on outside of sensationalist media and the church's wonderful legacy of tolerance.

But mostly it's not about fear, it's that I don't think civil equalities should be decided by vote.

Monty. · 24-08-2011 11:41PM

Goodshape wrote: »

There's a couple of ways I could tackle that. I'm a bit of an idealist and I'm not sure that divorce or abortion should have been decided that way. No point in making the same mistake thrice. But I wouldn't really be prepared to argue that; it's just an opinion.

More so, I think that divorce and abortion are different issues. Mostly because you're talking about changes to the way things work for everyone (potentially), not deciding which sub-set of people get excluded from what society offers as a whole, as is the case with gay marriage.

Bigotry and misunderstanding. A same sex couple getting married has no affect on most people and I'd be afraid that pushed to vote on the goings on of total strangers, there's not going to be much for them to base a decision on outside of sensationalist media and the church's wonderful legacy of tolerance.

But mostly it's not about fear, it's that I don't think civil equalities should be decided by vote.

The pick and choose excuse, democracy when it suits, dictatorship when it doesn't

Resi12 · 24-08-2011 11:43PM

As a gay man I must say, if you don't like gay marriage then don't marry a GBLT person and mind your own fcuking business/worry about your own love life.

jill_valentine · 24-08-2011 11:44PM

Surveys generally favour gay marriage anyway, so I dunno that there's anything to be "afraid" of, but the point stands - unlike abortion or divorce, there's nobody you could even argue is a victimised by gay marriage.

Since there's no rational reason whatsoever for a government to oppose or obstruct gay marriage, it's purely a matter of an administration recognising rights of the society it serves.

Monty. · 24-08-2011 11:59PM

jill_valentine wrote: »

Surveys generally favour gay marriage anyway, so I dunno that there's anything to be "afraid" of, but the point stands - unlike abortion or divorce, there's nobody you could even argue is a victimised by gay marriage.

Why should women who want an abortion be denied one ?
Who's victimised by divorce ?

criticalcritic · 24-08-2011 11:59PM

The sight of two people kissing makes me uncomfortable, but as a man the sight of two men kissing makes me physically sick, may seem homophobic or whatever but thats just me, I just find it revoltimg

SayWhaaat · 25-08-2011 12:03AM

criticalcritic wrote: »

The sight of two people kissing makes me uncomfortable, but as a man the sight of two men kissing makes me physically sick, may seem homophobic or whatever but thats just me, I just find it revoltimg

Then look away.

Goodshape · 25-08-2011 12:06AM

Monty. wrote: »

The pick and choose excuse, democracy when it suits, dictatorship when it doesn't

No, I think I was pretty clear about what the difference is. Whether or not I'd be afraid of a public vote isn't the issue at all -- part of me would love to see it happen for the vindication should it pass.

I don't think denying a minority of people access to something which is available to the rest of society should be an option on a ballot paper. Correcting the mistake should be something that's done by an embarrassed government minister, applauded briefly, and then we'll all carry on like the ugliness never happened.

I think the only reason a vote might be needed is because of an interpretation of our constitution?

jill_valentine · 25-08-2011 12:15AM

Monty. wrote: »

Why should people who want an abortion by denied one ?
Who's victimised by divorce ?

For the record, I'm pro-choice and pro-divorce. However, arguments made against the former are generally made on behalf of the baby/foetus/ blastocyst, and arguments made against the latter back in the day were generally of a think-of-the-children flavour too. No such argument can be made, at all, in the case of gay marriage.

Nobody's rights, dignity or quality of life is in anyway diminished by its existence among a society - but it's absence does all of those things. It's the government's job to see to it that it treats it's citizens fairly. While I'd welcome a referendum - because I'm pretty confident it would roll out in my favour - it seems silly that it would be necessary to go to such rounds to institute something that should be taken for granted. Just as people can date across ethnic lines and women can vote, gay people should be able to marry. It's a matter of administrative fairness as much as anything.

Sonics2k · 25-08-2011 12:19AM

criticalcritic wrote: »

The sight of two people kissing makes me uncomfortable, but as a man the sight of two men kissing makes me physically sick, may seem homophobic or whatever but thats just me, I just find it revoltimg

Why are you looking in the first place?

I mean, I don't like seeing anyone kiss. So I don't look. What's the problem?

Monty. · 25-08-2011 12:22AM

jill_valentine wrote: »

For the record, I'm pro-choice and pro-divorce. However, arguments made against the former are generally made on behalf of the baby/foetus/ blastocyst, and arguments made against the latter back in the day were generally of a think-of-the-children flavour too. No such argument can be made, at all, in the case of gay marriage.

Nobody's rights, dignity or quality of life is in anyway diminished by its existence among a society - but it's absence does all of those things. It's the government's job to see to it that it treats it's citizens fairly. While I'd welcome a referendum - because I'm pretty confident it would roll out in my favour - it seems silly that it would be necessary to go to such rounds to institute something that should be taken for granted. Just as people can date across ethnic lines and women can vote, gay people should be able to marry. It's a matter of administrative fairness as much as anything.

Why not allow a referendum on this subject as well then ?
That's what democracy is all about.

jill_valentine · 25-08-2011 12:23AM

Uh. Isn't that kind of covered by that post?

Wompa1 · 25-08-2011 12:23AM

We Need Community wrote: »

I would question why they were given that direction in the first place, surely that alone is discriminatory, would this happen to a couple that were not gay

One of my first girlfriends and I, were given a warning for kissing in a Galway night club before. It was actually a night club with a rep for being seedy too. There was no hands down there or anything but they obviously thought it was inappropriate

Monty. · 25-08-2011 12:23AM

Goodshape wrote: »

Whether or not I'd be afraid of a public vote isn't the issue at all -- part of me would love to see it happen for the vindication should it pass.

Exactly, so why prevent one, when we have other referendums ?

Wompa1 · 25-08-2011 12:32AM

Goodshape wrote: »

I think the only reason a vote might be needed is because of an interpretation of our constitution?

What's in the constitution currently in Ireland for marriage? isn't marriage legally defined in the country as between a man and a woman...so I'd imagine the constitution would need to be ammended but frankly I don't actually give a crap. Let gay people marry or don't... I don't care either way. Just had thought when I saw your post, I'd bring up that it might actually require an ammendment to be voted on

Gay couple kicked out of bar for kissing on the dancefloor

Comments