Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

lyda · 27-01-2014 10:15AM

No

whats the point wrote: »

Does a piece of paper mean that so much to you?

Are you really that thick? Do you not understand the rights that piece of paper gives a couple? And have you never heard of people denied visas, access to another person, the financial penalties, etc for the people who don't have that piece of paper?

Same sex couples can already get married in Ireland. There are religious communities that celebrate the unions of their gay members and they are viewed as married within their group.

What they lack are the legal protections that civil marriage provides them. So yes, that piece of paper means *a lot* to people.

enda1 · 27-01-2014 03:54PM

No

The ironic corollary to all this is that myself (a male) and my girlfriend had a civil partnership in France. So under French law we're civilally unioned. However in Ireland in all it's wisdom when it created it's civil partnership bill with the pretence of helping to improve equality - they just created another unequal law which was gender biased: only same gender couples can be civally partnered in Ireland. Serious facepalm Ireland...

Gender should basically be removed from the legislature (and constitution) in my opinion. Don't see how it's relevant in almost any circumstance.

J_E · 27-01-2014 04:15PM

No

enda1 wrote: »

The ironic corollary to all this is that myself (a male) and my girlfriend had a civil partnership in France. So under French law we're civilally unioned. However in Ireland in all it's wisdom when it created it's civil partnership bill with the pretence of helping to improve equality - they just created another unequal law which was gender biased: only same gender couples can be civally partnered in Ireland. Serious facepalm Ireland...

Gender should basically be removed from the legislature (and constitution) in my opinion. Don't see how it's relevant in almost any circumstance.

They could have avoided so much hassle by simply ensuring civil partnerships have the same rights. I mean, this is a no-brainer really. I don't understand why there was ever such a discrepancy made.

Annasopra · 27-01-2014 04:27PM

No

Cydoniac wrote: »

They could have avoided so much hassle by simply ensuring civil partnerships have the same rights. I mean, this is a no-brainer really. I don't understand why there was ever such a discrepancy made.

Perhaps but then that may very well have been more likely to be unconstitutional.

It makes sense to me that they only went so far. 1: Ireland is stil quite conservative, 2: Iona and youth defence did strong lobbying, 3: A lot of the politicisns in 2010 would would remember the scars from the nasty 80s in terms of divorce, abortion, contaception, homosexuality, 4: In social issues Ireland quite often legislates in a piecemeal fashion - this happened with condoms and divorce, 5: Many of the politicians in 2010 were even somewhat afraid to go even as far as they did.

J_E · 27-01-2014 04:45PM

No

mango salsa wrote: »

Perhaps but then that may very well have been more likely to be unconstitutional.

It makes sense to me that they only went so far. 1: Ireland is stil quite conservative, 2: Iona and youth defence did strong lobbying, 3: A lot of the politicisns in 2010 would would remember the scars from the nasty 80s in terms of divorce, abortion, contaception, homosexuality, 4: In social issues Ireland quite often legislates in a piecemeal fashion - this happened with condoms and divorce, 5: Many of the politicians in 2010 were even somewhat afraid to go even as far as they did.

I think I speak for the majority when I say; **** Iona and Youth Defense and their contemporaries. **** 'em **** 'em**** 'em. Seriously...when does it end.

Phill Ewinn · 27-01-2014 04:50PM

lyda wrote: »

Are you really that thick? Do you not understand the rights that piece of paper gives a couple? And have you never heard of people denied visas, access to another person, the financial penalties, etc for the people who don't have that piece of paper?

Same sex couples can already get married in Ireland. There are religious communities that celebrate the unions of their gay members and they are viewed as married within their group.

What they lack are the legal protections that civil marriage provides them. So yes, that piece of paper means *a lot* to people.

All these things could be granted by way of civil partnership legislation. Without the need for the changing of marriage in the constitution

enda1 · 27-01-2014 04:52PM

No

Cydoniac wrote: »

They could have avoided so much hassle by simply ensuring civil partnerships have the same rights. I mean, this is a no-brainer really. I don't understand why there was ever such a discrepancy made.

I wouldn't agree. In France for example you have both marriage and civil partnerships with both being genderless. I'd prefer civil partnerships to be distinct to marriage, a kind of marriage lite.

Sarky · 27-01-2014 04:52PM

No

Why so precious over civil marriage, Phill? It doesn't change religious marriage one jot, your church du jour can still refuse to recognise gay people as equals all it likes. What have you got against it? Come on, tell us. I'm sure you have some rationale for it besides "I just don't like it" or some long-since-debunked piece of trashy pseudoscience.

Phill Ewinn · 27-01-2014 04:52PM

mango salsa wrote: »

Perhaps but then that may very well have been more likely to be unconstitutional.

It makes sense to me that they only went so far. 1: Ireland is stil quite conservative, 2: Iona and youth defence did strong lobbying, 3: A lot of the politicisns in 2010 would would remember the scars from the nasty 80s in terms of divorce, abortion, contaception, homosexuality, 4: In social issues Ireland quite often legislates in a piecemeal fashion - this happened with condoms and divorce, 5: Many of the politicians in 2010 were even somewhat afraid to go even as far as they did.

Yet you don't want the more common form of marriage, polygamy. If piecemeal is what you object to than have a proper referendum now.

efb · 27-01-2014 04:55PM

No

enda1 wrote: »

I wouldn't agree. In France for example you have both marriage and civil partnerships with both being genderless. I'd prefer civil partnerships to be distinct to marriage, a kind of marriage lite.

Why?

efb · 27-01-2014 04:56PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Yet you don't want the more common form of marriage, polygamy. If piecemeal is what you object to than have a proper referendum now.

Phil I'm sure many ladies and gentlemen are beating down your door but polygamy has nothing to do with a debate on homophobia

enda1 · 27-01-2014 04:57PM

No

efb wrote: »

Why?

Well its a simpler process which is easier to instigate and easier to dissolve. It's more for those living together (perhaps medium to longterm relationships) who aren't ready/don't want to/don't believe in etc. the stronger terms of marriage law.

Annasopra · 27-01-2014 04:59PM

No

Cydoniac wrote: »

I think I speak for the majority when I say; **** Iona and Youth Defense and their contemporaries. **** 'em **** 'em**** 'em. Seriously...when does it end.

Indeed but the reality is politicians take them seriously

drunkmonkey · 27-01-2014 05:01PM

efb wrote: »

Phil I'm sure many ladies and gentlemen are beating down your door but polygamy has nothing to do with a debate on homophobia

Aren't they all kinks though, if were "all" going to be equal then we have to be "all" equal.
We can's just make a rule for the straights and gays while ignoring all other types of relationships.

Phill Ewinn · 27-01-2014 05:02PM

Sarky wrote: »

Why so precious over civil marriage, Phill? It doesn't change religious marriage one jot, your church du jour can still refuse to recognise gay people as equals all it likes. What have you got against it? Come on, tell us. I'm sure you have some rationale for it besides "I just don't like it" or some long-since-debunked piece of trashy pseudoscience.

Sarky, I haven't posted in an agressive manner in this thread so many others I would appreciate if you'd take your hatred elesewhere. If you want to keep it up you can go on ignore like many other posters.

There is good reason for this step. Many people have said it before me and many will after I'm gone. Marriage holds a special place in society and I believe it's irreplaceable in its potential.

Sarky are you in a long term gay relationship? Do you believe that relationship is "the same as" your parents relationship? The rights issue can be resolved. Marriage can not be replaced IMO.

Annasopra · 27-01-2014 05:03PM

No

The whataboutery in order to derail the discussion is quite funny.

efb · 27-01-2014 05:03PM

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Aren't they all kinks though, if were "all" going to be equal then we have to be "all" equal.
We can's just make a rule for the straights and gays while ignoring all other types of relationships.

Bit that isn't what's discussed here homophobia has nothing to do with polygamy

But keep throwing up smokescreens

efb · 27-01-2014 05:05PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Sarky, I haven't posted in an agressive manner in this thread so many others I would appreciate if you'd take your hatred elesewhere. If you want to keep it up you can go on ignore like many other posters.

There is good reason for this step. Many people have said it before me and many will after I'm gone. Marriage holds a special place in society and I believe it's irreplaceable in its potential.

Sarky are you in a long term gay relationship? Do you believe that relationship is "the same as" your parents relationship? The rights issue can be resolved. Marriage can not be replaced IMO.

Marriage has evolved you agreed at the start of this discussion

Annasopra · 27-01-2014 05:05PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Sarky, I haven't posted in an agressive manner in this thread so many others I would appreciate if you'd take your hatred elesewhere. If you want to keep it up you can go on ignore like many other posters.

There is good reason for this step. Many people have said it before me and many will after I'm gone. Marriage holds a special place in society and I believe it's irreplaceable in its potential.

Sarky are you in a long term gay relationship? Do you believe that relationship is "the same as" your parents relationship? The rights issue can be resolved. Marriage can not be replaced IMO.

Who wants to replace marriage?

krudler · 27-01-2014 05:05PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Sarky, I haven't posted in an agressive manner in this thread so many others I would appreciate if you'd take your hatred elesewhere. If you want to keep it up you can go on ignore like many other posters.

There is good reason for this step. Many people have said it before me and many will after I'm gone. Marriage holds a special place in society and I believe it's irreplaceable in its potential.

Sarky are you in a long term gay relationship? Do you believe that relationship is "the same as" your parents relationship? The rights issue can be resolved. Marriage can not be replaced IMO.

Which is?

enda1 · 27-01-2014 05:07PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Sarky, I haven't posted in an agressive manner in this thread so many others I would appreciate if you'd take your hatred elesewhere. If you want to keep it up you can go on ignore like many other posters.

There is good reason for this step. Many people have said it before me and many will after I'm gone. Marriage holds a special place in society and I believe it's irreplaceable in its potential.

Sarky are you in a long term gay relationship? Do you believe that relationship is "the same as" your parents relationship? The rights issue can be resolved. Marriage can not be replaced IMO.

Would you be opposed to same gender couples having a "gayunion" which has all the same rights and responsibilities as marriage but is not called marriage - it being a different piece of (albeit identical) legislation?

drunkmonkey · 27-01-2014 05:08PM

efb wrote: »

Bit that isn't what's discussed here homophobia has nothing to do with polygamy

Aren't they being called homophobic because of a denial of equal rights, same stick, different flavour.

Friend Computer · 27-01-2014 05:09PM

But... it's not.

Sarky · 27-01-2014 05:11PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

There is good reason for this step. Many people have said it before me and many will after I'm gone. Marriage holds a special place in society and I believe it's irreplaceable in its potential.

That's just a variation on "I just don't like it". It's not good enough, Phill. Can you give us a better reason? Something less personal? Something rational?

efb · 27-01-2014 05:11PM

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Aren't they being called homophobic because of a denial of equal rights, same stick, different flavour.

Homophobic comments and remarks

Daith · 27-01-2014 05:12PM

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Aren't they being called homophobic because of a denial of equal rights, same stick, different flavour.

No you're quite wrong here.

If same sex marriage was to pass both gay people and straight people would have the same rights.

That would also mean the same lack of "rights" to have a polygamous marriage.

efb · 27-01-2014 05:12PM

No

Anyway back on topic RTE won't tell me why they apologised

_Redzer_ · 27-01-2014 05:13PM

No

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Aren't they all kinks though, if were "all" going to be equal then we have to be "all" equal.
We can's just make a rule for the straights and gays while ignoring all other types of relationships.

Ok, if you want polygamy legalised will you also allow gay polygamy too?

_Redzer_ · 27-01-2014 05:15PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Sarky, I haven't posted in an agressive manner in this thread so many others I would appreciate if you'd take your hatred elesewhere. If you want to keep it up you can go on ignore like many other posters.

There is good reason for this step. Many people have said it before me and many will after I'm gone. Marriage holds a special place in society and I believe it's irreplaceable in its potential.

Sarky are you in a long term gay relationship? Do you believe that relationship is "the same as" your parents relationship? The rights issue can be resolved. Marriage can not be replaced IMO.

He must be gay if he supports marriage equality. Of course, sure who else would be in favour of it? Straight people?

Pfft. That's crazy talk

Nodin · 27-01-2014 05:16PM

No

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

All these things could be granted by way of civil partnership legislation. Without the need for the changing of marriage in the constitution

What have you got against the gays marrying phill? You are yet to enlighten us.

Whats the difference between gay marriage and heterosexual marriage?

Do you think the Iona Institute are homophobic?

Comments