eorpach wrote: » Right Phil Ewinn, lets discuss: For any society or system to function effectively, there has to be checks and balances that protect the rights of the minority. It is for this reason that where there is marriage, there needs to be divorce; where there is a Church, there needs to be a State, where there is an Executive, there needs to be an independent Judiciary, and so on. History is littered with "proof" that minority interests cannot (and should not) be subjugated by the majority. To do so sows the seeds of discontentment that ultimately results in societal upheaval. That much, is, incontrovertible historical fact. Take your example of marriage working so well for so long Phil Ewinn; why then does every nation on Earth (bar the Holy See and the Philippines) make provision for its dissolution (divorce), including Ireland? By your token, should the minority Irish population in the majority British State have simply accepted that the Act of Union should be retained, on the basis that the (British) majority considered (from their historical perspective) that the United Kingdom of Britain and Ireland "worked" ?? I'm sure if you could ask anybody in Ireland touched by the Famine, they've had felt differently... The simple fact is that the majority always believes that any system which is constituted in such a way as to be deferential to a majority "works"; until there comes a time when it doesn't. Contrast:Whites and Slaves Landowners with the Vote against Tenants without the Vote Universal Suffrage if you're male vs Democratic exclusion if you're not, Full-participation in society if you're able-bodied vs lesser participation if you're disabled. All of the above are examples of "arrangements" which existed for centuries, did they "work"? Should we, the "majority" revert to them??? Consider, by analogy: You (or a dependent of yours) is physically disabled, and you (or that dependent) are legally denied some of the opportunities that your sibling, (or your sibling's child) take for granted, e.g. full participation in education. Would you be so accepting of the status quo, then? After all, it is only in the past 20 years in this country that this State has actively sought to integrate special-needs children with their able-bodied counterparts in the classroom - we separated physically-disabled children from society by putting them into "special" schools for long enough, should we rollback to that?? My basic point is, every society needs to promote and cherish the position of the minority. It is the hallmark of an enlightened society, and it enriches us all. Finally, as to your assumption that legislation would be sufficient. Might I ask, do you have any legal training? The simple fact is that legislation is not a sufficient guarantor of rights under Ireland's parliamentary democratic system, since legislation is ALWAYS to be interpreted by the Courts in conformance with the 1937 Constitution and what the Courts consider to be the prevailing public morality. Add to that the fact that legislation can be changed by any future parliamentary majority; the Constitution cannot. For these facts alone, only a Constitutional amendment stating the clear will of the Irish People is a sufficient legal guarantee for the minority disenfranchised by the prevailing system of marriage, i.e. gay people. You have the comfort of being a part of a majority in this society on this issue, Phil Ewinn, which puts an added onus on you to consider the perspective of the minority, not to dismiss it. Please do so sincerely when you go to the Ballot Box; do not be so dismissive as to blithely point at "the centuries" and walk away. If you intend to be a sincere and mature participant in democratic society, please behave like one. (Sorry for such a long post folks, but some people in the majority need the position of the minority spelt out in really tedious detail in order to grasp why the majority-situation is really not a sufficient position in the first place.)
david75 wrote: » That was cool If America can make such a forthright demonstration it's only a matter of time before we follow. We should on our own merits but with Iona knuckle draggers hanging around it'll be a while
Phill Ewinn wrote: » Halmark of an enlightened society? A better society is what every nation aspires to, and should aspire to. Tell me then how this change will better our society. Try keep it brief. As I do.
Phill Ewinn wrote: » They are. Thats the problem. Dispite the remarks on the opening page of the thread moderators have insisted on letting abuse, insulting language and degrading comments from one side ruin what should be an interesting discussion. Bullying and name calling is a form of censorship. Its putting people off talking about the subject. Being anti gay marriage isn't homophobic.
amdublin wrote: » Does it have to better society? Why not it will become equal for all who don't have something at the moment. And the same as ever for people who do. Actually whoa, that sounds better! How does that sound to you Phil?
eorpach wrote: » Well I'm sorry if my answer above was too long for you. But the explanation and re-assurance that you so evidently seek is NOT going to come from sound bytes. Read my explanation above, and this time: Consider how any of: the abolition of slavery, the extension of universal suffrage, or the advancement of the rights of the disabled, has bettered our world today. Now, imagine an Ireland with the inverse of each of those. I realise that you are perhaps too old to grasp first-hand the enrichment brought to society by the last one - co-education of able-bodied and disabled students - best you go away and talk to anyone under 20 for some insight into how much the tapestry of their education was bettered by that sea change, in order to grasp how poorer yours was for the absence of it. And its evident to me that yours was poorer for that; since its in the classroom that most people have their first introduction to the plight of the minority in our world. The majority rarely listens to being "told" things, Phil Ewinn - life's greatest lessons aren't just about reading, but also about experiencing; hence the wisdom in the old adage, "You actually have to go through something to understand it".
eireannBEAR wrote: » I know and i find it down right offensive that we have other far less serious issues dominating the social/political sphere,I genuinely dont know how this issue has been overlooked and neglected for so long. Fathers are committing suicide down to these laws,but im hoping legeslation for gay marriage will force the governments hand on this.
Phill Ewinn wrote: » As I already stated the rights issue can be solved by introducing civil partnership legislation.
Phill Ewinn wrote: » How changing a foundation of society will benefit anyone in the long run.
walrusgumble wrote: » Rubbish. Provide proofs of these fathers topping themselves due to lack of get marriage.rather stupid people considering they have civil partnerships, and frankly, may not be in the right stable mind to be involved in a chord life or getting married.suicidal because they don't get what they want? Rather childish. Th gay marriage issue is no where near the priority list o many Irish people. There are far more important issues at stake. It is only important tithe Labour Party and chums as it is th only provision tha they will offer the country. Labour will be in a very weak position after May when it gets trounced in the local elections. FG , if they wish, can bide their time an keep pushing the referendum date back. Fathers? Seriously from reading this and other posts, it is evident that few people understand the legal position of fathers to their child Gay marriage will have no bearing on that issue. Even if a man has a gay marriage, it won't effect his relationship with a child from a previous hetro relationship.rightly the other married man, won't have a day in that child life.it is not his place as the child has both parents.
Daith wrote: » They already did. They didn't solve the rights issue. It will benefit LGBT people who can't get married based on their sexuality.
Phill Ewinn wrote: » Looking again at the legislation again vs constitutional change.
Phill Ewinn wrote: » I'm asking how that will positively effect society, not just one small minority. Change equals better is not always true.
eireannBEAR wrote: » Im not pushed on this matter,but i will vote in favour,I find it disgraceful that the governments wasting money on a vote though,surely it can be pushed through without one. Just remember ''Gay community'' single fathers support you so in the future you can return the favour.
george_lucas wrote: » a lot of people ( including myself ) are indifferent to any referendum , I suspect the turnout will include a lot of idealogues on both sides but the YES side could make a mistake by trying to silence opposition most people wont be embarrassed into voting YES by self declared enlightened progressives
Phill Ewinn wrote: » Looking again at the legislation again vs constitutional change. I'm asking how that will positively effect society, not just one small minority. Change equals better is not always true.
Cydoniac wrote: » I hope to never have to confront one of them...I wouldn't be able to handle it to be honest.
Daith wrote: » There doesn't have to be a constitutional change. Marriage is not defined in our constitution. Ah so we can never win with you Phill? We're just a small minority and therefore shouldn't need the same rights as anyone else yes?
Phill Ewinn wrote: » Is it that you can't read or won't read?
Maximus Alexander wrote: » On the basis that western society seems to be following a trend of More bigoted ---> Less bigoted, I wish I had been born in 60 years instead so that the current generation of bigots had died off. The next one should be smaller.
Daith wrote: » There doesn't have to be a constitutional change. Marriage is not defined in our constitution.
Daith wrote: » Ah so we can never win with you Phill? We're just a small minority and therefore shouldn't need the same rights as anyone else yes?
walrusgumble wrote: » It is indirectly defined. The acceptable mindset and historical understanding of the word "marriage", which is stated in Article 41, is man + woman.
TwoShedsJackson wrote: » They'll probably still shout plenty loud though. Still waiting for Phil to enlighten us as to his actual problem with gay marriage, or how the institution of marriage for straight people is in anyway devalued or degraded by letting gay people marry.
Phill Ewinn wrote: » I asked why we should change it when the system we have works, and has been proven to work for centuries. I then went on to contextualise the statement by saying that same sex partnership legislation would cover the rights issue. With me? Also. I argued that if we're going to have a referendum on marriage equality, then lets have it. Lets include polygamy as it is more popular than gay marriage. With me still? As a sideline argument posters but forward the very important issue of fathers rights which are currently being ignored by the state. Any new legislation needs to take into account these rights as a matter of urgency.
