padd b1975 wrote: » Good question. Civil partnership legislation is perfectly adequate for same sex couples.
AboutaWeekAgo wrote: » Why should a civil partnership be enough? Do you think it would be perfectly adequate for male/female couples as well?
Sheldons Brain wrote: » Male and Female couples are critical for family formation and as such a fundamental unit society and supported as such by every society on earth. Other, non fundamental, relationships exist in this societies as they do in Ireland, but they are not the business of the government.
david75 wrote: » Something i do have trouble with, and its probably stupid but speaking as a gay man in a long term relationship(8 years..) i dont get why we march on gay pride, the whole idea of pride being to celebrate our uniqueness and other qualities, then we march for marriage equality..we celebrate being different then demand the right to be the same..i think the normalisation process is good but its a double edged sword too..probably not explaining myself very well, just something I wonder about..
Grayson wrote: » Lets put if this way. What if you weren't allowed to march because you're gay? That would be annoying because you wouldn't have the same rights as straight people. Gay don't have to get married. passing marriage equality legislation won't force people to get married but it will make sure they can if they want to. Besides there's a million different types of relationships. Everyone should be able to choose one they want. Just so long as it works, makes them happe and doesn't directly hurt someone.
padd b1975 wrote: » Civil partnership legislation is perfectly adequate for same sex couples.
a person. wrote: » Rev. Bernice King led a march to her father’s graveside in 2005 while calling for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. During a speech at a church meeting in New Zealand, she said her father “did not take a bullet for same-sex marriage.” King viewed homosexuality as a cultural and psychiatrc problem that could be solved : While writing an advice column for “Ebony Magazine,” Dr. King responded to a young “gay” man looking for guidance. Here is the exchange in its entirety:
a person. wrote: » None of that was stated in the posts. Equality should apply to all people, if you are truly intrested in equality, you don't seek equality for just certain government approved straight and gay couples.
a person. wrote: » Winne Mandela disproves that claim
Joeytheparrot wrote: » why?
padd b1975 wrote: » Why have so many gay couples availed of the legislation if it's not? Should they not have ignored it on a point of principle if the overwhelming consensus amongst gays is that the legislation is inadequate?
Sheldons Brain wrote: » Does it? If you claim it does and there is no difference then why are we wasting money on this referendum?
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Who are these two prominent gay Irish political commentators?
porsche959 wrote: » Paddy Manninghttp://www.politics.ie/forum/health-social-affairs/218815-paddy-manning-gay-man-who-opposes-gay-marriage.html Richard Waghorne.https://richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/
Zillah wrote: » Anyone advocating denying gay people equal rights is a homophobe, calling them one is not unfair and wrong. There's no non-batshit reason to vote no. I'm sorry if your outdated prejudice is leaving you increasingly isolated from the developed world.
porsche959 wrote: » See, it's exactly this kind of shouting and bullying from the liberal left that I find troubling. "We have the correct set of opinions to hold, and if you differ in anyway, then you're just wrong, and also a bigot." Do you know many of the early gay rights campaigners were against gay marriage? Some still are to this day, though understandably, in the current environment they tend to keep their opinion to themselves.
porsche959 wrote: » See, it's exactly this kind of shouting and bullying from the liberal left that I find troubling. "We have the correct set of opinions to hold, and if you differ in anyway, then you're just wrong, and also a bigot."
Joeytheparrot wrote: » I find this victimhood campaign technique really fascinating. People who say horrible, hurtful and nasty things get called out on it and then suddenly they claim victimhood status. It's really really fascinating. It says to me that they often feel very uncomfortable when they are called out on what they say so instead of holding their ground and attempting to stand by their opinion they turn the tables. They turn things on their head and claim they are the victims. Yet you never see a lot of these people condemning the nasty hurtful things the no side say. It's an attempt to covertly change the agenda and divert the debate from the actual issues. It's really a fascinating tactic that those of us of the yes side need to be aware of.
One is as likely to hear both that the Irish public desires the introduction of gay marriage and that the Irish public harbours a dangerous degree of homophobia. Rose draws on both claims, yet they are clearly self-contradictory. Separately but similarly, Rose says summarily “the court of public opinion has spoken”. This constitutes an attempt to shut down the debate on gay marriage.
porsche959 wrote: » If any and all arguments against gay marriage are automatically equated to "saying horrible, hurtful and nasty things" , then I'm afraid we have lost touch with logic and reasoning itself. As Richard Waghorne argues here:https://richardtwaghorne.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/irish-liberalism-the-gay-marriage-debate/
porsche959 wrote: » If any and all arguments against gay marriage are automatically equated to "saying horrible, hurtful and nasty things" ,
Joeytheparrot wrote: » who said that? I certainly did not.
porsche959 wrote: » Paddy Manning Richard Waghorne.
a person. wrote: » At last a bit of balance, brave lads to speak out about it.
Saipanne wrote: » To vote against gay marriage is to believe that: "Some animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wa.vanillicon.com/v2/a6734f9e45541efceb67bf368d9bc1c2.svg)
