Colin, there are no rights in marriage that aren’t included in civil partnerships. Also not all gay people favour marriage. Many seem quite happy with civil partnerships, given the numbers taking advantage of it.

And there’s no need for name calling. It only makes you look silly and any point you may have, to be even more vacuous.

Actually Keith there are over 200 rights in marriage not included in civil partnerships, including certain inheritance rights, rights of children, domicile rights, etc.

“Also not all gay people favour marriage.” Well not all straight people are in favour of marriage either, what’s your point?

By denying same sex couples the same rights as opposite sex couples you obviously prefer damning many children on this island, through no fault of their own, to second class citizenship.

There are 140 differences between civil marriage and civil partnership.

There may be differences, but that is not the point I am making. There are no rights for the partners in a marriage that are not in a civil partnership (once the taxation is finalised).

Wrong Keith. Taxation is the last “major” difference as seen by the status quo. But there are still major rights differences. You obviously haven’t a clue when it comes down to it. You are simply allowing your homophobia drive your opinion. If, for example, a child is born to a heterosexual mother and a homosexual father. Say, for some reason (say the mother died) that child is brought up by the biological father and his civil partner for that child’s first 15 years. Then, when the child is 15 years old the biological father dies. The civil partner has no rights to that child, and that child has no rights either. Instead of the child being brought up by the loving non-biological father, that child would then be taken into state custody (assuming there were no biological grandparents). This is a MAJOR concern and a massive void in the rights of same-sex couples.

Another massive difference comes down to nationality. If an Irish man marries, say, an Indonesian woman in Ireland. If that woman had permission to be in Ireland in the first place then that woman is granted permanent residency in Ireland due to the fact that the woman’s husband is Irish. If, however, an Irish man has a civil partnership with an Indonesian (or any other non-EU) man that does NOT grant the Indonesian man the right to stay with his civil partner. Again, this is a MASSIVE difference.

Another major difference is recognition. An Irish gay marriage would be instantly recognised in any other country with similar legislation as a gay marriage. A civil partnership would not. There are many countries which do not have civil partnerships – i.e. marriage or no marriage, but no in between. It is very likely that an Irish civil partnership would not be recognised, even in a country where gay civil partnerships are recognised, due to complications over the definition of a civil partnership which could have serious repercussions should a loved one fall ill abroad.

There are more than 100 such rights differences (and more than 200 actual differences). You said “There are no rights for the partners in a marriage that are not in a civil partnership (once the taxation is finalised).” – that is pure rubbish and well you know it. You just wish to see 450,000 people in Ireland denied their basic rights simply because of their sexual orientation. And please do not confuse a “right” with a “duty” as Mr. Kehoe has done.

Brian you’re wrong on a few levels, it’s hard to know where to start, so I’ll limit it to the major points.
You say “The civil partner has no rights to that child, and that child has no rights either.”. That is incorrect. The partner has no AUTOMATIC rights. That is a very different thing. If you knew anything about adoption, you would know that if he child lived in a stable environment for 15 years that would almost certainly be the primary factor in any adoption. It is however only right and proper. The child has the right to say that they are not happy to be brought up by someone with whom they have no blood ties and again, their wishes would be part of the decision making process.

Once again on nationality. These things are dealt with on a case by case basis. If a foreign national has the right to be in Ireland, they can still apply for permanent residence and their civil partnership would be seen as a factor in he outcome. I know this because I know personally of two cases where that applies right now. The difference is because a marriage involves two people who can bring a child into the Would and that child would be automatically an Irish citizen and it would therefore be wrong for one part not to have a right to permanent residence to raise their child.

Recognition is a total red herring. Very few countries (including Ireland) recognise same sex marriage. Those that do, tend to recognise civil partnerships from other countries (I actually cannot think of any that don’t). Those that don’t recognise same sex partnerships are unlikely to draw a distinction between “same sex marriage” and civil partnerships.

None of the things you have listed are rights for those involved in a civil partnership. They are only differences because of he difference in the nature of the relationship.

And please have the common decency not to use “homophobia” as a ignorant and lazy catch-all for those that oppose “same sex marriage”. As already mentioned here, many of those that oppose it are themselves gay.

So Mr Mills, you believe that a gay couple with a child should have no automatic rights should the biological parent die, and you believe that all gay couples who end up in such a situation should have to be dragged through the courts to iron out this decision?

“The difference is because a marriage involves two people who can bring a child into the Would and that child would be automatically an Irish citizen and it would therefore be wrong for one part not to have a right to permanent residence to raise their child.”

Ok, you’re basing marriage on the idea that it creates a child. Just read that sentence again in your head and try to see the ridiculousness of your comment. What about infertile people, adoptive parents, parents who never marry or even the people who just dont decide to have children! Their marriage is not right and proper, is it?

Also, do you believe that every gay couple (of whom one is a non-national) who end up in the situation where one of them dies should be dragged through the courts to figure out if they can stay in the country?

This is obvious inequality based on sexual orientation on the topic of marriage. There really is no other way to put it

No Keith. You are wrong. You have just displayed that you do not know what a “right” is. A right is something you are born with once legislation allows for it. A right is not something you must apply for. The last I checked children of heterosexual couples did not have to apply to live with their parents – something that you obviously advocate for children in homosexual families.

You said “marriage involves two people who can bring a child into the Would [sic]“. This is partly true. It also involves many other people, including people who can’t bring a child into the world.

Regarding recognition. Well, Belgium has marriage and non-marriage. i.e. Belgium has no civil partnerships. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are granted equal marriage rights. This could be an issue for Irish civil partnerships as such a status has no correlation in Belgian law.

All of the points I mentioned are rights. If person A can do something legally without hindrance, hassle or interference by the law then that is a “right”. If person B is forced to jump through hoops or simply denied that which person A can do freely as stipulated in law then that is discrimination, oppression and the denial of rights.

Regarding homophobia – I did not throw it around lazily. Webster defines homophobia as “the irrational fear of, aversion to, discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals”. Dictionary.com defines homophobia as the “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.” Religious Tolerance defines homophobia as “Any attitude, action or institutional structure which systematically treats an individual or group of individuals differently because of their sexual orientation or their perceived sexual orientation.” The McGraw-Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine defines homophobia as “An irrationally negative attitude toward those with homosexual orientation, or toward becoming homosexual.” M. Arthur, of Rhode Island College defines homophobia as “Prejudice and discrimination against gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.” This includes marriage and the denial of rights. USLegal defines homophobia as “as a desire or attempt to discriminate homosexuals” and as “[the] fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals.” In other words, there is more than just the typical right-wing definition of “homophobia” as simply a hatred of homosexuals. You, my friend, have taken the stance of a homophobe as indicated under the Religious Tolerance’s definition of homophobia as well as the definition of many others. If you want I could provide you with 20-30 more definitions of what homophobia is.

So basically what we have here is someone who does not know the Irish demographic, does not know what a “right” is and does not know what “homophobia” is arguing on the topic of LGBT rights with inaccurate and incomplete information.

Believe it or not I, as a member of the “straight” community with several gay friends (who also support gay marriage), would love nothing more than to see marriage equality for the LGBT community in Ireland. Despite this, however, I was unable to attend the march. My fiancée was also unable to attend (same prior commitments as myself). My gay friends could also not make it despite also seeking gay marriage. My father supports gay marriage but he was out of the country. My mother supports gay marriage but could not afford the cost of attending. My 2 brothers also support gay marriage but could not attend (one was working while another looking after his baby daughter). The vast majority of my friends (I know of only 1 person against gay marriage and roughly 10 who are apathetic towards it), in fact, support gay marriage, but for a multitude of reasons only 1 was able to attend.

Regarding the statistics of homosexuals in the general population: Seattle has an estimated 12.9% gay population. The Williams Institute (2011) estimated 3.8% of the U.S. population openly admitted to being gay. (What about those not yet in the open?). A 1998 report in Canada (Bagley and Tremblay, 1998) indicated “15.3% of men “reported being homosexual to some degree”". A 1992 study in France (Nature, Dec 1992) indicated that “4.1% of the men and 12.6% of the women had at least one occurrence of intercourse with person of the same sex during their lifetime”. HM Treasury and the Dept. of Trade and Industry (2005) estimated officially that 3.6 million people, or 6%, in the UK were gay. San Francisco has a gay population of 15.4% (2006), while New York has a gay population of 6% (2006). Kinsey in 1948 reported 10% of the male population as being gay or “more or less exclusively homosexual for at least three years between the ages of 16 and 55″, though this is a rather contentious and flawed report. A 1993 Janus Report indicates that 9% of men and 5% of women are homosexual or at least had “more than “occasional” homosexual relationships.” In 2002 a Gallup poll reported that 21% of men and 22% of women are gay (although I doubt these last figures myself). MTV and Showtime in the US also estimate 6.5% of their audience as being homosexual, and they have a financial and economic imperative to be right about their figures!

It is completely off the wall that people serving prison sentences can get married in jail and gay people can’t… The ridiculousness of the whole thing really hits home when you compare the two.

Colm, that is the most eloquent and sensible comment ever posted here. Bravo.

Nice one C!

No Colin, there is very little debate because there are real issues that impact hundreds of thousands of people that are of course getting all the media and public attention. There is nothing here that is “modernising” anything and once again may I point out that without debate, there is no way of judging public opinion. Continue to shout into your echo chamber, as you see fit, but don’t be surprised if people fail to take you seriously.

No one taking us seriously? At least 73% of the public would dispute that. Don’t insult the Irish people by projecting your own prejudice on to society as a whole.

Adam, you clearly have no knowledge of how the political process works. On opinion poll which is six months oldand without any debate before of since, is absolutly no guide to how the public would vote after there had been a full debate. Just look at how opinion has changed in the run-up to recent referendums.

@Tony….you seem to be a bit of a religious nutter yourself.I do not claim extensive knowledge of the bible but I do absolutely believe in certain fundamentals…e.g God made everything so He should enjoy a few rights of His own.He certainly moves in mysterious ways and it s hard to explain many things He does or condones I think if everyone put God s will first in their lives instead of trying to browbeat Him into our own ways everyone would be happier.In Exodus where the firstborn were killed ….that was the last of 10 plagues sent to the people of Egypt because the Pharoah would not let the Israelites[slaves] go.That was not terribly fair on the ordinary Joe Soaps in Egypt who suffered badly because of their rulers’s pride He stubbornly refused to acknowledge God and insisted on his own way.He would not believe that anyone was more powerful than himself..God’s power is awesome and I suppose He is entitled to use it as H e sees fit.If we were smart we would try to see Hs point of view.

One quick question, Mairead: what about the non-Christians? Don’t they have rights too? Again, this is about *civil* marriage, not church marriage. The catholic church doesn’t regard civil marriage as proper marriage anyway, so I’m not quite sure why this is an issue for devout catholics/christians/whatever. Nobody is looking to have their same sex marriage blessed in a catholic church. That said, I know some couples who held their civil partnerships and, before that, commitment ceremonies in the Unitarian Church. It was very beautiful – the embodiment of christian non-judgemental love, acceptance and support.

Adam. The Labour manifesto did not say that the party supported “same sex marriage”. It committed to having a referendum on the issue. That is not the same thing. I highly doubt that some of the current Labour TDs would canvass for “same sex marriage”. Indeed there are some that are already on the record as being against the idea. Anyway the point is now moot as this fell by the wayside in the programme for government as Fine Gael are against the idea and Labour were insufficientlty committed to it.

@Keith Mills

“Labour is committed to holding a referendum to provide for constitutional recognition of same sex marriage” – Labour Manifesto 2011.

Labour supports the holding of a referendum to facilitate the passage into law of marriage equality. Only someone clutching at straws and trying to put a spin on words would interpret this commitment as anything other than an endorsement of opening ip civil marriage to same-sex couples.

“For The Labour Party, the question of marriage for lesbian and gay people in Ireland is a question of equal citizenship. It is as simple as that.” – Eamon Gilmore, May 2009. http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/1241688554881714.html

Labour is in favour of full equality for LGBT people and many party TD’s have made passionate speeches in the Oireachtas and elsewhere firmly supporting this stance. I am not aware of any TD contradicting party policy by coming out against marriage equality. So please enlighten me and everyone else on this forum by naming the TD’s who have “gone on the record” expressing opposition.

The marriage issue is far from moot and is one of the few specific issues that the Constitutional Convention is mandated to consider in its deliberations. For the most part, its terms of reference are open-ended, but it is required to report within one year. Of course the need for a referendum may well be moot at that point if the Supreme Court overturns the decision of a High Court Judge in the Zappone case to read into the Constitution a restriction on the right to marry that is not stated.

However it comes about, it’s a question of when, not if civil marriage is made available to same-sex couples, but by all means continue deluding yourself into believing that most people hold the same kind of backward and offensive views regarding gay equality than you do. The rest of us will move on by embracing equality and without the need for quotation marks.

Adam, read what you posted again. “Just to make clear, Labour fully supports opening up civil marriage to same-sex couples and this was stated very clearly in their manifesto. ” That is clearly not the case. You were busted. When you’re in a hole, stop digging and admit your mistake.

“As already mentioned here, many of those that oppose it are themselves gay.”

It appears that your knowlege of the views that exist in the gay community regarding the right to marry is just as ignorant and blinkered as your views about gay people in general. There exists as close to a consensus within the LGBT community on this issue as is possible among any group of people on any issue. As a gay man active in LGBT issues, I have yet to come across a a single gay person who opposes our RIGHT to get married. It’s quite extraordinary that such a thing even needs to be pointed out.

There certainly exists diverse views within the community, as is in broader society, about the value of marriage as an institution and many will choose not to wed when marriage equality is introduced. But that is vastly different to opposing the right of other same-sex couples to marry on exactly the same basis as heterosexual pairs.

The vibrant debate that has been taking place in our community regarding Civil Partnership involves those of us who see CP as representing progress towards securing the right to marry and also conferring an important set of rights on vulnerable couples, particularly where one partner is a non EU citizen. Others believe that it will delay the march towards full equality. But to suggest that a significant number of gay people oppose marriage equality in principle is utter nonsense and nothing more than wishful thinking on behalf of someone who supports discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Thankfully that’s a rapidly shrinking minority view.

Keith when you say that Labour TDs are on record against Marriage Equality – which TDs are you talking about?

Also, a survey carried out by Pink News, the largest gay news service in Europe, revealed that 98% of gay people favour the lifting of bans on same-sex couples marrying. There is no reason to believe that the views of Irish LGBT people are any different from what these figures reveal. In fact, the poll simply confirmed what most of us already know. But despite all that, maybe someone who posts on internet forums to express anti-gay views might just have a better insight into what gay people really think, you know, through his wide consultation in our community..

@Keith Mills

Yes, my mistake was not allowing for the fact that someone with a very weak and crumbling argument is more interested in playing word games than addressing the issues at hand. Grow up.

Aye but if the Government don’t want it, and they know the people do, why would they ask the people? Anyway, the sooner there is equality for everyone the better.

Mairead, please stop. You clearly are out of your theological, intellectual, and moral depth and are making not only yourself but other catholics look utterly foolish. If I was a member of the congregation I would be sickened by your ignorance towards others. The mere implication that being gay is somehow as bad as paedophelia is so wrong on so many levels that I doubt you have the brain matter to fathom.

May I just point out that I AM sickened by your ignorance, as a member of the congregation I would be shamed by it.

Absurd reductionism, Mairead. Homosexuality is not a criminal offence. You may think people are wicked, and you are free to do so. I think the Catholic church is a disgusting, morally bankrupt anachronism, a knowing shelterer of paedophiles, and a rampantly destructive societal force. My personal aversion is not reflected in the law, and yours shouldn’t be either.

I love how all the religous types make out that God is some tantrum-throwing diva who has absolutely NO understanding of the people he created. I fI was God, I’d sue these numpties for making me out to be such a hypersensative nelly.

They can marry.

no they cant

Yes they can. They simply cannot marry one another because that would not be a marriage.

Yp

@Keith: This is the most retarded statement I have heard in opposition to gay marriage – The gays can get married, just not to each other. So you have no objection to a gay man marrying a woman, lying to her and himself, and damaging both their lives forever. And yet you would classify that as a marriage, simply because it was a union between a man and woman. Whereas, you could not possibly entertain the notion of a loving and committed gay/lesbian couple, who have been together for years entering into marriage. Why? Because it would damage the institution of marriage. Give me a break!

Peter, up and and down the country there are thousands of gay people who are in marriages with a member of the opposite sex. It is not for me (or you) to pass judgement on this, if both partners can make it work. To make the assumption of they damage themselves is the worst for of silly generalisation that I’ve seen in many a day. Marriage is and will always be in my opinion be an exclusive relationship for members of the opposition. “Same sex marriage” is a contradiction in terms just as much as polygamous marriages are not marriages, as far as I’m concerned.

Quick question, Keith: how woudl you feel if a gay man married your daughter or sister?

I saw him anser this before: he’d be OK with it! For real! My cousin’s husband turned out to be gay and let me tell you that it was no easy-going matter. The fall-out and the pain were immense. Poor girl felt she had been duped and made a fool of. We were all so angry. The idiotic, moronic “let them marry memebers of the opposite sex” crapology really makes my blood boil. And shame on you, Keith, if you think it’d be OK for a gay to marry a straight like that, THAT is what makes a mockery of marriage, not same-sex marriage.

Nobody’s looking for the church to marry people. What’s in question here is civil marriage- that same-sex couples gain the same legal rights as opposite-sex couples. Current civil partnership legislation doesn’t allow for this.

Anyone who claims to love God would realise that God has a particular order to life and creation.It was God himself who ordained that a man and a woman combination is the ONLY one that will produce children .People who do not want to respect God ‘s laws cannot claim to love God.You cannot bend God’s will to your own any more than 2 men together or 2 women together can have a baby.Surely that s Gods way of telling people this is not what God wants.

Producing children isn’t the only reason people get married plenty of people in male-female marriages have trouble conceiving. The entire world is changing and adapting and I don’t think any religion should be exempt from this, it’s progress. Call me crazy, but I believe we’re all ultimately judged on our actions, it’s not who you love, but how much you love them that counts.

wildly off topic as Aoife quite rightly put it this isn’t a discussion about marriage (my own fault for half reading the article) but a discussion about equal rights which in 2011 I don’t even think should be a debate.

You go Mairead! Lets have a look at some other things which ‘God ordained’ eh? EX 12:29 The Lord kills all the first-born in the land of Egypt.
EX 21:20-21 With the Lord’s approval, a slave may be beaten to death with no punishment for the perpetrator as long as the slave doesn’t die too quickly.
LE 26:29, DT 28:53, JE 19:9, EZ 5:8-10 As a punishment, the Lord will cause people to eat the flesh of their own sons and daughters and fathers and friends.
LE 27:29 Human sacrifice is condoned.
EZ 9:4-6 The Lord commands: “… slay old men outright, young men and maidens, little children and women ….”

I take it you don’t agree with human sacrifice and the murder of children in Gods name? Do we think that perhaps that which God has ordained might in fact be the latest Christian interpretation of the bible? And aren’t humans fallible and willing to compromise on ideas to achieve a goal: Limbo is a perfect example. Centuries of tradition just erased as the concept was proving to be rather unpopular. Or perhaps God just shut it down on a whim, what do you think?

I really don’t care if people agree with me or not.I have no desire to jump on whatever popular opinion is on any subject.I have every right to my views and make no apology for them.Free speech is a right that everyone is entitled to …

I fully respect the right for you to have and express that opinion (life would be boring if everyone agreed with each other all the time), but equally I have equal right to believe in God in my own way without it being implied that my faith is any less than someone who follows scripture to a tee.

In fairness, people don’t just jump on popular opinion because they want to fit in, historically it was the most unpopular of opinions that led to the greatest change. But something becomes popular opinion when it’s what the majority want and because it could potentially benefit society. Women weren’t allowed to vote for a large portion of our history, which changed and made society better. No one should be excluded from their right to equality because of their sexual orientation.

The campaign is about CIVIL marriage, not church marriage. The churches always have and always will discriminate. The availability of same-sex marriage does not compel anyone – the faithful or otherwise – to participate in it. It is about living and letting live. Your faith is just that: YOURS. It might not be mine or anyone else’s, so why should I have to live by it? For instance, I am not catholic, so why should I be bound by catholic doctrine. I am no less a citizen for that, so why am I entitled to fewer civil rights?

We do not always have automatic rights to things just because others have rights to them.Are people in wheelchairs not as entitled to walk as the rest of us.?There is not much point in them shouting about it.Biology shows that all the arguing in the world cannot make 2 people of the same sex a married couple in the correct sense .The natural order of things is being tinkered with to the detriment of society with the notion of” Gay Marriage”. and all the laws in the world will never make it right.It is flying in God ‘s face and is totally wrong.

Mairead I’m suprised at you.

As usual the God bothering element of the population bring their own prejudices into the debate with comments like “it is flying in God ‘s face and is totally wrong” First of all, wrong according to who? God, who is God? I don’t recall anywhere in the constitution of Ireland is it written that the Irish people should have to ask anyone called God for permission to get married. In fact nowhere in that constitution does it refer to what constitutes marriage in the first place, also since when is it the place of the state to interfere in peoples private lives be it through marriage, sex or any other activity which two consenting adults adults choose to follow, as long as it is not a criminal activity and is legal then people should have the right to pursue their right to a happy family life without the interference of either the state or prejudicial and ignorant individuals or groups who for their own warped religious or hate mongering reasons wish to see certain people denied the rights and freedoms which they take for granted. Marriage is not the property of the religious how people choose to live together be they same sex or opposite sex is down to the people concerned and is nobody else’s business but their own.

To quote Mairead, above: “Are people in wheelchairs not as entitled to walk as the rest of us.?There is not much point in them shouting about it.” With all due respect, this is one of the mosy profoundly stupid things I have ever read! While “biology” might have different ideas, science is working tirelessly to find ways of making walking possible. There have been some successes so far and I sincerely hope there will be many more. I’m sure you don’t regard that as “flying in God’s face”?! I saw someone else say that he isn’t catholic (or religious? I forget…), so why should his rights be curtailed because of your religious beliefs? Are you really that arrogant and “Superior”?

I see how it could be considered damaging John but to most people there are huge concerns regarding how your partner will be looked after should you die or fall seriously ill, it is a matter of practicality as well as having your love ‘valued’. I would like to know that if I died my partner would inherit what is rightfully his, as would be my wish.

In that case, why have marriage at all?

@John: You have one serious superiority complex. Of course you know what is best, so who are we to argue. To suggest that marriage is solely for the purpose of procreation is ludicrous. Using such logic, why do infertile couples get married? I am also confused as to how gay marriage is “positively damaging”. Heaven forbid two loving adults enter into a lifelong commitment to each other.

Peter you couldn’t have said it better!

John “SOciety has no place for homosexual marriage because it is not necessary. In fact , it is often positively damageing.”

1: It could equally be argued that heterosexual marriage is not necessary: plenty of children – “the progeny of a stable heterosexual couple” – are born outside of marriage. Marriage will not keep a couple together if the relationship is bad and marriage is not really necessary if the relationship is good. It’s the commitment to that relationship that matters. There are many heterosexual couples who marry despite not wanting children or not being able to have children. The availability of marriage does not mean that everyone marries – the right to choose is there for heterosexuals but it is not there for same sex couples. That is unfair and discriminatory.

2: You have made a profoundly sweeping statement: “[homosexual marriage] is often positively damageing” (sic), without say HOW. Care to elaborate on HOW it is damaging?

Ha! Bet you’ll be waiting a LONG time for him (or anyone) to answer the “how” question. I’d love to hear a logical, considered answer to that question myself.

Thing is, Cecily, every time this subject comes up, I ask the same question. I have never once had an answer!

Keith, why must it go to a referundum? Nowhere in the constitution does it define marriage to be between a man and a woman, so there is no need to ask the people for an amendment.

“A miniscule minority”??
Despite the fact that even small minorities of people should have their rights protected, I’d like to see you say that to the 5000 people who turned up for the march for marriage a few weeks ago in Dublin, or the estimated 20,000 people who took part in the recent pride parade in the capitol.

Finally, how arrogant are you to dismiss something as a waste of time, just because it obviously does not affect you? God forbid if one of your family members, or a friend turned out to be gay!

It must go to a referendum because it would inviolve a constitutional change as it would redefine marriage and the family. All parties (even those who support “same sex marriage” acknowledge that.

There are no rights involved hrere. That just another smokescreen. All the rights requested by GLEN (the gay lobby group) were granted in the Civil Partnership legislation. There was a delay on equalising taxation, but that is being dealth with and rebates will be given.

If you think that the 20k who attend the pride parade speak of one mind, you have no idea of the the arguements and debates within the gay community.

There is a case with the supreme court and they will decide if a referendum is needed

Keith: “There are no rights involved hrere. That just another smokescreen. All the rights requested by GLEN (the gay lobby group) were granted in the Civil Partnership legislation. There was a delay on equalising taxation, but that is being dealth with and rebates will be given.”

This is completely untrue.

“Underpinning the broad vision is a more elaborated vision of equality and full participation of LGB people in a number of critical aspects of life. These, as articulated in the ‘Building Sustainable Change’ strategic plan, are:

Relationships and Family: where same-sex couples would have the opportunity to share their lives together openly and have a family. This requires equal relationship recognition, including legal recognition of children being parented by same-sex couples.” *SOURCE: http://glen2010.glen.ie/page.aspx?contentid=79&name=about_glen

Civil Partnership does not provide for succession rights of children to the non-blood-related parent. GLEN is still fighting for full equality on the 200 odd measures, exclusive to marriage.

Keith: “There are no rights involved hrere. That just another smokescreen. All the rights requested by GLEN (the gay lobby group) were granted in the Civil Partnership legislation. There was a delay on equalising taxation, but that is being dealth with and rebates will be given.”

This is totally false.

“Underpinning the broad vision is a more elaborated vision of equality and full participation of LGB people in a number of critical aspects of life. These, as articulated in the ‘Building Sustainable Change’ strategic plan, are:

Relationships and Family: where same-sex couples would have the opportunity to share their lives together openly and have a family. This requires equal relationship recognition, including legal recognition of children being parented by same-sex couples.” SOURCE: http://glen2010.glen.ie/page.aspx?contentid=79&name=about_glen

Civil Partnership does not provide for succession rights of children to non-blood-related parents. GLEN continues to fight for full marriage equality.

Peter when it comes to adoption, the rights of the child are and have to remain paramount. For years gay people have told us about bullying etc. Therefore it would totally inappropriate to put a child into a position where they are bullied, simply because two members of the same sex wanted to propagate the myth that they can have a child together.

Keith regardless on wether or not you believe that gay couples should start families, that fact remains that there ARE gay couples who have children, you are saying that those children would be better off in the care of the state should the parent considered biological parent, pass away? Absurd.

Colin, I am not proposing a ban on same sex couples adopting children. I am simply saying that the status quo should remain. That is not that these children are automatically put into state care, as you seem to think, but rather that the state looks at each case individually and puts the welfare of the child first.

Keith: “it would totally inappropriate to put a child into a position where they are bullied, simply because two members of the same sex wanted to propagate the myth that they can have a child together.”

You are implying that a child would be bullied in school because it’s parents are gay. If we continue to marginalise gay people and define gay relationships as different in the eyes of the law, this will only increase the possibility of homophobic bullying in schools. In my experience the vast majority of people in Ireland are indifferent to gay parents, adopting a live and let live attitude.

What about children of interracial parents, should they not have children because they might get bullied?
Are our laws and to be held hostage by bullies and bigots and because there is a chance bad things might happen? Maybe we should criminalise surgery, because you know, you might die… or wearing certain clothes, because people might make fun of you.

And for the record, there is no myth that two members of the same gender can have a child together. They can, in the same way as an infertile couple or adoptive parents can… and i’m sure you’re not going to spit on the validity of adoptive families are you?

@ Keith, That may not be what you are proposing but it is a symptom of the broader issues which you are clearly uneducated in.

Folks, for years bullying has (quite rightly) been called out as an issue for young gay people. Therefore if you are to put a (most likely heterosexual) child at the risk of bullying, the it is only right and proper that the welfare of the child should be the primary concern. That is not to say that gay people should not be allowed to adopt, but rather that the authorities need to ensure due diligence and ensure that the child has the proper support structure is in place should the child be ridiculed because of the nature of their home environment.

So yes then, you do believe that we are to be held hostage by bullies and bigots.

Personally, i think it is only right and proper that families, marriage, couples and children are not restricted legally by the minority of people who engage in homophobic bullying.

On a side note, i quite like the way you have dodged my points about infertile parents and adoptive heterosexual parents.

Correction… interracial, not adoptive/infertile.

To address Keith’s comment about children of gay parents being bullied: “For years gay people have told us about bullying etc. Therefore it would totally inappropriate to put a child into a position where they are bullied, simply because two members of the same sex wanted to propagate the myth that they can have a child together.”

So let’s just keep bullying the gay people and deprive them of any kind of rights? Bullying is horrific, it ruins so many lives, people need to stop being so narrow-minded and just grow up; change with the times. If equal marriage rights were given, and gay marriage became commonplace, is it not clear that all involved would become less marginalized? It would obviously be a step in the right direction. Gay people know how it feels to be targeted and victimized for being different and would be much more aware of bullying and its effects. Because of this they would put in a lot more effort to ensure that their children are not worse off because of their sexual orientation. Their experience of bullying will work to their advantage. Children are bullied everyday, for being different; too short, too tall, skinny, fat, shy, wearing glasses, different race, colour, too intellectual, not bright enough, speech difficulties, etc. the list is never ending… if we can foster an attitude of acceptance and appreciation of such differences, children will learn from our example and treat others with respect. Being different is not something to be ashamed of. So why should two people of the same sex be denied the right to raise children in the same way that different sex parents are?

Keith: “it would totally inappropriate to put a child into a position where they are bullied, simply because two members of the same sex wanted to propagate the myth that they can have a child together.”

So you acknowledge, in essence, that the kid has done no wrong, the gay parents have done no wrong, it’s just the (heterosexual) bullies that are doing wrong. Interesting approach to dealilng with the problem of bullying. Rather than tackle the bullies and the culture of bigotry, the response is not to be “bullyable”? Who’s next: fat kids? Ginger kids? Mixed race kids? Traveller kids?

“It’s very dear to me, the issue of ‘Gay Marriage.’ Or, as I like to call it, ‘Marriage.’ You know, because I had lunch this afternoon; not gay lunch. I parked my car; I didn’t gay park it.’ ~ Liz Feldman

If you read the above article which you are commenting on you would be aware of the 141 differences between a marriage contract and a civil partnership, which are 141 ways in which we do not have the same parental rights or rights of inheritance and housing.

“We should not let emotions or sentimentality determine how we treat people. “?

It sounds like a cruel world you would have us live in. If those supposed friends of yours wished to wave the right to be treated equally well then so be it, but the rest of us should have the right to choose.

@ Keith, obviously people are going to opt for civil partnership in the absence of anything better, while they continue to fight for better rights. As for name calling, having someone dismiss me as a second class citizen unworthy of the rights they possess tends to provoke that reaction, especially when you are so condescending about it. Man up.

Colin, if people felt strongly that “same sex marriage” were the ideal solution, they would not settle for something different. They (quite rightly) draw no distinction between the two arrangements.

It is only (a very small section of) gay people that see civil partnership as a second lass arrangement. Play the victim if you ant to, but don’t expect other to pander to your self-inflicted sense of victimhood.

Kevin, they would hardly pass up the rights now available to them under civil partnership while they ‘wait’ for full equality. That is irrational.

“It is only (a very small section of) gay people that see civil partnership as a second lass arrangement. ”

That is not only completely untrue but has no basis in reality unless you consider the 5000 visible supporters at the recent rally to be an insignificant number.

And don’t call me a victim nor claim that I seek to be thought as such. Victims do not stand up for what they believe in.

Colin, 5,000 in a state of 5.5m is an absolutely insignificant number. If you assume that Ireland has the same proportion of gay people as most international studies, then there are somewhere between 60k and 180k gay people in this country. More than one third live in the Greater Dublin area (creating a potential 20k to 60k supporters). That means that assuming that there wasn’t a single non-gay person on the march, that no one came from outside the greater Dublin area, that the HIGHEST proportion was one in four of the gay community in Dublin. The actual figure, is more like to be less than one in twenty.

Actually we have a population of 4.6 million. If you can’t even get the demographics of this state right then you have a serious problem. Studies have shown a gay population can exist in figures anywhere between 5% (230,000) and 10% (470,000). Not everyone wants heterosexual marriage just like not everyone wants homosexual marriage. There are work commitments, social commitments, etc. Were you at the protests against Drumcree? I assume not, and therefore by your logic, I assume you are pro-Orangemen marching through the Garvaghy Road.

Brian, I stand corrected on the population, but by you numbers (which I would dispute) the potential pool of people who were in the demographic to support this march was higher than mine. The fact that such a tiny proportion chose to march just confirms my point that it is not a major issue within the broader gay community. Having a march on a Sunday afternoon and advertising it weeks in advances all but negates your points on work and social commitments, if this issue was a priority. The fact that the crowd was less than a quarter of those who turned up at Pride which was on a Saturday (a day that more people work) re-enforces my point.

I’m not sure what Drumcree or the Orange Order have to do with this. While I don’t support the motivations or the cause of either those marching for “same sex marriage” or in Orange parades, I believe that everyone hs the right to stage a peaceful march.

@Keith – your quote: “if people felt strongly that “same sex marriage” were the ideal solution, they would not settle for something different. They (quite rightly) draw no distinction between the two arrangements.” I will be entering a Civil Partnership next month. That should not be taken to mean that I am “settling” for it. To be absolutely clear, I am taking what is available now but I remain committed to fighting for full equality and EXPECT an ‘upgrade’ to full civil marriage. There are many gay couples in our situation. It is disingenuous of you to make out that we are “settling for something different” and/or that we “draw no disctinction between the two arrangements.” Many such couples took part in the March for Marriage and will take part in future marches and campaigns.