LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThey think if they call it a Civil Union Jesus won't notice.Originally Posted by daithimac
They think if they call it a Civil Union Jesus won't notice.
And we're off! I must say, I did like the use of the phrase "homosexual circuses", with just that slight hint of dismissal. Lovely!
Here's a thought. They own as much of that state property as you do. What say we let you designate your 2mm of whatever registry office as yours, and they won't use it? But they can use their own, and mine, and the 2mm of every other fairminded citizen who wishes,and that way they won't contaminate your bit of state property with their gayness?
Or, alternatively, how about we give every citizen the right to do what you want, to veto other people's marriages? We can all have a right to stop each other getting married. You can interfere in gay people's lives, and they can interfere in yours! Seems fair, doesn't it?
Centre right Liberal. Paddy Ashdown with an aircraft carrier.
There is no difference. They're just different titles. It has nothing to do with the Church or the sanctity of the sacrament, because the State can and does recognise registry office unions as marriages. You need not go anywhere near a church to be married in this country. Thus, there is little argument that I can see against gay marriage on the grounds of offending the Church: it's not as if the gheys are demanding that the State force priests to perform a same-sex religious wedding.After years of discussing this, I still havn't seen Civil Unions and Marraige, the diffrence, clearly defined, so I don't get the people who say they are pro-civil union and against marraige.Because this conversation couldn't possibly move forward without someone mentioning "adoption", could it? Stop being so disingenuous. Marriage = marriage - You know that! You just had to roll out the gay people marrying = gay adoption = gay people bringing up kids = children should have a father and mother argument... f****** YAWN!
Y'see, that's the difference. The bit that happens in a Church is a wedding. The marriage is the bit that lasts for 40 years; it's the life of the contract, rather than just the signing of it. If we can and do differentiate between religious weddings and secular marriages for breeders, why can't we do it for gays?
Heavy words are so lightly thrown.
Our lives are full of external interference. Homosexual people should reflect upon the concessions that have been made to their lifestyle in recent years.
It is not so long ago that their activity was a crime. There is a sympathy towards acknowledging inheritance rights and other important (albeit technical) financial issues for homosexual couples.
However, any attempt to equate their perversion with the sanctity of marriage will be resisted by a lot of Irish people.
Might have jumped the gun on interpreting your answer. ApologiesAfter years of discussing this, I still havn't seen Civil Unions and Marraige, the diffrence, clearly defined, so I don't get the people who say they are pro-civil union and against marraige.
So, what I think is that when people say they are against gay "marriages" but for gay "civil unions" it generally means they want to deny a right to gay "married" people normally granted with hetrosexual marriage, which is, of course, just balls-out discrimination with a cherry on top.
What the difference actually is, can be not wanting gay people to bring up children, to the destruction of the sanctity of God-given marriage to the constitutional defintion of marriage and even
So if we name it something diffrent?Our lives are full of external interference. Homosexual people should reflect upon the concessions that have been made to their lifestyle in recent years.
It is not so long ago that their activity was a crime. There is a sympathy towards acknowledging inheritance rights and other important (albeit technical) financial issues for homosexual couples.
However, any attempt to equate their perversion with the sanctity of marriage will be resisted by a lot of Irish people.
Ability to have children together?
Is drawing a functional distinction tantamount to discrimination?
And before anyone reminds me about childless male-female couples, I'll point out that it's a contingent (and possibly alterable) reality in their case.
I am quite prepared to support a documented union between mutually dependent couples, whether the partnership is heterosexual/homosexual/siblings/non-sexual.
The issue of sex should not come into it, and full inheritance and taxation rights should be extended.
Equally I would like to hear from someone who rejects civil union in favour of extending marital rights to same-sex people to explain why they do so (without repeating equality as a mantra)
Do same-sex couples in the North who are in a Civil Partnership suffer any discrimination by being denied the opportunity to marry?
We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns — the ones we don't know we don't know.
Perversion! Perversion! perversion!
all these people who love each other and wish to spend the rest of there lives together and provide for there families after they die and go to hell for there perversion.
perverts the lot of them
were either a free society of not. should we continue to deny irish citizens there rights derived not from goverment but from the hand of god we become no better than those who oppressed us in our past
Reply With Quote