Pride Debate - civil marriage vs. civil partnerships

[Milton Fine]

Nobody is suggesting all homosexuals are paedophiles and it's typical of the homosexual lobby to try and muddy the waters with rubbish like that.

Certainly many homosexuals have themselves been victims of paedophiles which has helped bring about their condition.

However the comparison that is being made is appropriate on a different level. Both homosexuals and paedophiles are groups where the protaganists are attracted to individuals they shouldn't. What is being suggested is that we are seeing a gradual erosion of proper sexual mores. Legitimising homosexuality will lead to further liberalisation and in fifty years time we'll be looking around saying "how did we get to this stage where paedophilia is legal?". Now is the time to draw a line in the sand.

Yes to civil partnerships but it must be set in stone that homosexual unions are INFERIOR to heterosexual unions. A two tiered system where friends or family and homosexual couples can declare they wish to be assessed together for tax, pension and inheritance purposes.

It isn't marriage though and to call it such is ridiculous and an insult to real couples.

[Universal_001]

Zendik your goin on my ignore list, it wasn't much to ask to have a civil discussion without your patronizing tone and constantly calling me an idiot, I don't respond to that kind of argument, and you've shown yourself up for making it, in addition, all your responses have proven everything I thought in the first place.
You share the list with two homophobes, it seems your in good company, they are intransigent fundamentalists with a narrow world view, just like yourself.

[Milton Fine]

Put Universal on your ignore list...he/she/it is a disgrace and an apologist for all that is wrong with society.

Typical though...the online equivalent of running off to your Mammy

[Zendik]

Zendik your goin on my ignore list, it wasn't much to ask to have a civil discussion without your patronizing tone and constantly calling me an idiot, I don't respond to that kind of argument, and you've shown yourself up for making it, in addition, all your responses have proven everything I thought in the first place.
You share the list with two homophobes, it seems your in good company, they are intransigent fundamentalists with a narrow world view, just like yourself.

Poor baby.

Calling you an idiot, for what it's worth, is not an argument, but an assessment. There's something deeply unfair, you see, about being expected to respond, again and again, to the jabbering idiocies of a pathologically useless mind. Often it is simply necessary to conclude that one's interlocutor is an irredeemable stranger to even the basic applications of logic, and that the discussion is doomed to fruitless, fizzling ignominy.

If you had even the faintest expectation of driving me to concede even the smallest of my points above, you would still be engaged. So I'm content.

And I'm well aware that you are far too weak not to have read this post - your ignoring aside, so... Hello! You lamentable dimwit.

[universetipping]

Nobody is suggesting all homosexuals are paedophiles and it's typical of the homosexual lobby to try and muddy the waters with rubbish like that.

Certainly many homosexuals have themselves been victims of paedophiles which has helped bring about their condition.

However the comparison that is being made is appropriate on a different level. Both homosexuals and paedophiles are groups where the protaganists are attracted to individuals they shouldn't. What is being suggested is that we are seeing a gradual erosion of proper sexual mores. Legitimising homosexuality will lead to further liberalisation and in fifty years time we'll be looking around saying "how did we get to this stage where paedophilia is legal?". Now is the time to draw a line in the sand.

Yes to civil partnerships but it must be set in stone that homosexual unions are INFERIOR to heterosexual unions. A two tiered system where friends or family and homosexual couples can declare they wish to be assessed together for tax, pension and inheritance purposes.

It isn't marriage though and to call it such is ridiculous and an insult to real couples.

You need to get your own tv show man! I have never heard such verbal bile in my life. Shameful!

[straightalk]

...It doesn't really matter whether the "gay community" would prefer civil marriage to civil partnership, the political establishment (and a High Court judge in the oly releveant decision) have decided that civil marriage will require a referendum, which will not happen in the foreseeable future. So civil partnership it is - which would appear to be provide substantial rights, benefits, obligations and duties which come from State recognition.

The political establishment banned civil marriage for same-sex couples in 2004. The High Court judge relied on that Statute to find against 'Zappone and Gilligan' in 2006, despite the fact that the State never relied on the legislation in its written submission to the court in 2004.

[straightalk]

True, and neither is it a Human Right under international law. It drives me bananas when people who wish for "marriage" use human rights as an argument for its availability here. I support the idea that it should be available for those who wish it but using proper arguments rather than inventing them.

The Zappone supreme court judgement should be interesting. I bet money they will indicate that "marriage" as constiutionally known, is between a man and a woman, as the high court found. I also would lay money that they will find that affording the same rights to same sex couples as married couples, whatever you call it, is an attack on the constitutional marriage and therefore to be avoided. In circumstances where we would need a constitutional referendum to allow it what is the point of these debates?

The right to marry is a constitutional right in this jurisdiction. However, some people just don't get it, literally.
Why would opening up the institution of marriage to gay men and lesbians be tantamount to an attack on it?
Before calling for a referendum, the political establishment will have to willingly repeal the legislative ban on same-sex marriage that has been in place for the last six years.
Either that, or the Supreme Court will declare the law unconstitutional. My money is on the latter.