Ireland votes on Gay Marriage

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Russ

What are my views on homosexuality? I don't have any and consider there to be far more important matters to be worried about in life.

At work we are all to carry our ID cards with us and a few months ago I found the card of one of my colleagues near a wash basin in the toilets. I sent a jokey department-wide email saying if the guy would make the tea for the rest of the day I'd return the card that I'd found in the toilets.

Later his team manager dropped by and I gave it to him to pass on to it's owner. The manager did a bit of an embarrassed smirk regarding my comment that the ID badge "of a gay man" being found in the toilets. I gave some sort of joke response but a) I had no idea he was gay b) it's not something I care about or try to analyse when I meet someone and c)...there is no 'c'. His sexual preferences are as irrelevant to me as the colour of his hair, his favourite food etc

In terms of someone's preferences, if it ever did become a public matter I consider monogamy and loyalty far more important than who a person is attracted to.

Ok Russ thanks for that. This seems to be something you are less than comfortable discussing so let's leave it there.

I apologise for the question. No malice intended btw.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

I don't feel disadvantaged but then I didn't feel disadvantaged that gay people couldn't get married either and I've just provided links to plenty of people that do feel disadvantaged, you think their views or feelings don't count or something.

Unless you are gay then you'd have no reason to feel disadvantaged when same-sex marriage wasn't legal.

---------- Post added at 15:27 ---------- Previous post was at 15:26 ----------

Originally Posted by Kursk

Ok Russ thanks for that. This seems to be something you are less than comfortable discussing so let's leave it there.

I apologise for the question. No malice intended btw.

I'm not less than comfortable, I just object to people bringing up what I consider to be a complete non-issue.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by Russ

I'm not less than comfortable, I just object to people bringing up what I consider to be a complete non-issue.

There is no link whatsoever between the title of the thread (Gay Marriage) and homosexuality.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Russ

Unless you are gay then you'd have no reason to feel disadvantaged when same-sex marriage wasn't legal.

And now it is legal other people feel disadvantaged as evidenced in those links

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Discrimination is discrimination, we're either after equality for all or we might as well have not bothered imo

---------- Post added at 02:20 ---------- Previous post was at 02:19 ----------



Educate yourself

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...e-9915773.html

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2015/02/24...ge-to-proceed/

I'm stunned any opposite sex couple would think they are being denied anything.The right to marry has been theirs right from the get go..civil partnerships were a sop to same sex couples and now heterosexual are demanding the rights that were given as a means of shutting up gay and lesbian couples?

I'm going to have to ask my daughter who 2 weeks ago signed the documents that allowed her to upgrade from the civil partnership she and her wife went through 3 years ago to a full marriage(back dated apparently) what she thinks of this ingenious way of making out that gays have more rights than others.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I'm stunned any opposite sex couple would think they are being denied anything.The right to marry has been theirs right from the get go..civil partnerships were a sop to same sex couples and now heterosexual are demanding the rights that were given as a means of shutting up gay and lesbian couples?

I'm going to have to ask my daughter who 2 weeks ago signed the documents that allowed her to upgrade from the civil partnership she and her wife went through 3 years ago to a full marriage(back dated apparently) what she thinks of this ingenious way of making out that gays have more rights than others.

You think that's why justice laing has allowed the case to proceed and protected the couple from excessive costs because it's simply an ingenious way of making out gays have more rights, no wonder you're confused

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You think that's why justice laing has allowed the case to proceed and protected the couple from excessive costs because it's simply an ingenious way of making out gays have more rights, no wonder you're confused

I personally don't want more rights, instead just the same rights as everyone else. As Maggy has said the civil partnership was a stopgap and not something I wanted. In the end a civil partnership was the same as a registrar wedding but not really recognised outside of the UK which meant I had no rights abroad legally unlike a simple word change to a legal marriage which gives me equal rights to yourself..

How can that be wrong?

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

I personally don't want more rights, instead just the same rights as everyone else. As Maggy has said the civil partnership was a stopgap and not something I wanted. In the end a civil partnership was the same as a registrar wedding but not really recognised outside of the UK which meant I had no rights abroad legally unlike a simple word change to a legal marriage which gives me equal rights to yourself..

How can that be wrong?

Who said it's wrong?

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

You think that's why justice laing has allowed the case to proceed and protected the couple from excessive costs because it's simply an ingenious way of making out gays have more rights, no wonder you're confused

No I think the couple in this court case are confused..

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

No I think the couple in this court case are confused..

The judge is confused to, Peter Tatchell and Fiona Miller are confused to, the thousands of people that support them are confused but you're not muddle headed at all on this

Originally Posted by Maggy J

No I think the couple in this court case are confused..

If you don't understand the need for opposite sex civil partnerships you are indeed confused .Forcing couples into a marriage in order to satisfy legal niceties is wrong in this progressive society we like to think we are living in .I am not married but have been with my partner for over 20yrs ,she has no desire to be my 'wife' and have no desire to be her 'husband' we want to be partners in life ,we would be forced into a marriage neither want in order to gain legal equality ,how is that equlity?.

[Kymmy]

Originally Posted by martyh

If you don't understand the need for opposite sex civil partnerships you are indeed confused .Forcing couples into a marriage in order to satisfy legal niceties is wrong in this progressive society we like to think we are living in .I am not married but have been with my partner for over 20yrs ,she has no desire to be my 'wife' and have no desire to be her 'husband' we want to be partners in life ,we would be forced into a marriage neither want in order to gain legal equality ,how is that equlity?.

Yet a civil partnership was a marriage in all but name yet only recognised in a few countries, would you really want that option? If yes then you're quite welcome to it.

Originally Posted by Kymmy

Yet a civil partnership was a marriage in all but name yet only recognised in a few countries, would you really want that option? If yes then you're quite welcome to it.

A civil partnership was and is only available to same sex couples ,in some countries people of the same sex are not allowed to be a couple hence the reason why civil partnerships are not recognised in all countries .If civil partnerships are granted to opposite sex couples there is no reason to not recognise them.

[Kymmy]

More countries recognise a single sex marriage than the partnership, why would you want to accept the limitation?

As far as I'm concerned they should scrap civil partnerships, transfer everyone to a legal marriage and let that be an end to all of it.

If a heterosexual couples want a civil partnership then all they want is the equivelant to a registrar wedding in all but name and limited international recognition as they are the "ONLY" differences.

Originally Posted by Kymmy

More countries recognise a single sex marriage than the partnership, why would you want to accept the limitation?

Why do you insist that there would be limitations ? a change in the rules would remove most if not all of those limitations present for same sex couples simply by the fact that the couples would be opposite sex ,in exactly the same way that the limitations have been removed for same sex couples by a simple change of rules

As far as I'm concerned they should scrap civil partnerships, transfer everyone to a legal marriage and lower that be an bend all to it

If you read the articles provided by Daddy you would realise that there is a difference between being in a partnership and being someones 'wife'.We have given same sex couples equal rights ,why can't everyone else have equal rights?