Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

obplayer · 01-04-2015 4:13am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, while there may be good arguments for separating civil and religious marriage in the way suggested, this isn't one of them. Equal status laws don't just apply to agencies providing services that carry some legal significance. If an organisation providing, say, wedding cakes or wedding photography can't lawfully refuse to provide those products or services to a same-sex couple, can an organisation provided wedding blessings or wedding celebrations refuse? The question will still arise, regardless of whether the blessing/celebration has any legal effect.

Then we change the law to allow them to refuse as long as the churches agree to give up the right to administer legal marriages. Let's suggest it and see who objects first shall we?

Peregrinus · 01-04-2015 4:28am

obplayer wrote: »

Then we change the law to allow them to refuse as long as the churches agree to give up the right to administer legal marriages. Let's suggest it and see who objects first shall we?

First of all, in Ireland there is no need for any change in the law. Churches are free to refuse to marry any couple they wish, and they regularly refuse to remarry, e.g., divorced people (discrimination on the grounds of marital status) or unbaptised people (discrimination on the grounds of religion). This is perfectly lawful and there is no proposal to change it and any attempt to change it would, I think, fall foul of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. The introduction of same-sex marriage won't change this; churches will be free to refuse to marry same-sex couples, and I imagine most will refuse.

If we're talkin about Denmark, I think the obvious objection is that the link you are making between the two issues is mistaken. The reason the established church is being required to celebrate same-sex marriages is not because their marriages are legally recognised; it's because they are the established church. Other churches, whose marriages are also legally recognised, are not required to celebrate same-sex marriages. Celebrating same-sex marriage is arguable the "price" that the Church of Denmark has to pay for establishment, not for civil recognition of its services.

But in fact it's not even a "price" the church is forced to pay; this was their intitiative. A majority of the clergy, and a majority of the bishops, favour church celebration of same-sex marriage, and the church made a corporate decision to this effect some time ago. Legislation was needed, not to force the church to do this, but to allow the church to do this because, as the established church, it can only do what Parliament permits. It was the bishops who presented the necessary legislation to Parliament for approval. There is opposition within the church to this, but it's a minority opposition.

For the record, the law preserves the right of individual ministers of the Church of Denmark to refuse to celebrate same-sex marriage.

B_Wayne · 01-04-2015 8:58am

To resolve the Denmark issue is to separate church and state entirely. Only applies to state religion.

pH · 01-04-2015 10:17am

Peregrinus wrote: »

First of all, in Ireland there is no need for any change in the law. Churches are free to refuse to marry any couple they wish, and they regularly refuse to remarry, e.g., divorced people (discrimination on the grounds of marital status) or unbaptised people (discrimination on the grounds of religion). This is perfectly lawful and there is no proposal to change it and any attempt to change it would, I think, fall foul of the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. The introduction of same-sex marriage won't change this; churches will be free to refuse to marry same-sex couples, and I imagine most will refuse.

If we're talkin about Denmark, I think the obvious objection is that the link you are making between the two issues is mistaken. The reason the established church is being required to celebrate same-sex marriages is not because their marriages are legally recognised; it's because they are the established church. Other churches, whose marriages are also legally recognised, are not required to celebrate same-sex marriages. Celebrating same-sex marriage is arguable the "price" that the Church of Denmark has to pay for establishment, not for civil recognition of its services.

But in fact it's not even a "price" the church is forced to pay; this was their intitiative. A majority of the clergy, and a majority of the bishops, favour church celebration of same-sex marriage, and the church made a corporate decision to this effect some time ago. Legislation was needed, not to force the church to do this, but to allow the church to do this because, as the established church, it can only do what Parliament permits. It was the bishops who presented the necessary legislation to Parliament for approval. There is opposition within the church to this, but it's a minority opposition.

For the record, the law preserves the right of individual ministers of the Church of Denmark to refuse to celebrate same-sex marriage.

All the above is true (as in correct) but is is fair or moral? I don't see why a church can discriminate against a same sex couple, but another church can't discriminate against a black couple.

Let's be honest - bigotry wrapped up with a religious justification is still bigotry plain and simple.

If SSM passes, the Catholic church will be have a perfect "trifecta" of discrimination that no other organisation in this state is allowed - discrimination against women in employment terms, discrimination against children on religious grounds and discrimination against those wishing to get married on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

We like to pretend we've come a long way in the last 30 years, but the biggest religion in this state has still managed to protect itself from all our equality legislation, "on religious grounds"

Peregrinus · 01-04-2015 10:28am

pH wrote: »

All the above is true (as in correct) but is is fair or moral? I don't see why a church can discriminate against a same sex couple, but another church can't discriminate against a black couple.

Churches can discriminate against black couples, at least in respect to ministering to them. I'm not aware that any do, in Ireland, but if they did it would not be unlawful. Their are certainly churches which make racial distinctions in the US.

pH wrote: »

Let's be honest - bigotry wrapped up with a religious justification is still bigotry plain and simple.

Yes, of course. But the issue is whether, and to what extent, that's any business of the state.

"Separation of church and state" works both ways, remember. Among other things, it means that the state doesn't get to tell churches what to do.

pH wrote: »

If SSM passes, the Catholic church will be have a perfect "trifecta" of discrimination that no other organisation in this state is allowed - discrimination against women in employment terms, discrimination against children on religious grounds and discrimination against those wishing to get married on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

The Catholic church is not "the only organisation" to have these exemptions; all churches and religious organisations have them.

pH wrote: »

We like to pretend we've come a long way in the last 30 years, but the biggest religion in this state has still managed to protect itself from all our equality legislation, "on religious grounds"

The same exemptions are available for all religions, not just "the biggest religion". And it's wrong to say that churches are protected "from all our equality legislation". They have specified exceptions from it, but the default position is that they are subject to it.

robindch · 01-04-2015 10:30am

obplayer wrote: »

They're starting to lash out because they can feel power slipping away. Remember, a cornered rat is dangerous.

More lashing out in Arkansas:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32141605

Delirium · 01-04-2015 11:57am

Walsh: Referendum money would be better spent on HIV testing for gay people

A former Fianna Fáil Senator says taxpayers money being spent on the marriage equality and Presidential voting age referendums would be better spent on HIV testing for gay people.

Jim Walsh, who resigned the Fianna Fáil whip last week over his objection to the Children and Family Relationship Bill, made the comments in the Seanad this evening.

Senator Walsh says a gay man suggested to him at the weekend that the money to run the campaigns could be better spent.

"He said for example, if that money were to be used to provide free HIV testing to people who are homosexual, where there’s an increase now in the numbers infected by HIV, it would be far better expenditure of money," he said.

https://twitter.com/Khayden2412/status/583214076467261440

Derp :pac:

robindch · 01-04-2015 5:18pm

silverharp wrote: »

Here is the clown behind the "mandate for marriage" channel who is too chicken or "clever" to leave the comments open.

Not the first time Mr Burke and his family come to public notice:

http://www.rabble.ie/2014/03/04/irelands-phelps-family-and-nuig/

Nodin · 01-04-2015 8:10pm

silverharp wrote: »

Here is the clown behind the "mandate for marriage" channel who is too chicken or "clever" to leave the comments open.

So to sum up, God says its wrong in the Bible, so nobody can argue. Doubtless we'll find out what his former career in the ESB has to do with it later.

Nick Park · 01-04-2015 8:18pm

obplayer wrote: »

There is a very simple solution to that problem and that is for the churches to give up the right to perform legal marriage ceremonies, restrict that right to government appointed places like registry offices which have to agree to the rules, and let the churches carry on with their ceremonies as a blessing. It works in France, but I bet if you suggest it here the howls from the religious will be heard on mars. They hate losing power.

I think that may well be the way for churches to go - complete separation of Church and State is a good thing in my book. But that isn't what happens in France.

Separation between Church and State in France is a one way street. The State conducts the legal ceremony, but it also controls who churches may or may not marry in a religious ceremony. The State hates losing power.

marienbad · 01-04-2015 11:15pm

Nick Park wrote: »

I think that may well be the way for churches to go - complete separation of Church and State is a good thing in my book. But that isn't what happens in France.

Separation between Church and State in France is a one way street. The State conducts the legal ceremony, but it also controls who churches may or may not marry in a religious ceremony. The State hates losing power.

I wonder where they learnt that notion ?

Nick Park · 02-04-2015 7:26am

marienbad wrote: »

I wonder where they learnt that notion ?

Most people would ascribe it to human nature. The desire to control others is a pretty universal trait. That's why separation of Church and State is so necessary - both to protect the State from the Church and to protect the Church from the State.

alaimacerc · 03-04-2015 3:16am

Nick Park wrote: »

Separation between Church and State in France is a one way street. The State conducts the legal ceremony, but it also controls who churches may or may not marry in a religious ceremony.

Perhaps the broom-jumpers and poly-fundie-Mormon types should try Germany instead then. It had similar restrictions wherein only civilly married people could then have a religious ceremony, but got rid of them in 2008.

Nick Park · 03-04-2015 8:58am

alaimacerc wrote: »

Perhaps the broom-jumpers and poly-fundie-Mormon types should try Germany instead then. It had similar restrictions wherein only civilly married people could then have a religious ceremony, but got rid of them in 2008.

How civilised of the Germans.

It's interesting that you would use 'broom-jumper' as a derogatory term, given that it was coined as a term of abuse against those who were protesting about religious control over marriage and were seeking marriage equality in an earlier age.

I also find it interesting that you would blithely suggest that those who are experiencing State interference into the internal affairs and practices of churches should go to another country instead. That sounds remarkably like something the 'No' side would say in the current debate - "If you don't like the marriage laws here then bugger off somewhere else that will marry you instead of expecting us to change our laws!"

alaimacerc · 03-04-2015 9:18am

Nick Park wrote: »

It's interesting that you would use 'broom-jumper' as a derogatory term, given that it was coined as a term of abuse against those who were protesting about religious control over marriage and were seeking marriage equality in an earlier age.

I think you're wildly mistaking "tongue in cheek" for "derogatory" here. Would you have been any happier with "handfasters"? If so, let's go with that.

I also find it interesting that you would blithely suggest that those who are experiencing State interference into the internal affairs and practices of churches should go to another country instead.

Jeepers. In the context of a country where the reverse interference has been historically rampant, and is still entirely unreasonable, it's a little difficult to take this poe-faced indignation terribly seriously. But for the record, that's not what I'm actually suggesting, "blithely" or otherwise. Not least because I wouldn't recommend taking it on face value that just because Germany's abolished this particular law, it would have no laws whatsoever concerning the conduct of religious "marriage", separately from the civil institution.

Nick Park · 03-04-2015 10:26am

alaimacerc wrote: »

I think you're wildly mistaking "tongue in cheek" for "derogatory" here. Would you have been any happier with "handfasters"? If so, let's go with that.

Jeepers. In the context of a country where the reverse interference has been historically rampant, and is still entirely unreasonable, it's a little difficult to take this poe-faced indignation terribly seriously. But for the record, that's not what I'm actually suggesting, "blithely" or otherwise. Not least because I wouldn't recommend taking it on face value that just because Germany's abolished this particular law, it would have no laws whatsoever concerning the conduct of religious "marriage", separately from the civil institution.

No indignation whatsoever, I assure you. I simply said that I found your remarks interesting. 'Broomjumpers' (leaving aside its racial overtones in the US), was used as a term of abuse in Britain and Ireland for religious minorities, up until 150 years ago, whose weddings were not considered legal because they were not carried out in buildings operated by the dominant religion.

Similarly, I find it interesting that you imply that the issue of State interference with religion shouldn't be taken seriously, on the grounds that some religions have imposed their values on the running of nation-States in the past.

Two rights don't make a wrong.

Especially when minority religions, who suffered discrimination when the Church interfered with the running of the State, tend to be the same ones who suffer most when the State decides to interfere with religion. Saying to these minorities, "Shut up! Your freedoms don't matter because of what the Catholic Church did in this country!" is illogical.

I'm simply advocating genuine separation of Church and State - not a sham separation where religious people have to keep quiet, but the State continues to interfere with religious practices and ceremonies that are none of its business (of course it goes without saying that such separation does not prevent religions being, quite rightly, hammered if their activities interfere with the freedoms and protection of others).

Delirium · 03-04-2015 10:44am

https://twitter.com/ratskins/status/583375210180714497

Links234 · 05-04-2015 3:04pm

http://www.queerty.com/family-adopts-15-year-old-gay-teen-who-was-disowned-by-his-family-20140327?utm_source=bb82&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=disownedteen&ts_pid=2

Horrible, absolutely horrific, but he is so lucky he had someone in his life who cared

shruikan2553 · 05-04-2015 3:10pm

Links234 wrote: »

http://www.queerty.com/family-adopts-15-year-old-gay-teen-who-was-disowned-by-his-family-20140327?utm_source=bb82&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=disownedteen&ts_pid=2

Horrible, absolutely horrific, but he is so lucky he had someone in his life who cared

And the same people would claim a gay couple raising a child would be damaging.

robindch · 07-04-2015 3:48pm

No religious feelings were upset during the making of this interview with two young transgender kids:

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32037397

robindch · 08-04-2015 3:39pm

A guy named Brendan O'Neill has offloaded his views at length on marriage equality. No point in reading the whole thing unless you enjoy John Waters prose style, but suffice it to say that Mr O'Neill thinks that people who support marriage equality are a dreadfully intolerant lot, and Mr O'Neill is brave enough to point this out:

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/from-ireland-to-indiana-the-spread-of-gay-marriage-groupthink/16852

O'Neill's wikipage is here and from his neurotic, paranoid and simplistic worldview, I suspect we'll be seeing him around for years to come in rightwing media outlets.

oldrnwisr · 08-04-2015 4:01pm

OK, so I haven't been around for a while (getting your own business off the ground is a freaking nightmare) but in the meantime I've condensed my posts here on marriage equality into a few blog posts:

Dissecting the Arguments 1 - Logic

Dissecting the Arguments 2 - Religious arguments

Dissecting the Arguments 3 - Parenting

Mandate for Marriage & Bad Religious Arguments

With the election coming up really fast, some of us will be out there campaigning so just in case these posts turn out to be helpful to anyone in some small way I thought that I would share.

EDIT: Kudos to Bannasidhe, pH and others for posting some really helpful info.

al22 · 08-04-2015 4:22pm

I think the nature requires to multiply any species and the most able to survive must to survive, weak to disappear, or there will be no improvement or progress.

But we are too clever, we do not want to do much but want to do anything just for fuud and pleasure or entertainment. Why not get a pleasure and not care about our children if we can do that?

There may be other issues, if the nature want us to multiply, and that it, women should have chidren and that is all/ But having a baby women use them as a reason to demand support of a male partner. Why bother to get pleasure ith a woman and later pay for that rest of life. As we are clever and imaginative we can get a pleasure and no obligations.

Only human, some monkeys and olphins are so clever to engage in sexual games just for pleasure and not with a purpose to produce the next generation and to make more strong species of their kind.

oldrnwisr · 08-04-2015 4:47pm

al22 wrote: »

I think the nature requires to multiply any species and the most able to survive must to survive, weak to disappear, or there will be no improvement or progress.

But we are too clever, we do not want to do much but want to do anything just for fuud and pleasure or entertainment. Why not get a pleasure and not care about our children if we can do that?

There may be other issues, if the nature want us to multiply, and that it, women should have chidren and that is all/ But having a baby women use them as a reason to demand support of a male partner. Why bother to get pleasure ith a woman and later pay for that rest of life. As we are clever and imaginative we can get a pleasure and no obligations.

Only human, some monkeys and olphins are so clever to engage in sexual games just for pleasure and not with a purpose to produce the next generation and to make more strong species of their kind.

It would seem that English is not your native language so apologies if I'm taking you up wrong on any of your points but there are a couple of problems with what you just posted.

Firstly, since humans and chimps diverged about 5 million years ago, human females underwent a dramatic transformation. With the ongoing expansion of the humans into less tree-filled areas, males spent more and more time away from the tribe in search of food. However, since human children are incapable of looking after themselves (unlike say a calf) the increase in time which the males spent away from the tribe was detrimental to the survival of children. The reason for this is that before humans and chimps diverged they had an overt oestrus. This means that a male would be able to know from either visual or olfactory signals that a female was fertile and in season. As such he only had to hang around long enough to get the female pregnant. So, while the male was around the female had the benefit of the male's help in child rearing. Now, sometime within the last 5 million years a mutation spread throughout the population which meant that females now had a concealed oestrus, meaning that the male would no longer be able to tell when a female was in season. The effect of this change was that males had to stay around the females all the time to ensure their paternity. Once this change took hold, the connection between sex and children gradually eroded and sex became as much a social activity (i.e. for fun) as anything else.

This does not mean however, that sexual orientation follows from this change. We don't fully understand the interplay of factors which give rise to sexual orientation. We have seen evidence for genetic factors, epigenetic, gestational and otherwise biological. Nowhere, however, have we seen evidence that sexual orientation is a free choice or subject to conscious decision.

Furthermore, a male, or female for that matter would have no reason to abandon their children for the sake of fun. Evolution is not about the survival of an organism but the survival of its genes. You, or me, or anyone else will be lucky enough to get 80 years on this planet. But our genes, with a few changes along the way are essentially immortal. It is the survival of our genetic line that we safeguard by having children. And we sacrifice for our children in order to do this.

Your suggestion that sexual orientation is the result of the payoff of fun winning over the risk of parenthood is not even wrong.

alaimacerc · 08-04-2015 5:10pm

al22 wrote: »

Only human, some monkeys and olphins are so clever to engage in sexual games just for pleasure and not with a purpose to produce the next generation and to make more strong species of their kind.

Incorrect. Check ye out Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. You might find it quite the eye-opener. (Mind-opener I can't speak to.)

alaimacerc · 08-04-2015 5:15pm

robindch wrote: »

O'Neill's wikipage is here and from his neurotic, paranoid and simplistic worldview, I suspect we'll be seeing him around for years to come in rightwing media outlets.

Apparently he's lurched from being a RCPer to a right-wing "libertarian". And like many "libertarians", seems to now find grab-bags of rationales for right-wing stances on social issues, too. Right-wing on everything... Isn't that what in the bad old days we just used to call a conservative/reactionary? Much as I hate to be insufficiently postmodernist in my thinking!

PopePalpatine · 09-04-2015 10:15am

Is anyone listening to Pat Kenny right now? Bruce Arnold's argument is like a post from the "Lords of Distortion".

magicbastarder · 09-04-2015 11:09am

worth a read; patsy mcgarry in the IT takes down the notion that the catholic church has any privileged say in defining marriage.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/the-changing-face-of-marriage-in-the-catholic-church-1.2167778

alaimacerc · 09-04-2015 2:37pm

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Is anyone listening to Pat Kenny right now? Bruce Arnold's argument is like a post from the "Lords of Distortion".

Bruce Arnold, isn't that a ludicrous Composite Character parody from the Haughey docu-dram?

... oh.

He still riffing on his "plot to make heterosexual marriage illegal" thing? Or has he moved to other nonsense?

robindch · 09-04-2015 3:59pm

Obama calls for an end to "conversion" or "reparative" therapies which attempt to turn the ghey into the straight:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/obama-calls-for-end-to-conversion-therapy-for-lgbt-youth-1.2169872

shruikan2553 · 09-04-2015 4:07pm

robindch wrote: »

Obama calls for an end to "conversion" or "reparative" therapies which attempt to turn the ghey into the straight:

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/us/obama-calls-for-end-to-conversion-therapy-for-lgbt-youth-1.2169872

I wonder who will be the first to claim their religious freedomz are being attacked.

Links234 · 09-04-2015 4:44pm

Damn, was just about to post that

“The overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates that conversion therapy, especially when it is practiced on young people, is neither medically nor ethically appropriate and can cause substantial harm,”

But seriously, what happened to Leelah Alcorn and other kids like her is utterly monstrous.

silverharp · 09-04-2015 4:53pm

I happened to listen to a piece YouTube's Jocelyn glen did , she read out her suicide letter. Talk about losing out on the parental lottery

Cabaal · 09-04-2015 8:03pm

Oh dear.....

So, a chap representing Mandate for Marriage has written the following rant, basically it can be summed up as "I'm against marriage equality as I'm so insecure in my marriage and sexuality that I'm seriously frightened of being asked if I'm married to a man!"

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2015/04/09/if-youre-mansplaining-youre-losing/

I am a very young 43 year old with two children. I’ve been married to my lovely wife for 15 years and I am concerned that with no consideration to my family the government plan to change the definition of my marriage to suit a relatively small group of people who want what I have but are not willing to do what I do to get it. (Meaning marriage as presently constituted of course)

….I’ve been listening with great interest to the media coverage of the debate and I’ve not heard this particular point covered.

If this ‘Re-defining Marriage’ bill is passed in May. Because let’s face it. That’s actually what the government are planning to do. Re-define what marriage means albeit calling it; ““Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.” will mean that post0-May 2015 if the bill is passed any time in the future I tick a box on a form for a mortgage, a driving licence, or any other official/unofficial document that asks my marital status, will no longer mean that I’m married to a woman.

It will just mean that I’m married. I will have to spend the rest of my natural life qualifying my sexuality to others so that others know that I’m not gay and that I am in fact married to a women.

Now I know that some will say; What does sexuality have to do with filling out a form. It doesn’t. It shouldn’t have anything to do with any appointments for a job etc.. It’s the point that people will not know that I am not married to a woman, and, that I might be gay. This will become a misrepresentation of my sexuality going forward.

I should not have to be put in this situation. I don’t have any issues with people who gay or lesbian. But I will start sounding like I’m homophobic by responding to people who ask in general conversation if I’m married? that yes, I am married, and that I’m married to a woman not Man…..

This person is seriously insecure, kinda sad really

Mandate For Marriage are a macky uppy organization that has a total of 50 likes on facebook, we're doomed i tells you!

shruikan2553 · 09-04-2015 8:26pm

I am a very young 43 year old with two children. I’ve been married to my lovely wife for 15 years and I am concerned that with no consideration to my family the government plan to change the definition of my marriage to suit a relatively small group of people who want what I have but are not willing to do what I do to get it. (Meaning marriage as presently constituted of course)

Pay the 200 euro HSE fee? Campaign for it to be allowed despite the discrimination they face? A gay couple getting married could have possibly gone through a lot more to get married than he has. His marriage will still be a marriage between a man and a woman (although unless he explains further we will have no idea if he is married to a woman, his child or a horse)

….I’ve been listening with great interest to the media coverage of the debate and I’ve not heard this particular point covered.

I'll give him this one in fairness, I have never heard anyone say "They cant get married or I'll have to tell everyone Im married to a woman."

If this ‘Re-defining Marriage’ bill is passed in May. Because let’s face it. That’s actually what the government are planning to do. Re-define what marriage means albeit calling it; ““Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.” will mean that post0-May 2015 if the bill is passed any time in the future I tick a box on a form for a mortgage, a driving licence, or any other official/unofficial document that asks my marital status, will no longer mean that I’m married to a woman.

Thats because the form wants to know if you are married or not, not if your partner is a top or bottom. Will he put a little note in saying "to a person of the opposite gender" beside the tick?

It will just mean that I’m married.

I am sure many people have been surprised to find out that getting married to someone just means they are married. They should really explain this too a person before they get you to sign.

I will have to spend the rest of my natural life qualifying my sexuality to others so that others know that I’m not gay and that I am in fact married to a women.

Ah yes, because the minority of people (which he admits himself) will be marrying a person of the same gender that means we will start to assume every married person is gay. People who are not married can also be gay, should I explain my girlfriend is the opposite gender to me when filling in single or cohabiting? Im sure many people have been surprised to find out I am not actually a 7 foot black man married to a male dwarf wrestler because I didnt specify Im an average height, straight white man.

Now I know that some will say; What does sexuality have to do with filling out a form. It doesn’t. It shouldn’t have anything to do with any appointments for a job etc.. It’s the point that people will not know that I am not married to a woman, and, that I might be gay. This will become a misrepresentation of my sexuality going forward.

What about the single people? they could be gay?

I should not have to be put in this situation. I don’t have any issues with people who gay or lesbian. But I will start sounding like I’m homophobic by responding to people who ask in general conversation if I’m married? that yes, I am married, and that I’m married to a woman not Man…..

I have never been in a situations like this and plenty of single/cohabiting people are also gay. If you are in a civil parnership arent you considered married by a lot of things already? So if anyone was to mistake him for being gay then it would have happened already.

lazygal · 09-04-2015 8:54pm

Wtf is a "very young 43 year old"? Has 43 old and young divisions now? #pcgonemad #redefofageisunnatural

Links234 · 09-04-2015 8:56pm

Well here's another tragedy

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/bullied-calif-transgender-teen-takes-life-article-1.2179065

mohawk · 09-04-2015 10:49pm

Cabaal wrote: »

Oh dear.....

So, a chap representing Mandate for Marriage has written the following rant, basically it can be summed up as "I'm against marriage equality as I'm so insecure in my marriage and sexuality that I'm seriously frightened of being asked if I'm married to a man!"

This person is seriously insecure, kinda sad really

It has to be a joke. I refuse to believe that the guy who wrote it is serious.

PopePalpatine · 09-04-2015 11:22pm

IIRC Mandate for Marriage is a creation of the Burkes from Mayo, whose younger members protested outside NUI Galway because they were too LGBT-friendly.

robindch · 09-04-2015 11:43pm

Cabaal wrote: »

[...] the following rant, basically it can be summed up as "I'm against marriage equality as I'm so insecure in my marriage and sexuality that I'm seriously frightened of being asked if I'm married to a man!"

Seems that this might actually be one of the reasons why some people are so stridently against marriage equality - there's such a social stigma attached to being homosexual, particularly male-homosexual, that they're prepared to marry a woman to assert that they're not homosexual, thereby avoiding the stigma.

Removing the social protection provided by marriage, therefore, removes the implication that the person is not male-gay and permits persecution, probably by like-minded people.

Catch-22 really.

Zubeneschamali · 10-04-2015 11:17am

robindch wrote: »

Removing the social protection provided by marriage, therefore, removes the implication that the person is not male-gay and permits persecution, probably by like-minded people.

Except, of course, that straight males do not, in fact, suffer persecution for being gay when they are not - the whole thing is in his head.

robindch · 10-04-2015 11:54am

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Except, of course, that straight males do not, in fact, suffer persecution for being gay when they are not - the whole thing is in his head.

I agree it's in his head, but there's some anecdotal evidence - don't ask me to find it, since it was in one or two articles I came across in the last year or so - which suggests that it's so hard to shake off even the suspicion of being male-gay that it's necessary to make a positive assertion, via the social act of marriage to a woman, in highly-conservative circles at least, to avoid the suspicion.

This might also go some way towards explaining the asymmetry between fear of male-gay and the relative tolerance of female-gay - from a male perspective, it seems very hard for people to forget that some guy has had a male-gay experience. While it's relatively acceptable for a girl to have a lesbian experience. If a guy is present during a lesbian encounter, then the guy will gain serious kudos with his male friends, and perhaps some females too. That asymmetry is quite interesting as it seems quite innate in most humans, even those who are tolerate homosexuality.

Shrap · 10-04-2015 12:35pm

lazygal wrote: »

Wtf is a "very young 43 year old"? Has 43 old and young divisions now? #pcgonemad #redefofageisunnatural

I think it's another qualification of how he might be deemed gay in future, as clearly only the younger generation ever wants to get married and the country will be heaving with young married gay couples. Heaving, I tell you :pac:

If I was him I'd be also worried about whether folks behind the counter where he fills up whatever forms are just as likely to be speculating on whether he's happily married, or in a rubbish marriage, or indeed whether he and his lovely spouse are still having sex. I think there should be more boxes. We need more criteria, people! Otherwise how are folks going to know he's not an impotent wife-beating "young" heterosexual?!

Ooh, this will never do. More options to tick immediately.

Penn · 10-04-2015 1:38pm

ISPCC in full support of Marriage Equality Bill

http://www.ispcc.ie/news-media/childrens-issues-in-the-news/ispcc-confirms-its-support-for-a-yes-vote-in-the-marriage-equality-referendum/12761

Can. Not. Wait for Iona to try and say they know what's better for children than the f*cking ISPCC.

Hotblack Desiato · 10-04-2015 2:12pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Except, of course, that straight males do not, in fact, suffer persecution for being gay when they are not - the whole thing is in his head.

Hmm that's what my school teachers would have said too, if I'd have thought there was any point reporting bullying to them.

Zubeneschamali · 10-04-2015 5:39pm

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hmm that's what my school teachers would have said too, if I'd have thought there was any point reporting bullying to them.

My son has been bullied by kids who said he was gay, but I don't think they actually thought he sucked cock. It's just a thing bullies do, call their victims gay because gay is bad.

Another reason to normalise gay relationships.

alaimacerc · 10-04-2015 7:52pm

lazygal wrote: »

Wtf is a "very young 43 year old"? Has 43 old and young divisions now? #pcgonemad #redefofageisunnatural

He certainly writes like a "very young" 43-year old. Pretty much the literary equivalent of a two-year throwing the rattle and stamping the foot. "Mine! They can't have it!" "But they can play with it too--" "Waaaaaaaaaaah!"

Stark · 10-04-2015 7:52pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

My son has been bullied by kids who said he was gay, but I don't think they actually thought he sucked cock. It's just a thing bullies do, call their victims gay because gay is bad.

Maybe it's time for your son to get married so the bullies will leave him alone. Hurry, before the referendum comes round and they'll be able to taunt him with "yeah, but you're probably married to another boy!".

Hotblack Desiato · 10-04-2015 11:01pm

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

My son has been bullied by kids who said he was gay, but I don't think they actually thought he sucked cock. It's just a thing bullies do, call their victims gay because gay is bad.

Another reason to normalise gay relationships.

Oh I agree, and nasty kids will pick on anything they think will belittle their victim in the eyes of their peers. The day when everyone accepts "Gay? So what?" we'll all be a little bit more free.

That said, I did better than most at my school (that's not really a boast tbh) and liked reading, didn't like ball sports, and my mam would never let me get my hair cut short enough. That was probably enough for those ignoramuses to really think that that was what was gay was.

Links234 · 11-04-2015 3:46pm

Great article, and the video with Luna is a great watch, she's incredibly eloquent: http://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/people/ireland-s-transgender-children-1.2171777

Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Comments