Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

robindch

In the few short years since George W Bush II divisively, but successfully, used fear of gay marriage to help energize his electoral base, the tide in North America has turned comprehensively in its favour, with a clear majority now supporting it in every significant poll that's been carried out since Obama declared in May that "same sex couples should be able to get married".

The attitude of Ireland's political leaders is more equivocal, with Enda Kenny famously saying he "won't be pressured" into supporting it, and Eamon Gilmore saying he most certainly does support it. From the legal perspective, both Cork and Belfast city councils have approved it (though with no legal standing, so far as I'm aware), and it's up for debate in the upcoming Constitutional Convention too, so it may well go to referendum for approval.

Outside of Ireland, the SNP in Scotland announced they'll bring forward legislation later this year to permit it, while New Zealand's legislature will debate the issue shortly too.

Predictably, Archbishop Brady announced he's against it, since it would "remove the family based on marriage from its pre-eminent and unique place in society", though I can't immediately see how allowing more people to take part in a binding social ceremony could conceivably reduce its importance. The UK's Cardinal Keith O’Brien said that introducing gay marriage would amount to a “grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right”, and indicated that the Vatican would mobilize its believer population against the UK government's move to support it. Herr Ratzinger, with no sense of underplaying his hand, declared that gay marriage is a "threat to the future of humanity".

From the scientific perspective of social research, there's a lot of evidence that gay parents are at least as good as heterosexual parents, and in some instances, parenting with greater "commitment and involvement".

What are people's thoughts? Will gay marriage, or full marriage equality -- however you want to call it -- come to Ireland, and if so, when? Will it bring about a new age of generosity and tolerance towards those of different sexual orientations, or will it destroy the future of humanity?

.

Sycopat

I hope it comes in, I hope it comes in soon. It won't affect me or my future in any way, but it might be important to people I care about.

It is ,imo, a minor redefinition of the legal term 'marriage' to allow non-conventional couples the same rights as conventional couples.

As to destroying the future of humanity:

Ha ha. Ha ha. Ha.

I was wrong above, it probably would affect my future: I might have to go to more parties. What a terrible fate for humanity. Let us weep, and gnash our teeth.

FouxDaFaFa

I hope it comes in and I think it will, but not anytime soon. I think the fact that Scotland is making tracks is great because they're so close and we're similar in culture so it might make a few people reconsider their opinions.

From a purely cold and pragmatic point of view, gay people finally being allowed to marry would be a nice injection of money into the economy with a rush of weddings.

Edit: Oh, but it will usher in the end of days. Definitely. You win some, you lose some.

joseph brand

Once the stigma is removed, it will improve the lives of a great many people. Good people. There are parents out there who cut all ties with their gay offspring. The church does nothing to mend these wounds. In fact, in a great many cases, it's because of the church's teachings that the family unit is broken.

Only ignorant people have a fear of 'The Gheys'. Do they think that because gay marriage is introduced, people will turn gay? All us men will go online and order the 'Will and Grace' boxset along with some fabulous, new cushion covers.

As one christian pastor so eloquently put it:
"The Bible's Agin It, God's Agin It, I'm Agin It, Too!"
My seven year old has a better grasp of the English language.

He also says: "I was disappointed bad". <

---

WTF is this?

Nodin

robindch wrote: »

..........

What are people's thoughts? Will gay marriage, or full marriage equality -- however you want to call it -- come to Ireland, and if so, when? Will it bring about a new age of generosity and tolerance towards those of different sexual orientations, or will it destroy the future of humanity?

.

I'd imagine it will be in during the next decade. Thats the way things seem to be moving, and theres widespread public support.

As for the rest - 'haters gonna hate' etc.

Galvasean

Maybe if the people against it could make one argument against it that shows how it is a bad thing that actually holds up to scrutiny.... Oh wait, they can't. Ah sod it, a public vote would at least be a good way to weed out the bigots...

Delirium

I think that it will happen here, in part because there are more people will offer another voice other than that from the Vatican.

The voices that cry it will be the downfall of society have been shown via various studies and in countries where it has been legalised just how empty their claims are.

It's also encouraging to see more people unwilling to accept appeals to tradition as an excuse.

You have a civil discussion with someone that opposes marriage equality, and you'll see that it very quickly becomes apparent that they don't have a rational explanation as to why they don't want it to happen.

So I think that it will happen here sooner rather than later. And the naysayers will discover that the world doesn't come to an end.

krudler

Galvasean wrote: »

Maybe if the people against it could make one argument against it that shows how it is a bad thing that actually holds up to scrutiny.... Oh wait, they can't. Ah sod it, a public vote would at least be a good way to weed out the bigots...

but but...subversion!, family!, adam and steve! etc etc.


yeah there's none. not one good argument against it. "I dont agree with it" yeah well fcuk you ,nothing, not one.single.thing. will be different for straight people and families because two men or women can get married.

MetalDog

fitz0

I posted this in MrP's thread about his thesis.

When a Medieval Knight Could Marry Another Medieval Knight

Despite the risks, devotional relationships between men were common in Europe at the time, at least among the literate, and many of these affairs must have included sex at some point. Knights, aristocrats, and especially clerics left expansive evidence of their intense passions for male lovers, relationships that often ended in side-by-side burials. A letter from a respected monk–scholar in Charlemagne’s court named Alcuin (circa 735–804) to a beloved bishop shows how thick those relations sometimes became:

"I think of your love and friendship with such sweet memories, reverend bishop, that I long for that lovely time when I may be able to clutch the neck of your sweetness with the fingers of my desires. Alas, if only it were granted to me, as it was to Habakkuk, to be transported to you, how would I sink into your embraces . . . how would I cover, with tightly pressed lips, not only your eyes, ears, and mouth but also your every finger and your toes, not once but many a time."


While this epistle is unusually erotic, it reflects the intimacies that existed among men everywhere. Assuming, as we must, that at least some of these men’s sexual longings were fulfilled, the next question is the extent to which intimate homosexual relationships were tolerated. Love was one thing, sodomy another. If male hustlers on the Rialto were burned to death and other European sodomites were being cut to ribbons, could long-term, loving relationships among men ever be permitted?

The answer, paradoxically, is yes. In the period up to roughly the thirteenth century, male bonding ceremonies were performed in churches all over the Mediterranean. These unions were sanctified by priests with many of the same prayers and rituals used to join men and women in marriage. The ceremonies stressed love and personal commitment over procreation, but surely not everyone was fooled. Couples who joined themselves in such rituals most likely had sex as much (or as little) as their heterosexual counterparts. In any event, the close association of male bonding ceremonies with forbidden sex eventually became too much to overlook as ever more severe sodomy laws were put into place.

Such same-sex unions—sometimes called “spiritual brotherhoods”—forged irrevocable bonds between the men involved. Often they involved missionaries about to set off on foreign voyages, but lay male couples also entered into them. Other than the gender of the participants, it was difficult to distinguish the ceremonies from typical marriages. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions, for example, involved the pair joining their right hands at the altar, the recital of marriage prayers, and a ceremonial kiss.

Same-sex unions were denied to monks to the same extent that men in monastic orders were forbidden to marry women, but other clerics who were allowed to marry took part. One thirteenth-century Ukrainian story tells of the deacon Evagrius and the priest Tit, whose “great and sincere” love for each other led them to a same-sex union. Unfortunately, that love found its limits, and the men had a bitter falling out. When Tit later fell ill, some monks brought Evagrius to his sickbed to help the couple reconcile before the end. Evagrius refused and was struck dead, and Tit recovered. Even had Tit and Evagrius made up and lived happily ever after, they would never have produced natural offspring, which was the main difference between same-sex unions and traditional marriages. Yet the couple’s barrenness did not impede sanctification of their relationship by the church. One version of the liturgy had the priest recite:

"O Almighty Lord, You have given to man to be made from the first in Your Image and Likeness by the gift of immortal life. You have willed to bind as brothers not only by nature but by bonds of the spirit . . . Bless Your Servants united also that, not bound by nature, [they be] joined with bonds of love."

It is difficult to believe that these rituals did not contemplate erotic contact. In fact, it was the sex between the men involved that later caused same-sex unions to be banned.

With the widespread criminalization of homosexual relations starting in the thirteenth century, the marriages of men in church could not last. The Byzantine emperor Andronicus II decreed in 1306 that, along with incest and sorcery, sex between men was prohibited. He added: “If some wish to enter into ceremonies of same-sex union, we should prohibit them, for they are not recognized by the church.” No Latin versions of the ceremonies survive—presumably they were destroyed—and several of the surviving Greek texts appear to have been defaced over time by disapproving churchmen. By the sixteenth century, Montaigne would write of a “strange brotherhood” in which Portuguese men in Rome “married one another, male to male, at Mass, with the same ceremonies with which we perform our marriages, read the same marriage gospel service and then went to bed and lived together.” They were burned to death.

Given that men could no longer marry in a church without risking punishment, and that long-term love between men was not going away, something less inflammatory had to take the place of matrimony. In England and many Mediterranean societies (especially southern France), the new institution for same-sex unions was the affrerement (“brotherment”) contract. Affrerement was not designed specifically to accommodate same-sex love relationships; it was adapted to permit such couples to live together in peace. An affrerement was a written agreement between two people to form one household and share un pain, un vin, et une bourse (“one bread, one wine, and one purse”). In Italy, the contracts used a similar phrase: a une pane e uno vino. The reference to sharing the same bread and wine was meant to signify that the people would share all their property in the years to come.

http://www.theawl.com/2012/05/sex-and-punishment

I really don't get the opposition to gay marriage, I genuinely can't see why two people in a loving committed relationship are forbidden from making that loving, committed relationship official.

Galvasean

fitz0 wrote: »

I really don't get the opposition to gay marriage, I genuinely can't see why two people in a loving committed relationship are forbidden from making that loving, committed relationship official.

Because homosexual couples cannot produce a dozen offspring. We need to force them straight and make more little Catholics so we can beat the Proddies through sheer weight of numbers.

NuMarvel

fitz0 wrote: »

I really don't get the opposition to gay marriage, I genuinely can't see why two people in a loving committed relationship are forbidden from making that loving, committed relationship official.

My personal theory, and it's only a theory, is that it's a form of misogyny. Based on other discussions about marriage equality on Boards over the last while, people tend to focus on gay male couples. And if you have two men in a relationship, then the thinking is that one of them must be fulfulling the "female" role.

And while it's more socially acceptable for women to take on traditionally male characteristics, the opposite is seen as disrupting "the natural order of things".

Or to quote Madge "Girls can wear jeans, And cut their hair short, Wear shirts and boots, 'Cause it's OK to be a boy, But for a boy to look like a girl is degrading, 'Cause you think that being a girl is degrading

That's my theory anyway. I'm sure it's more complicated than that, but I think that gender stereotypes plays a large part in it.

And just to be clear, I don't mean to imply that lesbian couples have it easy. It's just that I noticed that most people that object to same sex marriage rights tend to use male couples in their points.

efb

Are the Church still suspicious of left-handed people? two-for-two boo yah!

Galvasean

NuMarvel wrote: »

And just to be clear, I don't mean to imply that lesbian couples have it easy. It's just that I noticed that most people that object to same sex marriage rights tend to use male couples in their points.

There is some truth to this. One of the arguments that is often trotted out is "Because sodomy is wrong!" - not that lesbians are renowned for that.

Dades

Of course it will come in - eventually.

And a couple of generations from now will look back and wonder why it was ever an issue and why catholic Grandpa and Grandma are a bit quiet about their role in the whole thing.

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

[...] not that lesbians are renowned for that.

Strange thing -- when asked about why her anger was directed almost exclusively at male homosexuals rather than lesbians, my elderly religious relative explained that lesbians are "maybe not as bad", while furrowing her brow mightily.

I've never heard a really good evolutionary explanation for why male homosexuals bear the brunt of this irrational hatred, although I can think of one or two bad ones, or ones which make sense in a liberal/authoritarian framework.

Beruthiel

robindch wrote: »

Will gay marriage, or full marriage equality -- however you want to call it -- come to Ireland, and if so, when?

I believe it will come.
If I had my way, it would happen yesterday.
I'd love to see it happen in this governments lifetime as there are actually quite a few of them who are happy to let it happen.
It doesn't affect me, but I have friends who it would mean an awful lot to.

I find it incomprehensible why some people have a problem with how others live their lives. Live and let live.

seamus

robindch wrote: »

Strange thing -- when asked about why her anger was directed almost exclusively at male homosexuals rather than lesbians, my elderly religious relative explained that lesbians are "maybe not as bad", while furrowing her brow mightily.

One of the wonderous trends that I've seen creeping in over this generation is the refusal to allow, "That's just the way I feel about it", as a basis for discrimination. There was a point where people would stand back and say, "Ah that's grand, your entitled to your opinion", whereas now people are more and more likely to get called out on their bull**** and told why it's not OK to "just feel" anything.

I've never heard a really good evolutionary explanation for why male homosexuals bear the brunt of this irrational hatred, although I can think of one or two bad ones, or ones which make sense in a liberal/authoritarian framework.

My suspicion is that it's just "more icky" than lesbians. Straight men tend to find it uncomfortable to see two men doing whatever, and from discussions it would appear that straight women in general don't really enjoy gay male porn all that much.

In contrast, straight women tend to not really have that big a problem with lesbian conduct (probably because close relationships with other women is common) and most straight men are fairly enthusiastic about lesbian porn.

I doubt that the majority of opposition to homosexuality is biblical. I suspect it's a personal dislike and religion provides a seat on an agreeable bus.

I don't think it's an inbuilt thing, it's a societal thing which has really only come about in more recent times (since we know that previous civilisations had little issue with homosexuality).
I think particularly the point about physical closeness may be the strongest factor - women tend to be more hands-on with eachother, so seeing the next step - two women romantically linked - isn't that big a leap, it's still within the bounds of normality.

By contrast in many countries for men it's a very hands-off approach. A handshake and maybe a pat on the back between family. At my wedding one of the guests commented to my brother - "What's the story with all this hugging and **** going on? It's a bit....gay...innit?". Now, he was kind of joking and I think trying to start a conversation, but I think it illustrates what I'm talking about - men being physically close is seen as abnormal and therefore something to be avoided.

I would be very surprised if gay marriage isn't legalised across the western world in the next twenty years. It's one of those things that will take just a small leap by one or two big countries to make it spread like wildfire. Then the controversy will fizzle out ridiculously quickly and people will forget what all the fuss was about.

Daftendirekt

JamJamJamJam

It seems to be getting a lot of attention lately (along with the legalisation of abortion, actually... Is it because Bunreacht na hÉireann is being examined?), so I reckon it's snowballing and that we'll get the chance to vote marriage equality in relatively soon. If we let that chance go I'll be truly embarrassed. I'm really struggling to understand the mindset of somebody who opposes it. It's unbelievably close minded. Luckily, I'm not aware that very many people who I know oppose it, so hopefully we can make it right!

Daftendirekt

Would we need a referendum to legalise same-sex marriage? I don't remember anything in the Constitution that explicitly asserts that marriage has to be between a man and a woman. (The only thing that springs to mind is the 'women having a special place in the home' bit.)

@JamJamJam - I think it probably has something to do with the RCC's waning influence in Ireland. A lot of the 'traditional values' people once took for granted are now up for re-evaluation, and we've more freedom to decide on the direction we want our society to take.

seamus

Strictly speaking it's never been said that gay marriage is unconstitutional.

There are a number of articles which are relevant, Article 41 generally is the main troublemaker as it requires the state to "protect" the institution of marriage (whatever the hell that means), then goes on to talk about the role of the woman in the home and all sorts of other things about the primacy of the family above everything.
Article 41 IMO needs to be dug out and rewritten from scratch as it's massively at odds with the earlier article that declares all person are equal before the law.

Any road....
The main issue here is that recent laws have actually defined "marriage" as being between a man and a woman and the civil partnership bill has a sneaky prick of a back door which prohibits "upgrading" a civil partnership to a marriage.
If gay marriage were to become legal, anyone in a civil partnership would require the partnership to be dissolved, which is a length and painful process.

At the moment there is a case going through which is challenging whether these laws are constitutional. So until that's done, we won't know whether or not the constitution or the legislation needs to be changed.

On the flipside, the fundies have long said that if gay marriage was to be legalised here, they would challenge the constitutionality of those laws.

So it would appear that whichever way it goes, it needs to be written into the constitution to end the debate once and for all.

MetalDog

I say this as someone who is opposed to religious influence/interference on this island and fully supportive of gay marriage: if the Govt called a referendum tomorrow, you can bet that the fundies would be out in force.

David Quinn, Waters, Coir, Youth Defence; ie the usual shower of catholic **** - they'd be quite happy being stuck in 1932 and would certainly do their shrill best to hinder any progress on it.

ShooterSF

MetalDog wrote: »

I say this as someone who is opposed to religious influence/interference on this island and fully supportive of gay marriage: if the Govt called a referendum tomorrow, you can bet that the fundies would be out in force.

David Quinn, Waters, Coir, Youth Defence; ie the usual shower of catholic **** - they'd be quite happy being stuck in 1932 and would certainly do their shrill best to hinder any progress on it.

Indeed and I fear if such a referendum was on the cards my job (bar work in a ruralish pub) would become intolerable. I do my best to avoid political discussions but I can only imagine some of the discussions I'd have to over hear from some of my generally well meaning but old fashioned regulars. Either I'd upset them or leave my lips bleeding!

Corkfeen

That would be one worry of mine if it went to a referendum. It would simply be a campaign of disinformation against it. It could easily turn the tides. Surprised that nobody has arrived with a biblical argument against it. (Twelves minutes after this post...) :pac:

Actor

It's not about gay "marriage". It's about sodomy. Society should do everything in it's power to prevent people from rupturing one another. People with these kinds of sexual vices should not be allowed to adopt children AFAIC.

Delirium

so when do we start removing children from hetero couples that also engage in sodomy?

Sonics2k

Actor wrote: »

It's not about gay "marriage". It's about sodomy. Society should do everything in it's power to prevent people from rupturing one another. People with these kinds of sexual vices should not be allowed to adopt children AFAIC.

We're still waiting to hear about the dangers of sodomy to society?

What about people who have children, say teenagers, and one night, they're in bed and feeling a bit frisky and want to try something new.

Should we take the kids off them?

Actor

Actor wrote: »

It's not about gay "marriage". It's about sodomy. Society should do everything in it's power to prevent people from rupturing one another. People with these kinds of sexual vices should not be allowed to adopt children AFAIC.

What a poetic use of words, Actor: it paints a wonderful image.

Not that I'm for sodomy--I'm indifferent--but what have you against it? Give an argument. You finding the idea of it displeasing means absolutely nothing. Besides, this thread isn't about those who partake in sodomy adopting children; it's about giving equal marital rights to all. Simple.

Wiggles88

Yay Actor is back, this should be fun! *grabs popcorn*

Actor

gvn wrote: »

What a poetic use of words, Actor: it paints a wonderful image.

Not that I'm for sodomy--I'm indifferent--but what have you against it? Give an argument. Simply because you find the idea of it displeasing means absolutely nothing. Besides, this thread isn't about those who partake in sodomy adopting children; it's about giving equal marital rights to all. Simple.

You're right. It's not a pretty picture. Is it? But that's the reality of what they do to each other. Sodomy is what this is about - it should be discouraged, if not outright banned.

We discourage cohabiting couples by incentivising them to get married (vis-a-vis inheritence rights), so why shouldn't we disincentivise sodomy?

Sonics2k

Actor wrote: »

We discourage cohabiting couples by incentivising them to get married (vis-a-vis inheritence rights), so why shouldn't we disincentivise sodomy?

No we don't.

In fact as a society, parents often encourage their children to live with their partner for sometime before they decide to get married, so they can get a real and full idea of what the person is like.

What century are you living in exactly?

Actor

koth wrote: »

so when do we start removing children from hetero couples that also engage in sodomy?

I agree. It's a logically consistent rationale. Do you think kids would be safe adopted by parents who go to "S&M" parties or so-called "saunas"? What if the parents decided to host one of these "parties" in the family home?

Gbear

MetalDog wrote: »

I say this as someone who is opposed to religious influence/interference on this island and fully supportive of gay marriage: if the Govt called a referendum tomorrow, you can bet that the fundies would be out in force.

David Quinn, Waters, Coir, Youth Defence; ie the usual shower of catholic **** - they'd be quite happy being stuck in 1932 and would certainly do their shrill best to hinder any progress on it.

I don't think you're giving our country enough credit.

Unless the likes of Enda were being serious cynical and cowardly c*nts about it, they'd put their weight behind equal marriage rights and the majority of voters would fall in line.

I think if there was a referendum tomorrow it would overwhelmingly go in favour of marriage equality.

Actor

Sonics2k wrote: »

No we don't.

In fact as a society, parents often encourage their children to live with their partner for sometime before they decide to get married, so they can get a real and full idea of what the person is like.

What century are you living in exactly?

There's a word for that - fornication. A word that has been conveniently air-brushed out of society. I strive for ideals. Legalising gay marriage is not an ideal - it's a compromise to suit angry sodomites.

Delirium

Actor wrote: »

I agree. It's a logically consistent rationale. Do you think kids would be safe adopted by parents who go to "S&M" parties or so-called "saunas"?

Yes.

Bloodwing

Actor wrote: »

gvn wrote: »

What a poetic use of words, Actor: it paints a wonderful image.

Not that I'm for sodomy--I'm indifferent--but what have you against it? Give an argument. Simply because you find the idea of it displeasing means absolutely nothing. Besides, this thread isn't about those who partake in sodomy adopting children; it's about giving equal marital rights to all. Simple.

You're right. It's not a pretty picture. Is it? But that's the reality of what they do to each other. Sodomy is what this is about - it should be discouraged, if not outright banned.

We discourage cohabiting couples by incentivising them to get married (vis-a-vis inheritence rights), so why shouldn't we disincentivise sodomy?

So can I take it from your post that you have no issue with two women getting married? Seen as it's all about the sodomy with you?

Actor

koth wrote: »

Yes.

The adoption agencies wouldn't take too kindly to reports of such behaviour.

Gbear

Neilos wrote: »

So can I take it from your post that you have no issue with two women getting married? Seen as it's all about the sodomy with you?

No. I think the bee in his bonnet is about people enjoying themselves and the religious begrudgery that goes with it.

"Fornication" is always a dead giveaway.

Actor

Actor wrote: »

You're right. It's not a pretty picture. Is it? But that's the reality of what they do to each other. Sodomy is what this is about - it should be discouraged, if not outright banned.

We discourage cohabiting couples by incentivising them to get married (vis-a-vis inheritence rights), so why shouldn't we disincentivise sodomy?

No, it's not a pretty image, nor is it an accurate image. You're attacking an exaggerated image of sodomy, not sodomy itself. I'm pretty certain that all instances of sodomy do not end in what you describe. Less of the hyperbole, please.

Anyway, tell me, why should it be banned? If two consenting adults want to partake in sodomy--homosexual or heterosexual--then what of it? You've skirted around my question: give me an argument against sodomy that doesn't rely upon your own, personal opinions of it, or upon your particular religion telling you that it's wrong or immoral. I'm sure that you can't do this, can you? You just find the idea of it disgusting, so you attempt to convince others that, because of this, sodomy is wrong. In effect you're attempting to force others to live by your own idea of what's right and wrong, good and bad, moral and immoral. That you find something disgusting doesn't mean everybody finds it disgusting.

PopePalpatine

fitz0 wrote: »

I posted this in MrP's thread about his thesis.

[wall o' text]

I really don't get the opposition to gay marriage, I genuinely can't see why two people in a loving committed relationship are forbidden from making that loving, committed relationship official.

I love how the priest's name is Tit.

Delirium

Actor wrote: »

The adoption agencies wouldn't take too kindly to reports of such behaviour.

who said anything about adoption?

Are you proposing that all hetero parents should be interviewed regarding their sex life to determine whether their children should be removed?

Sonics2k

Actor wrote: »

There's a word for that - fornication. A word that has been conveniently air-brushed out of society. I strive for ideals. Legalising gay marriage is not an ideal - it's a compromise to suit angry sodomites.

So, no problem with lesbians are the -vast- majority of gay men who don't like sodomy?

Galvasean

Actor wrote: »

it's a compromise to suit angry sodomites.

Bring out your angels Lot, so taht we may 'know' them! :pac:

Seriously though, if the views represented by this 'Actor' guy are the best the anti gay marriage side can come up with then it is a truly pathetic and pitiful one indeed...

MetalDog

Corkfeen wrote: »

That would be one worry of mine if it went to a referendum. It would simply be a campaign of disinformation against it. It could easily turn the tides. Surprised that nobody has arrived with a biblical argument against it. (Twelves minutes after this post...) :pac:

They would use outright lies as part of said disinformation, remember that YD get a lot of money from the States, so in the event of a referendum expect American style scare tactics from them and the rest of the Irish taliban.

NuMarvel

Actor wrote: »

Society should do everything in it's power to prevent people from rupturing one another.

Society does plenty to prevent such ruptures by making sexual lubricants widely available.

If you and/or your partner are experiencing "rupturing" or any other kind of discomfort, then I suggest you purchase some. However if that doesn't fully work, try a variety of different positions until you find one you're both comfortable in. Most importantly, go slow... sex is best when it's a marathon, not a sprint.

Actor wrote: »

You're right. It's not a pretty picture. Is it? But that's the reality of what they do to each other. Sodomy is what this is about - it should be discouraged, if not outright banned.

It was banned, well between two consenting adult men anyway. Then it was unbanned. Somehow, society managed to keep it together. Yaaaay society!!

Actor wrote: »

I agree. It's a logically consistent rationale. Do you think kids would be safe adopted by parents who go to "S&M" parties or so-called "saunas"? What if the parents decided to host one of these "parties" in the family home?

Honest question - how much time per day do you spend picturing and imagining the various sexual activities of consenting male adults? You seem quite versed. I admire your dedication to researching that which you claim to despise so vehemently.

MetalDog

Gbear wrote: »

I don't think you're giving our country enough credit.

Unless the likes of Enda were being serious cynical and cowardly c*nts about it, they'd put their weight behind equal marriage rights and the majority of voters would fall in line.

I think if there was a referendum tomorrow it would overwhelmingly go in favour of marriage equality.

You're right. I'm not giving the country enough credit at all. Because I'm a cynical bastard.
There are still a lot of conservative, church brainwashed bigots out there, in addition to plenty of macho redneck types who "doin't like dem queeeorrs" (their words not mine).
Also, elderly people are also more likely to vote, referenda have usually a low turnout, and so on.
I of course would like to see same sex marriage introduced without a referendum if possible, but in the event that it did go to a referendum, nothing could be taken for granted. I don't know if it would be as close - run as the Divorce referendum though, we've moved on a lot since then (1995), but bigotry, conservatism and religious "influence" could still rear their heads.

Bannasidhe

Interesting historical fact - there were no laws against sodomy in Ireland - or England and Wales - until they were introduced by that poster boy for the sanctity of heterosexual marriage Henry VIII.

Yup Henry reckoned it was ok to marry your sister-in-law, have your wives executed on dodgy legal grounds, send your fiancée back when she turned out to be not as good looking as you were led to believe (as a grossly obese man with open weeping ulcers on his legs and what was euphemistically referred to as the 'cock rot' requiring the invention of the cod piece Fat Hal Tudor was every girl's dream catch), declare your female children illegitimate and break with Rome while simultaneously burning Protestants but buggery was a step too far.

fitz0

All this talk of sodomy is a bit odd, can you think of nothing else Actor? Are images of men poking each other crowding your thoughts? Do you find yourself dwelling on entrance through the back door?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCcaMIcwz30

efb

Actor wrote: »

There's a word for that - fornication. A word that has been conveniently air-brushed out of society. I strive for ideals. Legalising gay marriage is not an ideal - it's a compromise to suit angry sodomites.

Are people who assemble every week in a building to chant ok to raise kids?

Nodin

Actor wrote: »

I agree. It's a logically consistent rationale. Do you think kids would be safe adopted by parents who go to "S&M" parties or so-called "saunas"? What if the parents decided to host one of these "parties" in the family home?

....why would that involve children....? Or just gay people....?