Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

token56

fitz0 wrote: »

Divisive, yet there would be no material change in our day to day straight lives. Funny hoe that works.

Indeed. Pity people wont see it like that though.

Nodin wrote: »

...because its thought that the consititution legally confines marriage as being between a man and a woman, and thus would need to be changed (via a referendum). AFAIK.

The constitution does not define marriage as between a man and a women as far as I'm aware. The relevant part of it is

The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack

Family has been interpreted as being one with a heterosexual couple. In 2004 however I think marriage was formally recognised as between a man and a women in the Civil Registration act found here
http://www.oireachtas.ie/documents/bills28/acts/2004/a304.pdf

although I'm trying to find the part to confirm this. Citizens information also says

The definition of 'marriage' in Ireland does not include same-sex partnerships, so same-sex couples cannot become legally married here.

I think the referendum issue comes into play because it will be part of the constitutional review group and making same sex marriages legal would be included in that.

Gbear

For the sake of having same-sex marriage on solid ground it'd be as well to enshrine marriage in the constitution so that it's robust enough to stand the test of time and applies to everyone equally.
Even if it might be possible to get away with it as things stand setting it out so as to remove any ambiguity would probably be a good idea.

Turtwig

As far as Ireland is concerned I see gay marriage being passed up until the point raising and adopting kids is mentioned. Fallacious as the reasoning may be, most people I know seem to buy into the "Mother and Father" is the ideal family unit and gay's adopting is less ideal. (Even some gays fall for this!:(). Equality, is a still some way off, but progress has been made and hopefully will continue to be made. Dissolving the notion that gay couples make inferior parents will probably take a little longer than the next decade though.

jill_valentine

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I love how the priest's name is Tit.

Not going to lie, I was glad there was nobody around to hear me giggle.

jill_valentine

Can we get a definitive ruling on this sodomy deal from Actor? Is it only bad when it's gay men doing it? So straight sodomy is okay? Is lesbianism still cool then? What about lesbian sodomy, where does that fall?

Man, whenever that referendum wheels around, I can't wait to hear the wording of it.

IT-Guy

jill_valentine wrote: »

Can we get a definitive ruling on this sodomy deal from Actor? Is it only bad when it's gay men doing it? So straight sodomy is okay? Is lesbianism still cool then? What about lesbian sodomy, where does that fall?

I too await with bated breath the explanation from Actor why sodomy is bad for society! The fact he has yet to come back with anything other than a repetition of the same nonsense belies the knee-jerk nature of his comment. It's akin to the astounded silence of someone who's just found out people don't share his homophobic views.

jill_valentine wrote: »

Man, whenever that referendum wheels around, I can't wait to hear the wording of it.

If it ever gets read aloud in the Dáil/Seanad then I want Michael D Higgins to be the one to orate it, the shrill and precise pronunciation of every syllable will be music to my ears and be like nails on a blackboard to the homophobes!

Undergod

So gays that only have oral sex are grand so?

fitz0 that article made my morning.

Undergod

Actually the point I wanted to make:

"Gay Marriage" seems to be kinda asking the wrong question to me. Marriage should be disestablished and left entirely as a religious ceremony; if people want to get married in a church, that's their business, and churches with falling membership would be wise to extend their services to same-sex couples.

The other side of it is, as far as the state is concerned, marriage as it exists now is just a contract. Civil partnerships should be the only available option for couples of any orientation. It's none of the government's damn business whether or not I'm in love or having sex with my partner.

seamus

I have an issue specifically with "disestablishing" marriage and having the state switch to "Civil Partnerships". And the issue is the loading of the word "Marriage". You remove the word "marriage" from state documentation, and religious groups will instantly claim the higher ground because they have the only places you can get "married".

It's only a word, but it has a lot of sentimental meaning for people. If you say there's no longer such thing as "marriage" in law, then a lot of people will feel like their state ceremony has been somehow cheapened or lessened.

I would be inclined to establish the word more firmly in law to clarify that you may only used "marriage" to describe a cermony/partnership which includes the legal contract.

Bannasidhe

seamus wrote: »

I have an issue specifically with "disestablishing" marriage and having the state switch to "Civil Partnerships". And the issue is the loading of the word "Marriage". You remove the word "marriage" from state documentation, and religious groups will instantly claim the higher ground because they have the only places you can get "married".

It's only a word, but it has a lot of sentimental meaning for people. If you say there's no longer such thing as "marriage" in law, then a lot of people will feel like their state ceremony has been somehow cheapened or lessened.

I would be inclined to establish the word more firmly in law to clarify that you may only used "marriage" to describe a cermony/partnership which includes the legal contract.

Indeed. Let the religions have 'Holy Matrimony'.

Turtwig

I get your point Seamus and I agree with you. But I'm still a little conflicted from a pragmatic point of view. (Although my head has been spinning all weekend anyway:( So hopefully this makes sense.) Religious folks, will always have that belief of superiority and words are just an arrangement of letters. So while the word "marriage" would be theirs we could see it as an escalation of civil partnerships to equality. And while the word wouldn't be marriage, in the eyes of the law both heterosexuals and homosexuals would have equal standing. And in time religious marriage would be devalued anyway as most people would come to accept that the two are equal legal stature just that one word is kept to appease the religious.

Of course, my whole argument though is kind of only accommodating non religious LGBT members. . I can't see anyway to resolve the matter including religious LGBT members other than having the word marriage equated to any sex union. Which is what it always was, but it's not like religys are going to listen.

Sin City

sodomy, its a pain in the arse (sorry , I couldn't resist )

anyway there will come a time when all will agree that the discrimination against h will homosexuals will come to an end . They will be treated as people rather than,sexual devients who went wrong somewhere and by doing so enraged God.

Now what I want to know is , why is being gay and sodomy wrong . how does it hurt soceity ?

how will two people,who are in love hurt soceity ?

how will their union through marraige.hurt soceity ?

or is this just wanting to feel superior, now that racism is illegal ?

Does a society just.need a minority to pick on ?

Sappa

It's a queer idea to most folk in Ireland,can't see it being passed and I don't see why homosexuals feel the need to get married.

Delirium

I was mulling over the "re-defining of marriage" argument that is being voice by anti-same sex marriage folk.

The state has already re-defined marriage from what it means in the Roman Catholic church (not sure regarding other branches of Christianity). The church states that marriage is a union that only death can break. But the state takes no such stance by offering the option of divorce. So, the state and the RCC already have differing views as to what is marriage, why can't the state also include same-sex unions in its defintion of marriage?

MagicMarker

Sappa wrote: »

It's a queer idea to most folk in Ireland,can't see it being passed and I don't see why homosexuals feel the need to get married.

They probably feel the need to get married for the exact same reasons straight people feel the need to get married.

Turtwig

koth wrote: »

I was mulling over the "re-defining of marriage" argument that is being voice by anti-same sex marriage folk.

The state has already re-defined marriage from what it means in the Roman Catholic church (not sure regarding other branches of Christianity). The church states that marriage is a union that only death can break. But the state takes no such stance by offering the option of divorce. So, the state and the RCC already have differing views as to what is marriage, why can't the state also include same-sex unions in its defintion of marriage?

Kind of off topic but how close or landslide was the divorce referendum?

The difficulty here is that divorce was a no brainer for pretty much everyone. The problem I see currently with gay marriage is that the a la cartes won't see any personal gain for themselves to back it. I know plenty of people who claim to be "tolerable" and are even friendly with gay people but will oppose gay marriage in a heartbeat. So yeah, I've only got anecdotes, but it's a fear I have of Ireland, that hopefully won't be confirmed.

Sappa

MagicMarker wrote: »

Sappa wrote: »

It's a queer idea to most folk in Ireland,can't see it being passed and I don't see why homosexuals feel the need to get married.

They probably feel the need to get married for the exact same reasons straight people feel the need to get married.

Marriage is a straight tradition that should be left that way,afford them the same rights legally if it's a serious relationship off course but being married together just seems wrong.
Nothing against homosexuals and I think they need to change the law re inheritance from a partner etc but it's most likely the very camp ones who want a wedding day to show off and be flamboyant.

coffee_cake

Sappa wrote: »

Marriage is a straight tradition that should be left that way,afford them the same rights legally if it's a serious relationship off course but being married together just seems wrong.
Nothing against homosexuals and I think they need to change the law re inheritance from a partner etc but it's most likely the very camp ones who want a wedding day to show off and be flamboyant.

:eek:
what an awful and ignorant thing to say

doctoremma

Sappa wrote: »

Nothing against homosexuals

Good for you.

Sappa wrote: »

but it's most likely the very camp ones who want a wedding day to show off and be flamboyant.

Oh wait....

Sin City

Sappa wrote: »

Marriage is a straight tradition that should be left that way,afford them the same rights legally if it's a serious relationship off course but being married together just seems wrong.
Nothing against homosexuals and I think they need to change the law re inheritance from a partner etc but it's most likely the very camp ones who want a wedding day to show off and be flamboyant.

Dam people wanting weddings

Sure lets stop any woman getting married too as it just them showing off to their friends isnt it


Lets get rid of marraige all together


I love the nothing against homosexuals..................BUT

Delirium

Jernal wrote: »

Kind of off topic but how close or landslide was the divorce referendum?

The difficulty here is that divorce was a no brainer for pretty much everyone. The problem I see currently with gay marriage is that the a la cartes won't see any personal gain for themselves to back it. I know plenty of people who claim to be "tolerable" and are even friendly with gay people but will oppose gay marriage in a heartbeat. So yeah, I've only got anecdotes, but it's a fear I have of Ireland, that hopefully won't be confirmed.

According to wikipedia, 50.28% voted yes Didn't realise it was so close:eek:

With regards to divorce, it had potentially negative effect for every married couple in the country, i.e. their spouse files for divorce. Personally, I would have thought that gay marriage would be less of a problem for hetero couples.

Sappa wrote: »

Marriage is a straight tradition that should be left that way,afford them the same rights legally if it's a serious relationship off course but being married together just seems wrong.
Nothing against homosexuals and I think they need to change the law re inheritance from a partner etc but it's most likely the very camp ones who want a wedding day to show off and be flamboyant.

Yes, because only the camp ones would want to make a life-long commitment :rolleyes: And you do have something against homosexuals as you state that them being married "just seems wrong".

Links234

Sappa wrote: »

but it's most likely the very camp ones who want a wedding day to show off and be flamboyant.

yes. that's exactly it. :rolleyes:

it astonishes me that people like you think that people like me are so very less than human, that we can't possibly have the same basic human ambitions, needs and drives. I mean, we must be so disgusting, so depraved, and so wrong, we can't possibly want to marry for the same reasons as the "normals", can we? of course not, it's just to show off and be flamboyant.

Sappa

Links234 wrote: »

Sappa wrote: »

but it's most likely the very camp ones who want a wedding day to show off and be flamboyant.

yes. that's exactly it. :rolleyes:

it astonishes me that people like you think that people like me are so very less than human, that we can't possibly have the same basic human ambitions, needs and drives. I mean, we must be so disgusting, so depraved, and so wrong, we can't possibly want to marry for the same reasons as the "normals", can we? of course not, it's just to show off and be flamboyant.

Take it easy there lad,
I've a few queer mates who actually are the ones who told me that they have no desire to marry but in fact it's the flamboyant over the top ones like The Alan Carrs or Brian dowlings who like a but if camp and limelight.
What I did say was homo couples should be afforded similar legal rights for tax and inheritance which is the very same as a married couple.
If you want to go out and spend thousands on roses and wedding venues to feel special for a day then that's a decision for you but personally undone see the need for two men to go out and do this.

Sappa

Links234 wrote: »

Sappa wrote: »

but it's most likely the very camp ones who want a wedding day to show off and be flamboyant.

yes. that's exactly it. :rolleyes:

it astonishes me that people like you think that people like me are so very less than human, that we can't possibly have the same basic human ambitions, needs and drives. I mean, we must be so disgusting, so depraved, and so wrong, we can't possibly want to marry for the same reasons as the "normals", can we? of course not, it's just to show off and be flamboyant.

Take it easy there lad,
I've a few queer mates who actually are the ones who told me that they have no desire to marry but in fact it's the flamboyant over the top ones like The Alan Carrs or Brian dowlings who like a but if camp and limelight.
What I did say was homo couples should be afforded similar legal rights for tax and inheritance which is the very same as a married couple.
If you want to go out and spend thousands on roses and wedding venues to feel special for a day then that's a decision for you but personally undone see the need for two men to go out and do this.

Beruthiel

Sappa wrote: »

Marriage is a straight tradition that should be left that way,afford them the same rights legally if it's a serious relationship off course but being married together just seems wrong.
Nothing against homosexuals and I think they need to change the law re inheritance from a partner etc but it's most likely the very camp ones who want a wedding day to show off and be flamboyant.

You're dead right Sappa, you've got them gays sussed!

Jeez, things keep going as they are, society might actually start treating them like equal human beings.
Can't be having that, the universe might implode.

robindch

Sappa wrote: »

Nothing against homosexuals and I think they need to change the law re inheritance from a partner etc but it's most likely the very camp ones who want a wedding day to show off and be flamboyant.

Sappa wrote: »

I've a few queer mates [...] undone see the need for two men to go out and do this.

You realize that women can be homosexual too, don't you?

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

I get your point Seamus and I agree with you. But I'm still a little conflicted from a pragmatic point of view. (Although my head has been spinning all weekend anyway:( So hopefully this makes sense.) Religious folks, will always have that belief of superiority and words are just an arrangement of letters. So while the word "marriage" would be theirs we could see it as an escalation of civil partnerships to equality. And while the word wouldn't be marriage, in the eyes of the law both heterosexuals and homosexuals would have equal standing. And in time religious marriage would be devalued anyway as most people would come to accept that the two are equal legal stature just that one word is kept to appease the religious.

Of course, my whole argument though is kind of only accommodating non religious LGBT members. . I can't see anyway to resolve the matter including them other than having the word marriage equated to any sex union. Which is what it always was, but it's not like religys are going to listen.

I think we are letting the religious perspective on what is essentially semantics dominate the debate.

To my way of thinking there are two distinct issues at play and they need to be more clearly separated (said she who has spent the last day or so arguing over in the 'other' forum).

Firstly we have civil legislation which is enacted by the State and should, in theory, be applicable to all citizens regardless of race, creed, colour, ethnicity, or sexual orientation on the grounds that all citizens are equal under the law- yet there are two distinct pieces of civil legislation which allow adults to enter into, for want of a better term, a legally binding long-term life partnership which can only be dissolved by the courts. These two pieces of legislation are vastly different and that available only to heterosexual couples, currently called marriage, contains far more legal rights then the civil partnership which is available to homosexual couples. This makes a mockery of the notion that all citizens are equal under the law as clearly homosexual couples are not.

Then there is the concept of 'holy' matrimony or 'being joined by God' which is also known as marriage. Now this religious ceremony in and of itself has no legal standing whatsoever and is purely a religious rite but discussion of this has been allowed to dominate the debate. Marriages which take place in churches, Mosques etc only have legal standing because the State has granted the clerics of these organisations the right to act as civil registrars.

The solutions is simple. The State should withdraw this ability across the board and make the legally binding aspect of marriage only available from the State (can you imagine the ****storm :eek:) leaving the religious ceremonial aspect the preserve of the various religions as France did.

It should then grant all citizens the right to enter into a civil contract of life-partnership (call it wedlock/marriage/surry with a fringe on top anything ye like as long as the same rights/responsibilities are available to all citizens) - which would be legally binding and allow those who believe the religious aspect is important to have their union ceremonially celebrated in the religious establishment of their choice.

Whether or not these religious establishments are willing to solemnise same-sex unions will then become a purely internal matter for those organisations and each can decide for themselves. The Quakers will most likely say yes, as will the Methodists, the COI could go either way, the RCC will absolutely refuse. But it will be decided by those particular organisations and not impact on those who are not members of those organisations.

As the current debate is going, religious organisations are being allowed to muddy the waters with disinformation when no-body is asking them or seeking to oblige them to perform same-sex marriages but are actually seeking that the State, and the State alone, extend equal rights under the civil laws to all it's citizens.

G.K.

Sappa wrote: »

Take it easy there lad,
I've a few queer mates who actually are the ones who told me that they have no desire to marry but in fact it's the flamboyant over the top ones like The Alan Carrs or Brian dowlings who like a but if camp and limelight.
What I did say was homo couples should be afforded similar legal rights for tax and inheritance which is the very same as a married couple.
If you want to go out and spend thousands on roses and wedding venues to feel special for a day then that's a decision for you but personally undone see the need for two men to go out and do this.

Getting married and having a big song-and-dance shin-dig at your wedding aren't the same thing.

G.K.

Sappa wrote: »

If you want to go out and spend thousands on roses and wedding venues to feel special for a day then that's a decision for you but personally undone see the need for two men to go out and do this.

Do you think differently for straight couples?

And if so, why?

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I think we are letting the religious perspective on what is essentially semantics dominate the debate.

And there was I thinking you were a regular round these parts. It always boils down to semantics and context.:pac:


This would be the part where I agree with the rest of your post.:)