The Gay Megathread (see mod note on post #2212)

dadvocate

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

What should it be called then, when a couple gets married knowing they are infertile?

Good question.

dadvocate

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

My marriage will not be about 'producing heirs'. It will be about ensuring my partner has parental rights to the 'heir' we already produced without being married. We decided long ago that we would be together for life and do not need anyone to cast a marriage spell over us to assure that.

So it seems I am not going to be 'married', as the intent is not to 'produce heirs'? What shall we call it then after it has happened do you think?

Funnily enough the Irish state will view us as married, and call our relationship a marriage from that point on. So will other states. It is a Civil Servant conducting the state's business who will carry out the ceremony. They didn't make any effort to ensure that our intent was to 'produce heirs' when we gave notice to the registrar. So the in the eyes of the state we will be married. Can you explain to me who it is exactly that will not recognise that we have a marriage after this ceremony?

And that same Irish state views the behaviour of the bankers in recent times as legal.

They would get an argument from me over that too.

Why is it so important to you to rebrand 'civil partnerships' as 'marriages'?

Kiwi in IE

dadvocate wrote: »

And that same Irish state views the behaviour of the bankers in recent times as legal.

They would get an argument from me over that too.

Why is it so important to you to rebrand 'civil partnerships' as 'marriages'?

Can you answer my question? Who is it that will not recognise my marriage due to the intent not being procreation?

Bankers have naught to do with this debate.

dadvocate

Corkfeen wrote: »

That's utter rubbish. If a person marries and doesn't reproduce, they are still legally married. Just because you're being exceedingly obtuse, it doesn't change what is legally defined. Do you really believe that infertile people who marry are not married? Let's be realistic here, marriage is not legally defined as being solely about reproducing. You've just redefined the meaning of marriage in contemporary society, congratulations! Your entire argument is don't steal my word and it actually negates plenty of existing marriages.

If I recall correctly same sex unions occured in medieval society at a couple of points. Also Ancient Mesopotamia and Greece had them.
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/06/11/us/beliefs-study-medieval-rituals-same-sex-unions-raises-question-what-were-they.html

Did you read that article?

From page 2:

'What they did in bed, however, is a central issue if Dr. Boswell's findings are going to play a part in the debate over recognizing same-sex unions legally or religiously. One suspects that his book would get a very different reception if instead of suggesting that these same-sex unions tacitly were accommodating homosexual relations, he had argued that they were meant to be strictly free of any sexual acts, no matter how profound the emotional attachment of the participants, or whether that strict chastity was sometimes abandoned behind the screen of a "spiritual brotherhood."'

Or are you 'evolving' the meanings of certain words in your cited article.

The article is very carefully referring to 'same-sex union' ceremonies, not marriages.

If you are going to accuse me of being obtuse you must try to understand the argument first because now it is you who appears obtuse and not for the first time. 'Church' does not mean RCC.

Here is something I am bearing in mind when I use the term 'marriage':

http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries

Kiwi in IE

dadvocate wrote: »

Why is it so important to you to rebrand 'civil partnerships' as 'marriages'?

I can't have a civil partnership even of I wanted one. I am straight.

dadvocate

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Can you answer my question? Who is it that will not recognise my marriage due to the intent not being procreation?

Bankers have naught to do with this debate.

And nor does the Irish state or any other political movement whose bread and butter is linguististic subversion and ambiguity.

But to answer your rather weak question, no-one who understands the meaning of marriage would consider a couple who intend to produce no offspring as being part of the institution of marriage.

In fact, one can view the term 'marriage' as a word used to describe a process of creating 'mothers'.

Or perhaps we should 'evolve' the meanings of old Latin words like 'matrimonium' too?

dadvocate

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I can't have a civil partnership even of I wanted one. I am straight.

Sorry to hear that.

But what is the purpose of your marriage? The tax-breaks? Legal protection in the event of a change of heart by one of you in the future? If so, then you are using marriage as a way increasing your wealth and at the same time creating, in effect, a pre-nuptual agreement. Pragmatic, perhaps, but hardly romantic.

If it is about only love then none of these things should matter. The pagans offer a 'handfasting' ritual that binds couples for a year and a day after which they are free to seperate or become 're-handfasted'.

If you want to provide for each other in the event of death then legal bequeathments are an option.

In other words, as long as you, your significant other, family and close friends recognise your union, then why should it matter how you commit yourselves to each other?

Kiwi in IE

dadvocate wrote: »

And nor does the Irish state or any other political movement whose bread and butter is linguististic subversion and ambiguity.

But to answer your rather weak question, no-one who understands the meaning of marriage would consider a couple who intend to produce no offspring as being part of the institution of marriage.

In fact, one can view the term 'marriage' as a word used to describe a process of creating 'mothers'.

If marriage has nothing to do with the state then whose job is it to recognise and legally protect marriage?

I already am a mother, so clearly marriage is not necessary to 'create mothers'. I explained in an earlier post my intention to get married. Currently if I die, my mother who lives on the other side of the world would be considered my son's next of kin by the Irish state (although interestingly not by the state my mother lives in), over his biological father who lives in the same house.

So although we may or may not have further children, that is not our intention in getting married.

Your answer to my question as to who will not recognise my marriage due to the motivation behind it, is hardly convincing. What does 'anyone who understands the meaning of marriage' mean? You? Your Church? The opinions of both are entirely irrelevant to my family.

dadvocate

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I have already answered this. Because right now, if I die, my mother on the other side of the world would be legally considered my son's next of kin, over his biological father who lives in the same house.

Now I have answered your question. Can you now answer mine? In whose eyes will we not be considered married?

I am beginning to suspect I am 'feeding' rather than debating.

You hadn't answered. This is the first time you've mentioned this.

I have a young son and I am seperated from his mother but because I am named as his father on the birth certificate and because I have a joint custody ruling from the court, I am his next of kin if something should happen to his mother.

Can't you make a similar arrangement?

You don't need a solicitor, it costs nothing, just inquire at your local courthouse.

And I don't think one needs to be married in order to make that provision.

Ask a solicitor.

I did answer your question and I can assure you that I am engaged with this debate and you shouldn't worry about my appetite.

dadvocate

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

If marriage has nothing to do with the state then whose job is it to recognise and legally protect marriage?

I already am a mother, so clearly marriage is not necessary to 'create mothers'. I explained in an earlier post my intention to get married. Currently if I die, my mother who lives on the other side of the world would be considered my son's next of kin by the Irish state (although interestingly not by the state my mother lives in), over his biological father who lives in the same house.

So although we may or may not have further children, that is not our intention in getting married.

Your answer to my question as to who will not recognise my marriage due to the motivation behind it, is hardly convincing. What does 'anyone who understands the true meaning of marriage' mean? You? Your Church? The opinions of both are entirely irrelevant to my family.

I don't know what happened to your other post but I think you miss the point in this one.

To your first question I say that only you can know what your union means to you. You can't even truly know what your husband's long term intentions or feelings are. Some people get married purely for reasons of obtaining a passport. Their marriages are legally recognised but would you really consider them married or would you consider them as abusing the institute of marriage?

Who cares who recognises your union more than you do?

I didn't say that marriage is the only way to make mothers, I simply stated that marriage can be thought of as the creation of breeding pairs.

And if you doubt this, just look at the problems that arise in marriages precisely because of difficulty in producing heirs. Henry the Eighth provides one good example.

As far as your final statement is concerned, the only opinions that matter are yours and your husband's.

And finally, since you have illucidated your own situation, your circumstances seem to be not at odds with what I have said regarding the parameters of what I consider to define the term 'marriage' and I wish you a long and happy one.

Equally, I wish long lasting happiness to gay couples but unfortunately they do not qualify for the institution of marriage since they cannot provide soldiers for the armies of tomorrow.

Kiwi in IE

dadvocate wrote: »

You hadn't answered. This is the first time you've mentioned this.

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

My marriage will not be about 'producing heirs'. It will be about ensuring my partner has parental rights to the 'heir' we already produced without being married. We decided long ago that we would be together for life and do not need anyone to cast a marriage spell over us to assure that.

I am sorry I read your first post before the second and then deleted and re wrote when I saw you had answered (somewhat).

My family is as entitled as any other family to legal protection I would think, whether or not the intent of our marriage is to produce heirs.

If we make an agreement with a solicitor and one of us dies, the other would have to pay 30% of our life insurance policy to inheritance tax. Should we only be allowed to be exempt from this if we intend to produce more heirs?

Interestingly we will be financially worse off after we are married. The amount a married couple can earn before the high tax bracket kicks in is lower than the threshold on two separate 'single' incomes.

If the only reason a marriage should be considered valid is if the intent is to create heirs, why does the registrar not ask if this is so when notice is given?

Kiwi in IE

dadvocate wrote: »

I don't know what happened to your other post but I think you miss the point in this one.

To your first question I say that only you can know what your union means to you. You can't even truly know what your husband's long term intentions or feelings are. Some people get married purely for reasons of obtaining a passport. Their marriages are legally recognised but would you really consider them married or would you consider them as abusing the institute of marriage?

Who cares who recognises your union more than you do?

I didn't say that marriage is the only way to make mothers, I simply stated that marriage can be thought of as the creation of breeding pairs.

And if you doubt this, just look at the problems that arise in marriages precisely because of difficulty in producing heirs. Henry the Eighth provides one good example.

As far as your final statement is concerned, the only opinions that matter are yours and your husband's.

And finally, since you have illucidated your own situation, your circumstances seem to be not at odds with what I have said regarding the parameters of what I consider to define the term 'marriage' and I wish you a long and happy one.

Equally, I wish long lasting happiness to gay couples but unfortunately they do not qualify for the institution of marriage since they cannot provide soldiers for the armies of tomorrow.

Henry the Eighth may be a fine example of issues in marriages that fail to produce heirs, but we no longer are living in 1536. Same goes for the 'armies of tomorrow' comment.

Why should gay couples not be afforded the exact same legal rights as married straight couples? Or do you think they should be so long as they choose a different word?

murraykil

dadvocate wrote: »

...

Equally, I wish long lasting happiness to gay couples but unfortunately they do not qualify for the institution of marriage since they cannot provide soldiers for the armies of tomorrow.

Fortunately you are wrong, they do qualify . . .

France's president has signed into law a controversial bill making the country the ninth in Europe, and 14th globally, to legalise gay marriage.

BBC

Kiwi in IE

dadvocate wrote: »

To your first question I say that only you can know what your union means to you. You can't even truly know what your husband's long term intentions or feelings are

I can't, but neither can someone who is marrying to produce an heir!

dadvocate

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I am sorry I read your first post before the second and then deleted and re wrote when I saw you had answered (somewhat).

My family is as entitled as any other family to legal protection I would think, whether or not the intent of our marriage is to produce heirs.

If we make an agreement with a solicitor and one of us dies, the other would have to pay 30% of our life insurance policy to inheritance tax. Should we only be allowed to be exempt from this if we intend to produce more heirs?

Interestingly we will be financially worse off after we are married. The amount a married couple can earn before the high tax bracket kicks in is lower than the threshold on two separate 'single' incomes.

If the only reason a marriage should be considered valid is if the intent is to create heirs, why does the registrar not ask if this is so when notice is given?

I think tax law is a different thing and I can think of few things that are more morally reprehensible than the inheritance tax situation.

Look, I would argue that gay couples should be able to join their estates and are entitled to a ceremony to celebrate that union if they wish but they are not entitled to the term 'marriage' which connotes 'genetically productive'.

The problem for gays is not with 'marriage', it's with the law as it applies to married couples.

And where do you draw the line? Is it fair that a single, socially awkward, spotty, smelly male who will never know what it is to be in a relationship should be financially discriminated against?

Let's just give the rights of marriage to any pair of acquaintances who profess some kind of loyalty to one another and let those who are alone make acquantance with the state.

I wonder, would you support the idea of a pre-op transgender becoming a nun? Wouldn't you run the risk of facilitating a male invasion of nunneries if you did and prevailed?

Marriage is marriage, same sex unions are same sex unions. Why can't they just leave our 'straight stuff' alone?

They don't just want to change our language, they want to change our traditions and customs to suit themselves.

Let them develop their own customs, we've spent thousands of years on ours and now we have minority rule.

The privilege of marriage is not the same as gay discrimination any more than it is discrimination against single people.

Anyway, from what you say, the only advantage you gain from being married is an inheritance tax break. Is that why gay people want to be 'married'?

dadvocate

murraykil wrote: »

Fortunately you are wrong, they do qualify . . .



BBC

No, they are wrong, they don't.

murraykil

dadvocate wrote: »

No, they are wrong, they don't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZLB9Y7lPw8

Kiwi in IE

The equal marriage campaign is not interested in 'religious marriage'. That is just a ceremony between religious people and their churches. Those who are married in church must have their marriage made official by the registrars office otherwise it is invalid. Marriage in the eyes of the state is what is important and what gay people want access to.

A marriage carried out by a religious leader without having gone through the process of notifying the state registrar, in order for the marriage to be made official by the state, is about as legitimate as a marriage carried out by a six year old playing 'weddings'. Marriages do not require any input from religious institutions however, to make them legally legitimate.

It sounds from you post that you really would prefer to have lived in 1536.

jill_valentine

"Armies of tomorrow", wtf?!?!

I will never get over seeing people so hell bent on preventing gay people from being together that they'll twist their own definition of marriage into bizarre knots in the hope of contriving an obstruction, sooner than just mind their own business and let them get on with it. It's like throwing dirt over a buffet you have to eat from just to spite a subsequent diner.

Procreation hasn't been a requirement of civil marriages in forever. In civil marriages, it's a moot point. But Dadadvocate is apparently contending that the model of marriage Christians aspire to, and want to see enforced should have nothing to do with love at all. And then you hear people accuse gay people of devaluing the concept!

Oy.

dadvocate

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Henry the Eighth may be a fine example of issues in marriages that fail to produce heirs, but we no longer are living in 1536. Same goes for the 'armies of tomorrow' comment.

Why should gay couples not be afforded the exact same legal rights as married straight couples? Or do you think they should be so long as they choose a different word?

Let me answer with another question; do you think that being actively involved in a sexual relationship should confer any particular rights at all?

Or, should a couple that intend to live in abstention be allowed to marry and have the rights that are bestowed on married couples?

What about 'firm friends forever'? What if they decide that they wanted to call their relationship a 'marriage' and avail of the rights of married couples on the basis that they are no different to a couple living in abstention?

What about unmarried brothers or unmarried sisters who live together, suppose they were to decide that they were like a married couple and seek recognition?

Where does one draw the line?

The word marriage would become meaningless since any show of commitment, however loose, however temporary, would qualify as a marriage.

But in essence, yes, gay people should choose a different word for their unions and the law should recognise them as a type of family unit but I don't think that marriage should give rise to any 'rights' in any circumstances except to protect the interests of the participants that are not available to the unmarried population.

There is no need to reward people for falling in love and there is no reason to penalise those who don't.

dadvocate

murraykil wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZLB9Y7lPw8

It wasn't a wedding. A wedding requires a bride.

Kiwi in IE

Ah we've nearly come full circle! We are up to the 'why shouldn't any combination of two people be allowed to marry' argument!

Coming soon to a theatre near you THE ANIMAL 'ARGUMENT'

Here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush...........

murraykil

jill_valentine wrote: »

"Armies of tomorrow", wtf?!?!

I will never get over seeing people so hell bent on preventing gay people from being together that they'll twist their own definition of marriage into bizarre knots in the hope of contriving an obstruction, sooner than just mind their own business and let them get on with it. It's like throwing dirt over a buffet you have to eat from just to spite a subsequent diner.

Procreation hasn't been a requirement of civil marriages in forever. In civil marriages, it's a moot point. But Dadadvocate is apparently contending that the model of marriage Christians aspire to, and want to see enforced should have nothing to do with love at all. And then you hear people accuse gay people of devaluing the concept!

Oy.

You will get over it as they will fail; marriage equality is inevitable.

dadvocate

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The equal marriage campaign is not interested in 'religious marriage'. That is just a ceremony between religious people and their churches. Those who are married in church must have their marriage made official by the registrars office otherwise it is invalid. Marriage in the eyes of the state is what is important and what gay people want access to.

A marriage carried out by a religious leader without having gone through the process of notifying the state registrar, in order for the marriage to be made official by the state, is about as legitimate as a marriage carried out by a six year old playing 'weddings'. Marriages do not require any input from religious institutions however, to make them legally legitimate.

It sounds from you post that you really would prefer to have lived in 1536.

Like I said, it is the law that needs to change, not the definition of marriage.

Kiwi in IE

dadvocate wrote: »

It wasn't a wedding. A wedding requires a bride.

It was a wedding. They are married. They have the same legal rights as you would in a marriage in that country. The opinion of you and your church are completely irrelevant and do not change the legal fact that this couple are married. Get over it! Move on!

murraykil

dadvocate wrote: »

It wasn't a wedding. A wedding requires a bride.

Not any more!

dadvocate

jill_valentine wrote: »

"Armies of tomorrow", wtf?!?!

I will never get over seeing people so hell bent on preventing gay people from being together that they'll twist their own definition of marriage into bizarre knots in the hope of contriving an obstruction, sooner than just mind their own business and let them get on with it. It's like throwing dirt over a buffet you have to eat from just to spite a subsequent diner.

Procreation hasn't been a requirement of civil marriages in forever. In civil marriages, it's a moot point. But Dadadvocate is apparently contending that the model of marriage Christians aspire to, and want to see enforced should have nothing to do with love at all. And then you hear people accuse gay people of devaluing the concept!

Oy.

Wow! Look at the size of your ignorance.

http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries

dadvocate

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Ah we've nearly come full circle! We are up to the 'why shouldn't any combination of two people be allowed to marry' argument!

Coming soon to a theatre near you THE ANIMAL 'ARGUMENT'

Here we go round the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush...........

Ah, I see, you are not debating are you, you are just feeding.

murraykil

dadvocate wrote: »

CENSORED DISGRACEFUL PERSONAL ATTACK.

http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries

Nice, I see you have found how we can have a bride in male gay marriage!

...

Since the ancient world, marriage has evolved from a preservation of power to a personal contract between two equals seeking love, stability, and happiness. Ron Royals/Corbis
...

http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries

(Image and link kindly provided by dadvocate)

Kiwi in IE

dadvocate wrote: »

Wow! Look at the size of your ignorance.

http://theweek.com/article/index/228541/how-marriage-has-changed-over-centuries

What are we to take from that article? What do you take from it? That in order to put marriage back to it's 'traditional state' before awful things like women's rights and contraception came into play, we need to go back to women being 'subordinate' to their husbands? I doubt you'd find very many, even devoutly religious, women who would go along with that!