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

Delirium

dadvocate wrote: »

Let me paraphrase this in one sentence:

Holland's attempt to change the definition of marriage 12 years ago is not accepted by many countries around the world.

???

It's not an attempt, they actually did. The existence of same-sex married couples in Holland and various other countries around the world is evidence of that reality.

Nor is the sale of cannabis. What kind of smorgus board is your morality based on? Is Holland wrong about cannabis? Is Holland the best arbiter of Irish morality?

No. What has my morality got to do with allowing same-sex marriage in Ireland? Are you suggesting that same-sex marriage is somehow immoral?

The funny thing is that you are arguing that the term marriage precluded gays up until twelve years ago whereas most other posters here say that historically, marriage never precluded gays.

No I'm not. I just picked a modern example of a society that chose to allow same-sex marriage. I'm well aware that older societies allowed same-sex marriage.

Did you notice that?

And they accuse me of linguistic contortion.

dadvocate

Corkfeen wrote: »

To give credit to dadvocate, he's consistent even if he is rejecting the legal purposes of marriage altogether. Normally if we asked a person, should the infertile be allowed to marry? They'd say of course but dadvocate appears to reject all marriages without offspring, T'is amusing....

What 'legal purpose' did I reject?

Let me go even further then. Marriage was designed as a political mechanism for increasing the power of the ruling classes by joining forces with an external family. Marriage was about possession.

Marriage among the ruling classes had very little to do with love and everything to do with security.

Now anyone can get married and as a result, the nature of marriage has become nebulous. One now imagines that rich people marry for the same reasons as poor people. But they don't; rich people marry to preserve power whereas poor people marry for the transience of love.

A similar thing has happened with the 'education system'. Education was for the elite. Now everyone has to go to school but do we really have an education system rather than an indoctrination system?

The elite are educated and the hoi polloi are trained. Would you argue against this view?

So, what I am suggesting is that 'education system' is the wrong term for the 'schooling process' undergone by the hoi polloi in the same way that marriage is the wrong term for unions based on sexual desire.

What 'education system' means to you is different from what it means to an educated person.

What marriage means to you is different from what it means to a married person.

How can you refer to two males as being in 'matrimony' without changing the meanings of the latin words 'matrimonium' and 'mater', which means 'mother' currently?

Men make women into mothers. Marriage refers to a biological imperative.

However, I maintain that all people, gay, straight, single, united, all should be treated fairly and equitably under the law.

Do you think that brothers and sisters should be able to marry if they do not reproduce?

Isn't the injunction against incest based upon the possible genetic defects in offspring? And even there, genetic deformities are not always guaranteed.

What about two gay brothers or two gay sisters? Should the law preclude them from marriage?

If so, then why?

dadvocate

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

As someone pointed out earlier in the thead, discrimination based on sexual orientation is very similar to racism. The way sentences start along the lines of 'I have no problem with gay people but..........' is an exact echo of 'I'm not racist but........'.

Although it also infuriates me, and being straight I am able to look at it without subjective experience of discrimination and ludicrous comparisons, I sometimes find this argument completely hilarious. I am unsure if it is my bizarre sense of humour, but I frequently find the anti equal marriage argument funny to the point that I laugh out loud. Particularly when absurd, irrational, illogical 'arguments' such as marrying animals are brought up. The circular content of the argument is comical. We all know exactly which silly comparison is going to come out at what point. The irrational 'reasons' to oppose equal marriage have been refuted with logic and reason repeatedly throughout hundreds of posts, yet still we get 'the only valid purpose of marriage is breeding' and 'if gay marriage is legalised we will have to let people marry their sister/cat/reindeer/goldfish/grandfather/kitchen sink'. How this utter rubbish can be taken seriously in any official capacity is far beyond my understanding. No argument that I have heard yet against equal marriage has the slightest bit of credit. Usually it is not even based in reality. The motivation behind it is plain, simple homophobia and the majority of opposers tie themselves in knots trying to assure people it is not. There is very little point in one thinking they are disguising that by prefixing it with 'I have no problem with gay people but........'.

So people with opinions that go against your own are 'homophobes'?

The generaliser objects to generalisations... LOL...LMAO...ROFL... now that is ironic.:rolleyes:

dadvocate

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Many countries which have Sharia Law have polygamist marriages, and they don't seem very gay-friendly.

No they don't and women don't get much of a choice do they?

Oh, but they have the same choice as all God's children, don't they? They can use their free will to choose to be punished for refusing the offer.

Or doesn't free-will apply to Muslim women?

dadvocate

Zombrex wrote: »

This line of discussion always reminds me of the old argument some Christians used to make that if atheists don't believe in God what stops them from running around murdering people? To which the atheists replies with mild alarm "Is fear of God the only thing that stops you running around murdering people?"

Do you only think we shouldn't have sex with animals simple because that falls outside of the traditional definition of marriage?

I think we shouldn't have sex with animals because it is distressing and abusive to the animal, who is effectively being raped.

I think we shouldn't allow people to marry animals because the whole point of society recognizing marriage is that it recognizes the level of commitment and familiarity between two people (same as you recognizes parent child in context of next of kin). How can a sheep decide to take you off life support, or pick up your kids, or sign a legal document for you?

You will notice neither of these objections apply to homosexual marriage.

Why do you think these things shouldn't be allowed? Is your only object to them literally that they fall outside of the traditional notion of marriage? If so I think the issue is with you Jimi, not with gay rights campaigners.

Some people take 'husbandry' too far, don't they.

dadvocate

Benny_Cake wrote: »

The wedding ceremony was traditional in that it was performed in accordance with the customs of the Zulu and Tswana peoples. Many African ethnic groups and tribes distinguish between civil weddings, church weddings and traditional weddings (performed in accordance with tribal customs). I've come across people from places as far apart as Nigeria, Congo, Zimbabwe and South Africa who would describe their weddings in that way. This is the first traditional wedding (as far as is known) between two people of the same sex anywhere on the African continent.

Simply because we don't use the phrase "traditional" in that way in Ireland doesn't make it's use by people of a different culture ridiculous.

Traditionally, weddings involve a bride and groom therefore this marriage is a break from tradition.

Why can't we go with what words mean rather than what you want them to mean?

Why is that?

It was an un-traditional traditional wedding. Un-tradional cancels out traditional leaving just 'It was a wedding'.

If we look at the word 'wedding', we find that actually it wasn't that either.

Incorrect use of words can be misleading.

For instance, PopePalantine said that many Islamic countries allow for men and women to have more than one spouse at a time by using the word polygamy where, since Islamic women cannot have more than one spouse at a time, he should have used the word 'polygyny'.

Instead of redefining words, let's just learn what the proper words are.

Benny_Cake

dadvocate wrote: »

Traditionally, weddings involve a bride and groom therefore this marriage is a break from tradition.

Why can't we go with what words mean rather than what you want them to mean?

Why is that?

It was an un-traditional traditional wedding. Un-tradional cancels out traditional leaving just 'It was a wedding'.

If we look at the word 'wedding', we find that actually it wasn't that either.

Incorrect use of words can be misleading.

For instance, PopePalantine said that many Islamic countries allow for men and women to have more than one spouse at a time by using the word polygamy where, since Islamic women cannot have more than one spouse at a time, he should have used the word 'polygyny'.

Instead of redefining words, let's just learn what the proper words are.

I think that in that case your beef is with eNews Channel Africa, which was the source of the story. ENCA is a South African cable news channel with a viewership across the English-speaking countries of southern Africa. I'd imagine that those viewers were quite clear as to the meaning of "traditional" in the context of this story.

Just to be clear, is the only reason you object to same-sex marriage the use of the word "marriage"? Would you object if it was simply given another name?

dadvocate

Corkfeen wrote: »

I've completed all of my English exams and I expect that I've got a first or a 2.1 in it. So I guess i'm probably more qualified to comment on this than you. :pac:(Never expected to argue from authority on such a silly subject) We constantly adapt the English language. Let's try the word 'conceit', would you it say it means 'vanity' or 'notion'? Because vanity is the modern meaning of it because words change. Cousin means kinsman while silly means innocent. It's called semantics change. As you can see some of the meanings change significantly while others change to a slight degree. Oral languages constantly change, it's not unique to English.

I think you should write an angrily worded letter to both Collins and Oxford. They should revert the meanings of words to whatever period you desire. Which period would you like?

You should also recommend that the Government provide a Henry the 8th test to all potential candidates for marriage. Firstly, they will be asked if they intend on having offspring. If they answer 'yes', they will move to the next stage where their fertility will be tested. If a pregnancy is not achieved within a certain period of time, it will be rendered void. This will be applicable to current marriages too.

The fact is that the legal definition of marriage will always supersede your own. Your grasp of linguistics appears to be far more ridiculous than the average teenager's grasp of it.

Well, I think that your expectations are too high and they are dwarfed by your hubris.

But if your conceit of your kinsman makes you silly then good for you.

Corkfeen

Thank you! I don't believe I've said anything particularly silly given the fact that you're claiming that existing marriages that aren't for the purposes of procreation aren't legitimately marriages. But carry on with your rant.

dadvocate

koth wrote: »

The human is consenting to the animal mounting them. How exactly would anyone determine if an animal consented to being mounted by a human? Consent has to be given for something not be considered rape. Animals have no way of communicating their consent, which would make it rape.

Should dogs be legally protected from being raped by other dogs? Or is it only rape when humans do it?

dadvocate

28064212 wrote: »

You realise divorce exists already, right?

Yes. And you realise that this is evidence of bad coupling, right?

Bad marriages?

But this is no reason to legislate for people making bad choices.

Benny_Cake

Mod note: Ok, the bestiality talk ends here. Regardless of whether it is intended to cause offence or not, it can only result in a pointless flame war.

28064212

dadvocate wrote: »

Yes. And you realise that this is evidence of bad coupling, right?

Bad marriages?

But this is no reason to legislate for people making bad choices.

...

dadvocate wrote: »

And in what way have I contorted the meaning of 'marriage'?

dadvocate wrote: »

I see it as a solemn institution of a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman.

Marriage is not a "solemn institution of a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman". That's one of the many, many definitions it has had at many different points throughout human history. It is not the current one, rather obviously, since divorce exists

dadvocate

Benny_Cake wrote: »

I think that in that case your beef is with eNews Channel Africa, which was the source of the story. ENCA is a South African cable news channel with a viewership across the English-speaking countries of southern Africa. I'd imagine that those viewers were quite clear as to the meaning of "traditional" in the context of this story.

Just to be clear, is the only reason you object to same-sex marriage the use of the word "marriage"? Would you object if it was simply given another name?

No.

Do you remember that Colin Powell told the American people that he was going to invest in a town in Iraq. He then bombed the hell out of it.

It turns out that the word invest archaically means to place under siege.

He used a general lack of understanding of the English language to mislead the American people into supporting an agenda then got away with it on a technicality of semantics.

I don't know if you would argue against the notion that parental co-habitation is good for children in general. The term 'broken family' has certain negative connotations, doesn't it?

I don't think it is healthy for society to remove children from the concept of marriage. And I don't see anything wrong with the state providing incentives for marriages to work on that basis. It is socially responsible.

They can have 'gay clubs', which is in itself discriminatory, why can't we keep marriage as a 'straight club'?

dadvocate

Corkfeen wrote: »

Thank you! I don't believe I've said anything particularly silly given the fact that you're claiming that existing marriages that aren't for the purposes of procreation aren't legitimately marriages. But carry on with your rant.

Well, what do you mean by silly?

dadvocate

koth wrote: »

It's not an attempt, they actually did. The existence of same-sex married couples in Holland and various other countries around the world is evidence of that reality.

Well now, one country defines marriage one way and this country defines it another way but Holland have defined marriage to your satisfaction.

How many definitions of marriage are there? And which ones are wrong? Should Ireland adopt the Dutch dictionary?

koth wrote: »

No. What has my morality got to do with allowing same-sex marriage in Ireland? Are you suggesting that same-sex marriage is somehow immoral?

Your pro gay marriage stance is entirely a moral consideration and you seem to see Holland as a leaader in affairs of morality.

Abortion was legalised in Holland in 1984. Does your moral compass still point towards Holland?

Either Holland are getting it right or they aren't. Drugs, abortion, same sex marriage are all supported by Holland. Do you think that all these things together make Holland a moral authority?

koth wrote: »

No I'm not. I just picked a modern example of a society that chose to allow same-sex marriage. I'm well aware that older societies allowed same-sex marriage.

And what evidence do you have for that assertion?

Someone else tried that line of argument only to be shown that these ceremonies were not referred to as marriages and did not condone homosexual acts.

Perhaps you could, untypically, provide some evidence for those of us who think before we speak?

koth wrote: »

I'll take that as a 'no'.

Delirium

dadvocate wrote: »

Well now, one country defines marriage one way and this country defines it another way but Holland have defined marriage to your satisfaction.

How many definitions of marriage are there? And which ones are wrong? Should Ireland adopt the Dutch dictionary?

Now you're beginning to understand

Your pro gay marriage stance is entirely a moral consideration and you seem to see Holland as a leaader in affairs of morality.

Abortion was legalised in Holland in 1984. Does your moral compass still point towards Holland?

You really will take assumptions and just run with them, won't ya? I gave Holland as an example of a country that legalised same-sex marriage. Anything beyond that is just speculation on your behalf.

Either Holland are getting it right or they aren't. Drugs, abortion, same sex marriage are all supported by Holland. Do you think that all these things together make Holland a moral authority?

The world must be wonderful when it can be so black and white. Even I would agree with some of what Holland has done, I wouldn't consider them a moral authority.

And what evidence do you have for that assertion?

Someone else tried that line of argument only to be shown that these ceremonies were not referred to as marriages and did not condone homosexual acts.

Perhaps you could, untypically, provide some evidence for those of us who think before we speak?

A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome,[2] ancient Mesopotamia,[3] in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history.[4] These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed. [5]

Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt.[6] In the ancient Assyrian society, there was nothing amiss with homosexual love between men.[7] Some ancient religious Assyrian texts contain prayers for divine blessings on homosexual relationships.[8][9][9] The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.[10]

Link

So the Romans issued a law to execute same-sex married couples. To me that would give the impression that same-sex marriage was happening and the Romans wanted to stop these marriage from happening.

dadvocate

28064212 wrote: »

...


Marriage is not a "solemn institution of a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman". That's one of the many, many definitions it has had at many different points throughout human history. It is not the current one, rather obviously, since divorce exists

You think that marriage is temporary by design?

Unbelievable.

Then why is it so hard to get divorced?

Apart from the pagan ritual of handfasting, where can you marry on a temporary basis?

Who gets married and doesn't say at some point, 'We want to grow old together'?

Marriage is solemn institution of a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman whether. Whether people can live up to that commitment is a different thing and kind of goes to show that many people get married for the wrong reasons.

Like in order to obtain an Irish passport for instance. Would you really consider an Estonian girl who marries an Irishman in order to obtain a passport whereupon they seperate and ultimately divorce to have actually ever been married at all?

If not, why not?

28064212

dadvocate wrote: »

You think that marriage is temporary by design?

Whose design? And the reason for it no longer being permanent are irrelevant. Marriage is no longer permanent. Its definition has changed, despite your protestations to the contrary

MrPudding

dadvocate wrote: »

What about two gay brothers or two gay sisters? Should the law preclude them from marriage?

If so, then why?

This is an interesting question. The first point to be made is this, lifting the ban on same-sex marriage will have the effect of allowing people of the same-sex to marry. Nothing more, nothing less. It is perfectly acceptable and perfectly normal for a law to be enacted that has a particular effect on a subset of the population, the passing of such a law does not mean that law will, necessarily, effect other classes of people. For example, the development of the self defence as a defence to murder did not mean that everyone that kills someone has a defence. Note, I am not equating marriage to murder, merely pointing out that law are written or changed all the time that apply to a particular class of person and it is fairly standard practice for that class to be restricted as necessary. So, from a legal perspective this argument is pure rubbish.

Now, legal stuff aside, there may very well be an non-legal issue. If we allow gay marriage then what right, morally or ethically, do we have to not allow other classes of people to marry, siblings for example? This is a tricky one, but is not without solution. The main problem here is with the state not allowing a particular class of person access to a particular "thing." Realistically, in order for the state to discriminate against a particular class of person they must have a rational political reason for doing so. None of the reasons the anti-same sex marriage side have come up with really cut it in this respect.

These reasons were tested in the Californian Proposition 8 cases and were found to be without substance. Initially they were trying to run a moralistic argument, but it became clear this would fail so the strategy changed somewhat. They started to come use the "redefining" arguments; harm to children; where will it end type arguments, all of which they were unable to back up in any meaningful way and were subsequently rejected.

So, if you want to discriminate against a particular class of person, and you happen to be a state, then you need to come up with reasons that can appeal to people on a political level. Of course, there is sometimes an overlap, and this is ok, but the state still has to have a rational political reason for deciding to go down a particular route.

We have marriage, but it is restricted. The state needs to justify that restriction by rational political means. Marriage is already there, it is already available. The state does not need to make something new. The states position should be, where possible, one of neutrality. Rather than needing to find a reason to allow same-sex marriage the state must actually come up with a reason or continuing to not allow it. So far it has been unable to do so.

So now we have same sex marriage and we have a brother and sister saying they want to get married. Do we (the state) have to allow it? No. The state may well need to look at it, but the fact that same-sex marriage is allowed does not mean incestuous marriages must be allowed. The state will need to assess the pros and cons of allowing the. Are there any risks or harms to society? No one has come up with any plausible risks to society for same-sex marriage, unless you think same-sex marriage causes tornadoes...? So harm can't really be a justification. Is there a harm in incestuous marriage? I don't know? I believe there is. If there is it might be strong enough a reason to continue to bar it. If the risk is there we can't take the couple's word for it that they won't pro-create, even if one of them is sterile the ban might still be sensible as people might try to beat the system.

Then we need to look at the scale of the discrimination? For example, by barring same sex marriage you are preventing a gay person from marrying anyone (this of course assumes that one wants to marry a person they are actually attracted to). By barring incestuous marriage you are merely preventing a person from marrying a sibling, a tiny number compared to all those that they could conceivably marry. So the scale of the discrimination is very different.

So, now we have looked at same sex marriage. There is no appreciable harm to society that we are aware of and the scale and impact of the discrimination is rather large. As a result the state has no real justification for continuing with the discrimination.

Then we look at incestuous marriages. There are harms associated with incest therefore the state may have a rational and political basis for disallowing this type of relationship. Additionally, the level of discrimination is very small. In reality any particular person is only barred from marrying a very small number of people. Of course a man may really, really want to marry his sister, but at the end of the day it is only one person. There there is, potentially, a rational and political reason for the state to continue the bar of incestuous relationships and by extension marriage.

Polygamy is also reasonably easy to deal with. Polygamous relationships are, by there very nature, extremely unequal. A state that is trying to promote equality has no business promoting a type of relationship that undermines equality in such a manner.

MrP

murraykil

Nikah mut‘ah. Temporary marriage.

NuMarvel

28064212 wrote: »

Whose design? And the reason for it no longer being permanent are irrelevant. Marriage is no longer permanent. Its definition has changed, despite your protestations to the contrary

I wonder when divorce first came into being? It's been around since at least Ancient Rome, so we're easily looking at 2500 years. I ask because marriage not being permanent isn't a new thing. And no one knows enough about the origins of marriage to be able to say for certain it was designed to be permanent in the first place.

All we can really do is look at what we want marriage to mean today, and frame it in the context of living in a democratic society where we treat everyone as equals. Today, we accept that marriages aren't always permanent, so as a society we have changed our laws and constitution to allow people to end their marriage, and to remarry other people if they so wish.

dadvocate

koth wrote: »

Now you're beginning to understand

Back to the smorgus board, huh?

koth wrote: »

You really will take assumptions and just run with them, won't ya? I gave Holland as an example of a country that legalised same-sex marriage. Anything beyond that is just speculation on your behalf.

The world must be wonderful when it can be so black and white. Even I would agree with some of what Holland has done, I wouldn't consider them a moral authority.

So the Romans issued a law to execute same-sex married couples. To me that would give the impression that same-sex marriage was happening and the Romans wanted to stop these marriage from happening.

To sum up then, same sex unions should be recognised because they were endorsed by Greek paedophiles, Roman megalomaniacs and Holland.

According to that same article you posted, the Romans were the first to allow gay marriages. And even in these cases, such couples had no legal standing under Roman law. So, apart from a brief time in Roman history, same sex unions were not considered as marriage.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that Nero was a great moral custodian but it might be a mistake to follow his lead.

Another notable fact about all these societies is that they have all ceased to exist.

I wonder if moral decline had anything to do with it.

Delirium

dadvocate wrote: »

To sum up then, same sex unions should be recognised because they were endorsed by Greek paedophiles, Roman megalomaniacs and Holland.

Nope. You asked for examples of it in history and I provided some.

According to that same article you posted, the Romans were the first to allow gay marriages. And even in these cases, such couples had no legal standing under Roman law. So, apart from a brief time in Roman history, same sex unions were not considered as marriage.

300 years is a brief time?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that Nero was a great moral custodian but it might be a mistake to follow his lead.

Another notable fact about all these societies is that they have all ceased to exist.

I wonder if moral decline had anything to do with it.

I would think disease and military campaigns might have more to do with.

MrPudding

Trying to work out if dadvocate is a rereg and if so of who... Can't quite work it out. He is reminding me of someone, but I can't figure out who.

MrP

dadvocate

28064212 wrote: »

Whose design? And the reason for it no longer being permanent are irrelevant. Marriage is no longer permanent. Its definition has changed, despite your protestations to the contrary

What then precisely is marriage for if not to take advantage of the state?

28064212

dadvocate wrote: »

What then precisely is marriage for if not to take advantage of the state?

What happened to it being a "solemn institution of a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman"? You are the one who has attempted to claim that there is some universal definition of marriage, but it's blatantly obvious that your definition does not exist

dadvocate

MrPudding wrote: »

This is an interesting question. The first point to be made is this, lifting the ban on same-sex marriage will have the effect of allowing people of the same-sex to marry. Nothing more, nothing less. It is perfectly acceptable and perfectly normal for a law to be enacted that has a particular effect on a subset of the population, the passing of such a law does not mean that law will, necessarily, effect other classes of people. For example, the development of the self defence as a defence to murder did not mean that everyone that kills someone has a defence. Note, I am not equating marriage to murder, merely pointing out that law are written or changed all the time that apply to a particular class of person and it is fairly standard practice for that class to be restricted as necessary. So, from a legal perspective this argument is pure rubbish.

Now, legal stuff aside, there may very well be an non-legal issue. If we allow gay marriage then what right, morally or ethically, do we have to not allow other classes of people to marry, siblings for example? This is a tricky one, but is not without solution. The main problem here is with the state not allowing a particular class of person access to a particular "thing." Realistically, in order for the state to discriminate against a particular class of person they must have a rational political reason for doing so. None of the reasons the anti-same sex marriage side have come up with really cut it in this respect.

These reasons were tested in the Californian Proposition 8 cases and were found to be without substance. Initially they were trying to run a moralistic argument, but it became clear this would fail so the strategy changed somewhat. They started to come use the "redefining" arguments; harm to children; where will it end type arguments, all of which they were unable to back up in any meaningful way and were subsequently rejected.

So, if you want to discriminate against a particular class of person, and you happen to be a state, then you need to come up with reasons that can appeal to people on a political level. Of course, there is sometimes an overlap, and this is ok, but the state still has to have a rational political reason for deciding to go down a particular route.

We have marriage, but it is restricted. The state needs to justify that restriction by rational political means. Marriage is already there, it is already available. The state does not need to make something new. The states position should be, where possible, one of neutrality. Rather than needing to find a reason to allow same-sex marriage the state must actually come up with a reason or continuing to not allow it. So far it has been unable to do so.

So now we have same sex marriage and we have a brother and sister saying they want to get married. Do we (the state) have to allow it? No. The state may well need to look at it, but the fact that same-sex marriage is allowed does not mean incestuous marriages must be allowed. The state will need to assess the pros and cons of allowing the. Are there any risks or harms to society? No one has come up with any plausible risks to society for same-sex marriage, unless you think same-sex marriage causes tornadoes...? So harm can't really be a justification. Is there a harm in incestuous marriage? I don't know? I believe there is. If there is it might be strong enough a reason to continue to bar it. If the risk is there we can't take the couple's word for it that they won't pro-create, even if one of them is sterile the ban might still be sensible as people might try to beat the system.

Then we need to look at the scale of the discrimination? For example, by barring same sex marriage you are preventing a gay person from marrying anyone (this of course assumes that one wants to marry a person they are actually attracted to). By barring incestuous marriage you are merely preventing a person from marrying a sibling, a tiny number compared to all those that they could conceivably marry. So the scale of the discrimination is very different.

So, now we have looked at same sex marriage. There is no appreciable harm to society that we are aware of and the scale and impact of the discrimination is rather large. As a result the state has no real justification for continuing with the discrimination.

Then we look at incestuous marriages. There are harms associated with incest therefore the state may have a rational and political basis for disallowing this type of relationship. Additionally, the level of discrimination is very small. In reality any particular person is only barred from marrying a very small number of people. Of course a man may really, really want to marry his sister, but at the end of the day it is only one person. There there is, potentially, a rational and political reason for the state to continue the bar of incestuous relationships and by extension marriage.

Polygamy is also reasonably easy to deal with. Polygamous relationships are, by there very nature, extremely unequal. A state that is trying to promote equality has no business promoting a type of relationship that undermines equality in such a manner.

MrP

Interesting. Do you think that the Irish state promotes equality? Obviously, Irish people are more equal than English people but do you believe that the state is really about equality?

I think it is more about popularity than equality.

And stealing from as many people as possible.

It's kind of sweet that you believe that big brother is looking out for you.

It seems that you are okay with discrimination as long as the demograph being discriminated against is suitably small.

Most posters here think that children have no part in marriage but incest is prohibited entirely due to the offspring that might be produced in such marriages.

If marriage is not about children then why are brothers prohibited from marrying their sisters?

So, on the one hand incestuous people are prohibited from being married because of the kind of children they might have and gay people are prohibited from marriage because of the children they can't have?

Apart from the question of children, is there anything else that can prohibit one from being married?

I don't think so.

Now, as far as historical evidence is concerned, there is a great deal more support for incest than there is for same sex unions. Much more.

Abraham married his half-sister Sarah. As did Tutankhamun. Caligula had incestuous relationships with his sisters and Claudius had his niece. Cleopatra was married to her brother and her parents were also siblings. And uncles were regularly marrying their nieces as in the case of Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, in 1666.

Even if you consider that Nero has more street cred than Caligula, historically, incest is more acceptable than same sex unions.

Are you prepared to argue that Abraham's incestuous relationship with Sarah brought harm to Jewish society?

Of course not, it caused it. (Apparently.)

But okay, you think that the law should discriminate against loving relationships that are incestuous but what about gay incest?

If gay marriage is ratified then on what grounds can the state object to two homosexual brothers or two lesbian sisters getting married?

In what way is their relationship less acceptable that two unrelated gay people's relationship? In fact, one might argue that the sibling relationship is inherently more stable.

Also, if sex is not the basis of marriage then how come non-consummation of the marriage entitles one to a divorce?

On your last point about equality, who suffers most as a result of domestic violence in this country?

Do you need some stats to help you out?

In what universe can this government be considered as being a promoter of equality?

Finally, on what basis are you asserting that polygamous relationships are less equitable than monogamous relationships? You must know a lot of polygamists.

dadvocate

murraykil wrote: »

Nikah mut‘ah. Temporary marriage.

Handfasting Temporary marriage.

As is, I suppose, Pederasty

dadvocate

NuMarvel wrote: »

I wonder when divorce first came into being? It's been around since at least Ancient Rome, so we're easily looking at 2500 years. I ask because marriage not being permanent isn't a new thing. And no one knows enough about the origins of marriage to be able to say for certain it was designed to be permanent in the first place.



All we can really do is look at what we want marriage to mean today, and frame it in the context of living in a democratic society where we treat everyone as equals. Today, we accept that marriages aren't always permanent, so as a society we have changed our laws and constitution to allow people to end their marriage, and to remarry other people if they so wish.

Jews were allowed to divorce under Mosaic law.

Perhaps it is an over romantic view but I would like to think that couples join together with an intent to stay together. People who intend to divorce shouldn't really marry in the first place.

As I have previously said, it is one thing for society to support children born into it but I fail to see why legal rights are conferred on people just because they live together and have sex. If divorce becomes just a little easier then all couples who can benefit from the state by being married would find it hard not to get married on an intentionally temporary basis.

Also, it seems perverse that people can love each other to such an extent that they want to impose a contractual obligation on each other.

Let's face it, the divorce courts treat marriage as a pre-nuptual agreement.