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

dadvocate

28064212 wrote: »

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

It was your side that implied that the ceremonies of marriage are meant to be a temporary arrangement.

I hold that neither church nor civil ceremonies are conducted on the basis that the union is temporary.

Try it. Go to a priest or registrar and say, 'I want to marry this woman so that she can obtain a passport and then divorce her when she gets it. Is that cool?'

What response do you think you will get?

Try saying, 'Well, I will love this woman for ten years and then I will divorce her for a younger model. Will you marry us?'

When you get married, you are marrying for life and if you divorce, you will incur a penalty under the terms of the marriage contract.

Do you know what contract means? When you marry, you sign a contract and there is no expiry date.

What kind of ceremony do you have in mind that is at odds with what I say?

What is blatantly obvious is that you simply do not have a clue about what marriage actually is.

For your own edification, look up the word 'contract'.

murraykil

The House of Commons has voted to allow gay marriage in England and Wales, despite 161 MPs opposing the government's plans.

The House of Commons has voted to allow gay marriage in England and Wales, despite 161 MPs opposing the government's plans.

Several Tory MPs spoke against the proposals, which have caused tensions in the party, but the Labour and Lib Dem leaderships backed them.

The Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill now goes before the House of Lords.

David Cameron hopes it will become law soon, with the first ceremonies taking place by next summer.

The bill, if passed, will allow same-sex couples, who can currently hold civil ceremonies, to marry.

Religious organisations would have to "opt in" to offering weddings, with the Church of England and Church in Wales being banned in law from doing so.

...

BBC

A Bill to make provision for the marriage of same sex couples in England and Wales, about gender change by married persons and civil partners, about consular functions in relation to marriage, for the marriage of armed forces personnel overseas, and for connected purposes.

services.parliament.uk

We can be confident that Ireland will follow suit and legislate for the marriage of same sex couples as well as gender change by married persons and civil partners.

dadvocate

murraykil wrote: »

BBC



services.parliament.uk

We can be confident that Ireland will follow suit and legislate for the marriage of same sex couples as well as gender change by married persons and civil partners.

I wonder why the Church of England is banned by law from opting in.

Is that to say the the Church of England is prohibited by law from creating same sex unions? Or recognising them?

All things considered, that seems bizarre.

murraykil

Gay marriage plans offer 'quadruple lock' for opposed religious groups

...

Miller promised a quadruple lock, which would:

• Ensure that no religious organisation or individual minister can be compelled to marry same-sex couples or to permit this to happen on their premises.

• Provide an opt-in system for religious organisation who wish to conduct marriages for same-sex couples.

• Amend the Equality Act 2010 to reflect that no discrimination claims can be brought against religious organisations or individual ministers for refusing to marry a same-sex couple.

• Ensure that legislation will not affect the canon law of the Church of England or the Church in Wales. As a result, if either church wanted to conduct a same-sex marriage, it would require a change to primary legislation at a later date and a change to canon law.

The Church of England had warned that canon law could not conflict with government statute, but Miller said parliament was supreme and could state that church canon law could be different from statute.

...

Guardian

I expect that this will be stimulation for the Irish Government when they seek to enact similar legislation.

dadvocate

This is from the same article:

"Conservative critics had tabled a proposal to allow heterosexual couples enter into civil partnerships, if gay couples were allowed to get married."

We wouldn't want too much equality now, would we?

Gays are obviously more equal than straights.

dadvocate

murraykil wrote: »

Guardian

I expect that this will be stimulation for the Irish Government when they seek to enact similar legislation.

I'm not so sure. I think that the RCC has more clout in this country than the CoE has in England where religion is considered as astrology's little brother.

murraykil

It was a very courageous decision by David Cameron!

Prime minister sends personal note to party members as senior figure claims he is 'worse than John Major'

...

Guardian

Considering the great role that John Major played in the peace process in Ireland Cameron should take these jibes as a compliment! :pac:

Cool image from the Guardian blog which was covering the debate today!

MrPudding

dadvocate wrote: »

I wonder why the Church of England is banned by law from opting in.

Is that to say the the Church of England is prohibited by law from creating same sex unions? Or recognising them?

All things considered, that seems bizarre.

I will get to your response to my earlier post later. In the meantime, first, who cares if a church does not recognise a marriage? That does not mean anything. Only state recognition matters. Secondly, the CoI is barred from same sex marriage so a minister will not have to marry a same sex couple when he does not want to. The CoI must marry anyone that presents themselves to be married, assuming there is no reason they can't be married. Therefore, without this restriction a same sex couple could go to any CoI church and demand to be married.

MrP

aloyisious

@Dadvocate: Naw, you ain't being overly romantic in thinking that that couples join together with an intent to stay together, horse and carriage etc.....

I am more than bemused by your quote that couples who intend to divorce shouldn't really marry in the first place. It sound as if you think, or are sceptical about pre-arrangements on divorce, that some couples marry solely for the pleasure of divorce, not that the couple ran into unforseen problems which make them incompatible as a married couple. Would you be thinking of Richard B and Elizabeth T ?

As I understand it, the RCC run's pre-marriage courses for couples who wish to marry, so they are prepared (as far as possible) for the chance that they might face rocky roads together, and to prevent couples finding marriage was incompatible to them as a couple in the first place, with divorce a possible outcome for them.

Your "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" sound's like you don't approve of religious marriage as a covenant before one's God, let no man pull apart, etc......

Would you approve of homosexual couples exchanging Civil Marriage vows here, yea or nay?

tommy2bad

CoE forbidden from conducting same sex ceremonies? but same sex marriage legal in the state? I wonder if this is the beginning of disestablishment?

Kiwi in IE

Do religious people think others outside their religion actually care whether or not their church recognises the marriages of people of other religions or no religion?

tommy2bad

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Do religious people think others outside their religion actually care whether or not their church recognises the marriages of people of other religions or no religion?

Some do and some don't but the situation in England is a bit more complicated as the CoE is the established religion so when the state recognizes gay marriage so should the state religion.
It's not like France or America where state and religion are separated by the constitutions of the countries.
Oh and as far as I know various churches recognize each others marriages even Muslim marriages are recognized as valid by Christian churches.

MrPudding

dadvocate wrote: »

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?

Generally the state has an interest in equality. That is not to say it gets it right everything, but the state, or a state, has an interest in promoting equality. Beyond the state the EU promotes equality as far as it can.

There are always going to be inequalities, but it is about doing what is possible.

dadvocate wrote: »

I think it is more about popularity than equality.

And stealing from as many people as possible.

Popularity and equality are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, according to the various polls on the subject the majority of people in Ireland support same-sex marriage, so allowing same sex marriage is is the correct thing according to principles of equality and popularity.

dadvocate wrote: »

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

Meh. Rather the state than some religion.

dadvocate wrote: »

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

That is not quite what I said, and I suspect you are quite aware of that. I will try again, just in case this is a genuine misunderstanding. The scale of the discrimination is something that need to be taken into consideration, but this is in conjunction with other things. So, continuing with incest, Pete want to marry his sister Monica. The state currently says he can't. If we analyse the discrimination we find that Pete and Monica are in a relatively small demographic group, the majority of people would not be attract to their siblings. We also look at the scale of the discrimination, not just the size of the demographic. So in this case each of them is being told they can't marry one person. Out of all the people in the world the result of this discrimination is that they can't marry one person. We also then look at the harm, or potential harm, of incestuous relationships. Once each of these areas is analysed the state can decide if the discrimination is a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.

dadvocate wrote: »

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.

It is not the fact that children will be born, per se, that is the issue. It is the damage that will be done to the gene pool and the additional economic strain that this could but on society. Really, this is a bit of a stretch for you.

dadvocate wrote: »

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

The primary prohibition is for sexual relations with siblings, it also happens that they can't get married. Sex with you sister, whether you are married or not, is illegal, it is illegal because it is believed to be damaging to the gene pool.

dadvocate wrote: »

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?

No incestuous people are prohibited form having sexual relationships, they also happen to be barred from marriage. They are barred from sex because because it is considered to be dangerous. Whilst it might be possible to show that the danger is not there for a particular couple, laws tend to work in generalisations. You can't equate an inability to have children with an increased likelihood to have children with severe genetic anomalies.

dadvocate wrote: »

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

I don't think so.

Being already married, the person you want to marry is not a consenting adult, you are not mentally capable...

dadvocate wrote: »

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.

I know this can be a difficult concept for religious people, but just because something was done or not done in the past id not a sufficient reason for it to continue to be done or not done now.

dadvocate wrote: »

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

Clearly I don't spend as much time thinking about all the possible variations of gay sex as you do. I don't have an opinion on gay incest. I would need to think about it. You clearly have the advantage of having already had gay incest in your mind.

And a minor correction, I don't think I have said the law should discriminate against loving incestuous relationships. I merely pointed out the considerations that a state must make when deciding if they are justified in outlawing them.

dadvocate wrote: »

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.

I am not sure, I would need to think about it. Perhaps after analysis the result might be that same sex siblings could marry. So what?

dadvocate wrote: »

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

Two things. First, I never said sex was not the basis of marriage. Secondly, I think the argument was about children and not sex.

dadvocate wrote: »

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?

No, no stats required, but if you wanted to point out the relevance that would be super awesome.

dadvocate wrote: »

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

Is this a serious question? First of all, I am speaking in general terms about the roles and responsibilities of a state. Secondly, are you saying that the Irish government, or the EU does not promote equality? I am not talking perfect equality overnight, that would be impossible. Nor am I talking about absolute equality, some discrimination is perfectly OK, in fact necessary.

So please feel free to go off on a rant about how the Irish government is not about equality while you count you blessing that you don't live in some other countries.

dadvocate wrote: »

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

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=scholary+articles+polygamy+inequality+harm

MrP

murraykil

tommy2bad wrote: »

Some do and some don't but the situation in England is a bit more complicated as the CoE is the established religion so when the state recognizes gay marriage so should the state religion.
It's not like France or America where state and religion are separated by the constitutions of the countries.
Oh and as far as I know various churches recognize each others marriages even Muslim marriages are recognized as valid by Christian churches.

Maria Miller has put paid to that! It's a huge step in state and church separation in England and Wales. It's now up to the individual churches to decide if they want to recoginse or even participate.

murraykil wrote: »

...

The Church of England had warned that canon law could not conflict with government statute, but Miller said parliament was supreme and could state that church canon law could be different from statute.

...
Guardian

MrPudding

tommy2bad wrote: »

CoE forbidden from conducting same sex ceremonies? but same sex marriage legal in the state? I wonder if this is the beginning of disestablishment?

Very possibly.

MrP

dadvocate

MrPudding wrote: »

I will get to your response to my earlier post later. In the meantime, first, who cares if a church does not recognise a marriage? That does not mean anything. Only state recognition matters. Secondly, the CoI is barred from same sex marriage so a minister will not have to marry a same sex couple when he does not want to. The CoI must marry anyone that presents themselves to be married, assuming there is no reason they can't be married. Therefore, without this restriction a same sex couple could go to any CoI church and demand to be married.

MrP

Custom and tradition may well mean nothing to you but walk past any church on any weekend through the summer and you might notice, provided you remove the blinkers, that church ceremonies are very important to a great many people.

Who cares about communion? Tens of millions do.

You should be careful about supporting minority rule; there is a chance that you might be in a different minority to them.

And you'll be without majority support.

And as for your point that only state recognition matters... Well, let's see how important the opinion of the state is to you when it starts raiding your bank account in the name of austerity.

Of course, you'll change horses then and will probably say, 'Screw what the state thinks'.

And you wrote, "Secondly, the CoI is barred from same sex marriage so a minister will not have to marry a same sex couple when he does not want to."

followed by, "The CoI must marry anyone that presents themselves to be married, assuming there is no reason they can't be married."

I reckon David Cameron employs the same kind of disjointed thinking as you do.

:rolleyes:

dadvocate

tommy2bad wrote: »

CoE forbidden from conducting same sex ceremonies? but same sex marriage legal in the state? I wonder if this is the beginning of disestablishment?

It appears that Sodom is being rebuilt.

We should prepare for a bumpy ride.

dadvocate

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Do religious people think others outside their religion actually care whether or not their church recognises the marriages of people of other religions or no religion?

No.

Do you care about what happens to sewage?

But you are grateful for a sewage system, huh?

It's a dirty job but someone has to do it.

How can the British state now insist that brother cannot marry brother or that sister cannot marry sister?

Perhaps you object to hypocrisy when it favours your view?

dadvocate

tommy2bad wrote: »

Some do and some don't but the situation in England is a bit more complicated as the CoE is the established religion so when the state recognizes gay marriage so should the state religion.
It's not like France or America where state and religion are separated by the constitutions of the countries.
Oh and as far as I know various churches recognize each others marriages even Muslim marriages are recognized as valid by Christian churches.

And let us not forget that the hero of the piece, David Cameron, is regarded as one of the worst Prime Ministers ever.

MrPudding

dadvocate wrote: »

Custom and tradition may well mean nothing to you but walk past any church on any weekend through the summer and you might notice, provided you remove the blinkers, that church ceremonies are very important to a great many people.

Who cares about communion? Tens of millions do.

You should be careful about supporting minority rule; there is a chance that you might be in a different minority to them.

And you'll be without majority support.

Meh. Seriously. Do you have a qualification in missing the point? You can get married in a church, but unless you get a civil marriage you are not married in any way that means anything tangible. I appreciate that people may want a religious ceremony, and that is fine, whatever floats your boat, and I also appreciate that those persons may get some benefit form that ceremony, and I am cool with that too. But for the purposes of those that really don't give a flying fcuk at a rolling doughnut what a church thinks, a church marriage is basically an irrelevance.

dadvocate wrote: »

And as for your point that only state recognition matters... Well, let's see how important the opinion of the state is to you when it starts raiding your bank account in the name of austerity.

Of course, you'll change horses then and will probably say, 'Screw what the state thinks'.

What are you on about? What does this have to o with anything, seriusly?

dadvocate wrote: »

And you wrote, "Secondly, the CoI is barred from same sex marriage so a minister will not have to marry a same sex couple when he does not want to."

followed by, "The CoI must marry anyone that presents themselves to be married, assuming there is no reason they can't be married."

I reckon David Cameron employs the same kind of disjointed thinking as you do.

:rolleyes:

Wow. Are you intentionally missing the point here? Let me break it down for you, perhaps bullet points might help you:

• As it currently stands the CoI must marry any couple that are legally able to marry that requests it.
• Same sex marriage will soon be legal in parts of the UK.
• The government appreciates that not all CoI ministers will be supportive of same-sex marriage.
• To avoid the situation where a same-sex couple demand to be married in a CoI church, where the minister does not support same sex marriage, the CoI will be barred from carrying our same-sex marriage.

The whole point of this is to avoid the CoI having to officiate at same sex marriages against their will, as it were. There will be no ban for other churches as no other churches are obligated to marry anyone that presents themselves for marriage and is legally entitle to be married.

There is no disjointed thinking here. The ban on same-sex marriages in CoI is to protect the CoI from having to carry out same sex marriages.

This is perfectly logical and perfectly acceptable. No church should be forced to officiate at a same-sex marriage if it goes against their teaching. If they want to do it, then fine, but they should not be forced.

Got it now?

MrP

Sierra 117

dadvocate wrote: »

How can the British state now insist that brother cannot marry brother or that sister cannot marry sister?

Perhaps you object to hypocrisy when it favours your view?

How can the state insist that brother cannot marry sister or mother marry son if men and women can get married?

oldrnwisr

dadvocate wrote: »

I think you would do well to research what marriage was originally designed for. It was not for love.

Marriage was designed to join families and estates and was largely a political consideration as it still is with arranged marriages etc. It was about the security of future generations of those families.

Only peasants married for love and there is very little evidence to support the notion of a 'life-long commitment' judging by the amount of adultery that takes place.

It is naive and erroneous to romanticise an institution that is intended to increase the power of the ruling classes.

By the way, my objection to 'gay marriage' is linguistically based. I am fed up to the back teeth with minorities attempting to hijack the English language and bending and contorting well defined words on the basis that they either don't apply to them in their current form, 'marriage' for example, or because they do apply to them as in the case of all words prefixed with 'black' are considered to have racist connotations.

I do give a 'fiddler's'. Gay people are excluded from the institution of marriage because they can't be married by definition.

And by the way, do you consider that trying to avail of tax-breaks available to married couples demonstrates the love and life-long commitment between gay people any more than it does for straight people?

You know you really should flesh out your own research a little before admonishing others for not doing theirs. It would help to shore up the shortcomings (and there's quite a few) in your argument.

First of all, it seems from having read through your posts that your principal objection to or argument against same-sex marriage is that from your perspective, marriage by definition and custom was an institution designed for the production of heirs and that therefore to legalise gay marriage would damage this institution by altering its definition and primary purpose. Does that about cover it?

There are quite a few problems with this argument which I will deal with individually.

First of all on a broad scale, your argument is fallacious, doubly so. In arguing for the preservation of the "original" purpose of marriage you are arguing from the genetic fallacy and by arguing against the linguistics of altering the definition of marriage you are arguing from a variant of the genetic fallacy known is the etymological fallacy.

Now, having said that, it's worth pointing out at this point that the fallaciousness of your argument would hold even if your premises (i.e. that marriage was designed for producing heirs) held true but they don't.

It is at best unwise and at worst dishonest to suggest that the "original" purpose for marriage was to produce heirs. There are two reasons for this.
Firstly, since marriage predates reliable recorded history it is impossible to determine what the original function of marriage was once it progressed past the simple role of biological pair-bonding.
Secondly, the anthropological evidence that we do have shows that it is impossible to define a single, simple purpose for marriage. There have been so many different marriage forms both historically and geographically that it is impossible to isolate any one set of common characteristics. For example, one of the few proferred definitions of marriage to gain any significant traction within social science research was that of George Peter Murdock who, in 1949, defined marriage as "a universal institution that involves a man and a woman living together, engaging in sexual activity, and cooperating economically". However, as anthropological research continued this definition was abandoned given that there were so many exceptions, like that of the Ashanti in Ghana, the Minangkabau in Indonesia, the Gururumba in New Guinea or the phenomenon of ghost marriages practiced in many countries from Sudan to China.
Similarly, if we look at your own definition (i.e. the production of heirs) we see that this definition is just as flawed. Firstly, it is definitionally flawed. If the point of marriage is to produce heirs, then how does a same-sex marriage not fulfill this obligation. Same-sex couples can produce heirs both legitimate and otherwise by means of IVF, surrogacy or adoption. Any or all of these means can and are used just the same by heterosexual couples to produce offspring, so why do these methods not count when used by homosexual ones? Secondly, there are and have been societies where the production of heirs was not the primary purpose of marriage such as the Nayar of Kerala or the Lovedu people of South Africa.

Now, as for your definition of marriage, again this doesn't hold as an argument against same-sex marriage. If you had said matrimony, you might have had a chance since it is derived from the latin for "the state of being a mother." However, the term marriage entered the English language c.1300 from the french marier. This in turn came from the latin maritare. Now, this is where it gets interesting. The latin term maritare is, for practical purposes gender neutral since it can be used in the adjective form maritus as either masculine or feminine to mean "to give a husband" or "to give a wife". So there is nothing at this level of the term to preclude a gay relationship. However, the prior latin usage of maritare was in the sense of marrying plants, particularly grafting fruit trees and vines. So at its most basic level the term marriage signifies nothing more than joining which again doesn't exclude same-sex couples.
The fact is that words change their meaning all the time, whether this happens naturally or as the result of deliberate intent is pretty inconsequential. Even if we held to the general principle of interfering with the meanings of words as little as possible, we would still have good reason to change the definition of marriage in this case in the interest of equal rights.

Finally, one last point. Despite the claims you have made through your different posts, same-sex marriages have existed throughout history (not just unions as you claim) which have been afforded the same legitimacy in society as heterosexual marriages. In Mesopotamian culture there were religious blessings for same-sex marriages and high profile same-sex marriages were noted in Sumerian and Akkadian societies. Even in more modern indigenous cultures such as the Zuni of North America or the Igbo of Nigeria homosexual marriages are afforded the same considerations as heterosexual ones. In fact, it could be better argued that, rather than the common perception of the struggle for gay marriage as a modern phenomenon, rather it is the blanket prohibition of gay marriage which is truly modern.

The legalisation of gay marriage is something that is important for society for the acknowledgement of equal rights and required of our government under Articles 40.1 and 40.3.1 of the constitution.

Oh, and one last thing. You are not the first person to make use of the "you're changing the definition of marriage" argument" but you're the most recent so you might answer one question. I think we all understand that the argument is that gay marriage is bad because it would require changing the definition of marriage. But why is changing the definition of marriage a bad thing to begin with?


Sources

The Origin and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies

Same-sex Marriage: The Personal and the Political

Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage

A History of Same-sex marriage

Family structure in pre-modern Ireland (Boards post by Bannasidhe)

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe

When Same-sex marriage was a Christian Rite

Bannasidhe

dadvocate wrote: »

How can the British state now insist that brother cannot marry brother or that sister cannot marry sister?

Perhaps you object to hypocrisy when it favours your view?

Because the purpose of marriage is to create a familial relationship - hence all of that 'mother in-law/ father in-law' stuff. Siblings already have a familial relationship so there is no legal imperative for one to be created.

Marriage was designed to make to people who usually have no blood connection(and by extension their families) closely related in the eyes of the law (although in certain circumstances cousins can and do marry) . Siblings are already closely related.
As you have been posting about the original purpose of marriage I imagine you are already aware of this but now choose to ignore it as it doesn't favour your view.

You seem taken with maintaining a so-called 'traditional' view of marriage - Margaret of Parma was engaged to the Duke of Florence (who was also the nephew of the Pope) when she was five years old, they married when she was 14. Margaret was widowed aged 15 and by the time she was 16 was married to the Duke of Parma (who happened to be the grandson of a Pope). It that the traditional form of marriage you seek to retain?

Or if you wish an Irish example - Grainne Ní Mháille took as her second husband Risteard in Iarainn á Búrc - he was her nephew by marriage as her first husband Domhnaill Ua Flaithbhertaigh was the brother of Risteard's mother. Why did she marry him? Because her first marriage created a familal bond between the Uí Máille of Umhall and the Uí Flaithbhertaigh of Bunowen. Her second marraige created a familial bond between the Uí Máille of Umhall and the á Búrc of Burrishoole - and by extention between her Uí Flaithbhertaigh children and the á Búrc. That is the tradition of Irish marraige as practiced until the 17th century and pre-dates Christianity by at least 1,000 years.

Now - in the 21st century - Marriage is the mechanism by which legal families are created and recognised by the State. Religion has nothing to do with it. The religious aspect of a wedding ceremony has no legal status- it is purely ceremonial. In itself it has no legal meaning.

Under the law it is as valid as a couple jumping over a broomstick and declaring themselves handfasted.

The actual marriage occurs when the celebrant acting as a State authorised Registrar witnesses the signing of the register. In exactly the same way as happens when the Registrar is an authorised civil servant.

A legally binding marriage derives it's validity due to being recognised by the State - not by any religion - and confers a legal familial status on the couple who enter into it.

No religion decides what is and is not legal in any European country. No religion is given the right to legislate for the people of Ireland.

That is the role of the State and the State alone. The onus is also upon the State to ensure it treats all of it's citizens equally. By denying gay couples the right to enter into Marriage but allowing civil partnership the State is declaring that although it accepts that a same-sex couple can form a legal familial bond they are not entitled to the same provisions under the law as those enjoyed by an opposite-sex couple.

Corkfeen

It's funny how dadvocate's mask of protecting the English language is beginning to slip. Particularly his reference to sodom being rebuilt. :rolleyes:

tommy2bad

Also the bar on incestuous marriage may have been based on consanguinity but like polygamy the real issue is abuse and power relationships within the marriage.
Incestuous marriage is too open to abuse, like polygamy and unlike same sex unions.

aloyisious

It was nice last night to hear on the Beeb that the Church Of Scotland had voted to allow it's parishes to make the decision locally whether or not they were OK with their Vicar having a same-sex partner.

dadvocate

oldrnwisr wrote: »

You know you really should flesh out your own research a little before admonishing others for not doing theirs. It would help to shore up the shortcomings (and there's quite a few) in your argument.

First of all, it seems from having read through your posts that your principal objection to or argument against same-sex marriage is that from your perspective, marriage by definition and custom was an institution designed for the production of heirs and that therefore to legalise gay marriage would damage this institution by altering its definition and primary purpose. Does that about cover it?

There are quite a few problems with this argument which I will deal with individually.

First of all on a broad scale, your argument is fallacious, doubly so. In arguing for the preservation of the "original" purpose of marriage you are arguing from the genetic fallacy and by arguing against the linguistics of altering the definition of marriage you are arguing from a variant of the genetic fallacy known is the etymological fallacy.

Now, having said that, it's worth pointing out at this point that the fallaciousness of your argument would hold even if your premises (i.e. that marriage was designed for producing heirs) held true but they don't.

It is at best unwise and at worst dishonest to suggest that the "original" purpose for marriage was to produce heirs. There are two reasons for this.
Firstly, since marriage predates reliable recorded history it is impossible to determine what the original function of marriage was once it progressed past the simple role of biological pair-bonding.
Secondly, the anthropological evidence that we do have shows that it is impossible to define a single, simple purpose for marriage. There have been so many different marriage forms both historically and geographically that it is impossible to isolate any one set of common characteristics. For example, one of the few proferred definitions of marriage to gain any significant traction within social science research was that of George Peter Murdock who, in 1949, defined marriage as "a universal institution that involves a man and a woman living together, engaging in sexual activity, and cooperating economically". However, as anthropological research continued this definition was abandoned given that there were so many exceptions, like that of the Ashanti in Ghana, the Minangkabau in Indonesia, the Gururumba in New Guinea or the phenomenon of ghost marriages practiced in many countries from Sudan to China.
Similarly, if we look at your own definition (i.e. the production of heirs) we see that this definition is just as flawed. Firstly, it is definitionally flawed. If the point of marriage is to produce heirs, then how does a same-sex marriage not fulfill this obligation. Same-sex couples can produce heirs both legitimate and otherwise by means of IVF, surrogacy or adoption. Any or all of these means can and are used just the same by heterosexual couples to produce offspring, so why do these methods not count when used by homosexual ones? Secondly, there are and have been societies where the production of heirs was not the primary purpose of marriage such as the Nayar of Kerala or the Lovedu people of South Africa.

Now, as for your definition of marriage, again this doesn't hold as an argument against same-sex marriage. If you had said matrimony, you might have had a chance since it is derived from the latin for "the state of being a mother." However, the term marriage entered the English language c.1300 from the french marier. This in turn came from the latin maritare. Now, this is where it gets interesting. The latin term maritare is, for practical purposes gender neutral since it can be used in the adjective form maritus as either masculine or feminine to mean "to give a husband" or "to give a wife". So there is nothing at this level of the term to preclude a gay relationship. However, the prior latin usage of maritare was in the sense of marrying plants, particularly grafting fruit trees and vines. So at its most basic level the term marriage signifies nothing more than joining which again doesn't exclude same-sex couples.
The fact is that words change their meaning all the time, whether this happens naturally or as the result of deliberate intent is pretty inconsequential. Even if we held to the general principle of interfering with the meanings of words as little as possible, we would still have good reason to change the definition of marriage in this case in the interest of equal rights.

Finally, one last point. Despite the claims you have made through your different posts, same-sex marriages have existed throughout history (not just unions as you claim) which have been afforded the same legitimacy in society as heterosexual marriages. In Mesopotamian culture there were religious blessings for same-sex marriages and high profile same-sex marriages were noted in Sumerian and Akkadian societies. Even in more modern indigenous cultures such as the Zuni of North America or the Igbo of Nigeria homosexual marriages are afforded the same considerations as heterosexual ones. In fact, it could be better argued that, rather than the common perception of the struggle for gay marriage as a modern phenomenon, rather it is the blanket prohibition of gay marriage which is truly modern.

The legalisation of gay marriage is something that is important for society for the acknowledgement of equal rights and required of our government under Articles 40.1 and 40.3.1 of the constitution.

Oh, and one last thing. You are not the first person to make use of the "you're changing the definition of marriage" argument" but you're the most recent so you might answer one question. I think we all understand that the argument is that gay marriage is bad because it would require changing the definition of marriage. But why is changing the definition of marriage a bad thing to begin with?


Sources

The Origin and Role of Same-Sex Relations in Human Societies

Same-sex Marriage: The Personal and the Political


Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage


A History of Same-sex marriage


Family structure in pre-modern Ireland (Boards post by Bannasidhe)


Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe


When Same-sex marriage was a Christian Rite

Sources? Of what?

One of the sources is you, most of the others refer to same sex unions and the one that refers to marriage does so in terms of modern legislation.

The last source you provided does not involve sex.

It's a case of 'man bites dog', actually.

And by the way since you either missed it or chose to ignore it, I argued that 'matrimonium' is the word that you are trying to redefine.

What good will that do history?

Let's look at some other words that now require a new definition:

Consummate,

Sexual intercourse,

Coitus.

Hell, let's throw out the English language altogether so that we can circumvent ignorance by applying any meaning we want to words that already have clear and precise meaning for those of us who are educated.

Blurgle silpot quad strutum, so to fanticate.

Frexus dun baldwit, sipu?

How can you disagree with that?

dadvocate

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Because the purpose of marriage is to create a familial relationship - hence all of that 'mother in-law/ father in-law' stuff. Siblings already have a familial relationship so there is no legal imperative for one to be created.

Is that so?

Check out inheritance law if you will.

The fact that siblings live and love together guarantees one nothing if one of them dies.

No legal imperative?

Give me a break.

And there are already mechanisms in law that allow for bequeathments so tell me, what specific legal imperative is satisfied by the introduction of gay marriages which, as I have already mentioned, cannot be consummated under the terms of the current defintion of 'consummate'?

dadvocate

tommy2bad wrote: »

Also the bar on incestuous marriage may have been based on consanguinity but like polygamy the real issue is abuse and power relationships within the marriage.
Incestuous marriage is too open to abuse, like polygamy and unlike same sex unions.

And of course, all monogamous relationships in Ireland are free of abuse.:rolleyes:

http://www.womensaid.ie/policy/natintstats.html?gclid=CNLj9-HRqrcCFdNF2wodgk4ABA

Twenty percent of women in Ireland.

Sobering stuff.

dadvocate

Corkfeen wrote: »

It's funny how dadvocate's mask of protecting the English language is beginning to slip. Particularly his reference to sodom being rebuilt. :rolleyes:

Care to elaborate or are you content with just leaving it at ad hominems?