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

dadvocate

aloyisious wrote: »

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

Sigh.

To re-re-re-repeat, civl partnerships are fine.

Marriages that cannot be consummated are not.

Corkfeen

dadvocate wrote: »

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

Your motivation becomes far more religious(in a particularly nasty way) when you have one liners about sodom and gomorrah even though up until that point you were referring to the importance of linguistics. Your position on the importance of the word doesn't seem to be your main issue with allowing gay marriage. Because according to the beliefs which you stated, any marriage that does not result in offspring should not be considered a marriage. So really marriage ceased to be solely about offspring, a very long time ago.

dadvocate wrote: »

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.

People are perfectly aware of abusive relationships. However you'll find that a large proportion of incestuous relationships were founded upon abuse. So there's a far greater chance that the attraction may have developed from the abuse itself.

dadvocate

Corkfeen wrote: »

Your motivation becomes far more religious(in a particularly nasty way) when you have one liners about sodom and gomorrah even though up until that point you were referring to the importance of linguistics. Your position on the importance of the word doesn't seem to be your main issue with allowing gay marriage. Because according to the beliefs which you stated, any marriage that does not result in offspring should not be considered a marriage. So really marriage ceased to be solely about offspring, a very long time ago.

I am a confirmed atheist. And by that I mean an atheist in the true sense of the word. (Look at my name.)

And I have by no means, not according to any qualification that you think you may or may not achieve, altered my position on the etymological connotations of the word 'matrimonium' which is a Latin word that should be beyond definitional alteration for the purposes of understanding 'etymology' and 'history'.

QED.

Corkfeen wrote: »

People are perfectly aware of abusive relationships. However you'll find that a large proportion of incestuous relationships were founded upon abuse. So there's a far greater chance that the attraction may have developed from the abuse itself.

I cannot deny the truth of this but what about:

"Sexual activity between adult close relatives may arise from genetic sexual attraction.[80] This form of incest has not been widely reported in the past, but recent evidence has indicated that this behavior does take place, possibly more often than many people realize.[80] Internet chatrooms and topical websites exist that provide support for incestuous couples.[80]
Proponents of incest between consenting adults draw clear boundaries between the behavior of consenting adults and rape, child molestation, and abusive incest.[80] According to one incest participant who was interviewed for an article in The Guardian:

"You can't help who you fall in love with, it just happens. I fell in love with my sister and I'm not ashamed ... I only feel sorry for my mom and dad, I wish they could be happy for us. We love each other. It's nothing like some old man who tries to **** his three-year-old, that's evil and disgusting ... Of course we're consenting, that's the most important thing. We're not ****ing perverts. What we have is the most beautiful thing in the world."[80]"

and:

"The most public case of consensual adult sibling incest in recent years is the case of a brother-sister couple from Germany, Patrick Stübing and Susan Karolewski. Because of violent behavior on the part of the father, the brother was taken in at the age of 3 by foster parents, who adopted him later. At the age of 23 he learned about his biological parents, contacted his mother, and met her and his then 16 year old sister for the first time. The now-adult brother moved in with his birth family shortly thereafter. After their mother died suddenly six months later, the couple became intimately close, and had their first child together in 2001. By 2004, they had four children together: Eric, Sarah, Nancy, and Sofia. The public nature of their relationship, and the repeated prosecutions and even jail time they have served as a result, has caused some in Germany to question whether incest between consenting adults should be punished at all. An article about them in Der Spiegel states that the couple are happy together. According to court records, the first three children have mental and physical disabilities, and have been placed in foster care.[6] In April 2012, at the European Court of Human Rights, Patrick Stuebing lost his case that the conviction violated his right to a private and family life.[87][88]"

both of which are from:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incest

Who are you going to accuse of abusive behaviour here and in the 'chatrooms that were alluded to?

If the state can jail such people in oerder to keep them apart then why can't the state just sterilize them and let them be together.

Oh! I know. It's because it is acceptable to discriminate against such people on the grounds that they are 'not normal'. That they are a minority minority and cannot expect the same kind of support that 'normal' homosexuals get.

I would say that although they can't marry, they should be able to avail of a civil partnership.

Or do you think we should jail people in order to stop them from loving each other?

Like we used to do with gay men?

dadvocate

MrPudding wrote: »

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.

Meh, seriously. Do you have a qualification in forgetting what you asked?

You said:

MrPudding wrote:

In the meantime, first, who cares if a church does not recognise a marriage? That does not mean anything.

And I answered conservatively. In fact it is hundreds of millions of people who give a flying fcuk at a rolling doughnut what a church thinks.

Who gives a flying fcuk at a rolling doughnut what Fianna Gael voters think? Let the voters of independent parties carry the day.

Meh, seriously.

dadvocate

Sierra 117 wrote: »

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

Because incest law hasn't been changed yet.

aloyisious

dadvocate wrote: »

Sigh.

To re-re-re-repeat, civl partnerships are fine.

Marriages that cannot be consummated are not.

By consummate, do you mean the reason you're giving for NOT agreeing with homosexuals marrying is that same-sex partners cannot, in themselves, have sexual intercourse by penis in vagina, and that consummation is for the procreation of children?

If that's your opinion, would you continue that line of thought and have opposite-sex couples interviewed on whether they intended to consummate their future marriage without the use of condoms and/or other forms of birth prevention?

If a couple said they were going to apply birth control methods to ensure the marriage was childless, would you deny that couple the right to marry?

If a couple were proved to be incapable of procreation, would you deny them the right to marry?

I've googled consummation and found this and ask, as above, do you agree with some of the definitions given on cosummation of marriage given in it for denying the rite of marriage to some straight couples?

Address;.......... Marriage Consummation - Catholic Answers Forums

Address:.......... Consummation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dadvocate

aloyisious wrote: »

By consummate, do you mean the reason you're giving for NOT agreeing with homosexuals marrying is that same-sex partners cannot, in themselves, have sexual intercourse by penis in vagina, and that consummation is for the procreation of children?

I'm saying that a same sex union CANNOT be consummated.

And consider the fact that gay men may seek an anullment because sodomy hasn't occurred.

I'm not sure what non-consummation would mean for a lesbian couple in the eyes of the law.

And how can a person in a gay marriage commit adultery without resorting to straight sex?

Adultery is another word that now requires redefining.

aloyisious wrote: »

If that's your opinion, would you continue that line of thought and have opposite-sex couples interviewed on whether they intended to consummate their future marriage without the use of condoms and/or other forms of birth prevention?

Firstly, I have nothing against birth-control.

Secondly, couples who want to marry but intend not to procreate could lie about their intentions in order to 'beat the system'. And many pregnancies are accidental anyway. People who do not intend to have children often become pregnant.

aloyisious wrote: »

If a couple said they were going to apply birth control methods to ensure the marriage was childless, would you deny that couple the right to marry?

Such couples should be able to avail of a civil partnership.

aloyisious wrote: »

If a couple were proved to be incapable of procreation, would you deny them the right to marry?

How does one go about 'proving' such a thing?

I should mention that I have no problem with churches conducting civil ceremonies. As apparently they used to do.

I think that you will find that many 'marriages' break down precisely because of an inability to produce children.

aloyisious wrote: »

I've googled consummation and found this and ask, as above, do you agree with some of the definitions given on cosummation of marriage given in it for denying the rite of marriage to some straight couples?

Address;.......... Marriage Consummation - Catholic Answers Forums

Address:.......... Consummation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't know what you are getting at. Non-consummation gives grounds for divorce.

Non-consummatable should provide grounds for refusing to marry a couple and such couples should be directed towards a civil partnership that is legally recognised as being identical, in terms of tax breaks and legal protection, to marriage.

If civil partnerships were deemed to be equivalent to marriage in terms of law then there would be no need to re-write the English dictionary.

I mean, I for one object to the use of the word 'coitus' to refer to sodomy.

There is 'coitus' and there is 'sodomy'. The two are NOT equivalent.

'Cunnilingus' and 'fellatio' are NOT intercourse.

So you see, the British state now has to encourage 'sodomy' in order to validate some marriages.

It seems perverse that a woman can seek a divorce because 'buggery' has occurred while gay men can seek a divorce because buggery has NOT occurred.

Calling same sex unions something other than marriage would enable the law to avoid all of these problems.

David Cameron is a capitulating idiot who has opened up a can of worms that simply has not been considered.

Or perhaps you think that gay people should be exempted from divorce law?

aloyisious

@Dadvocate: Adultery, I didn't raise that in my questions.

Same-sex union does NOT equate in law to same-sex civil marriage. Our republic does NOT have same-sex civil marriage.


My 2nd and 3rd "boxed" questions can be taken and answered singularly or jointly by a Yea or Nay reply.

re your answer to my third "boxed" Q, Heterosexual couples cannot avail of the Irish Civil Partnership, as the act specifies it's for same-sex couples only. Ironically, that's because of the protection offered to marriage by the constitution... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEYQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fcivil-partnership-opposite-sex-couples-827630-Mar2013%2F&ei=YJuhUYjLMdDb7Aapo4H4BA&usg=AFQjCNHr1C4ROb0fvwMRMgcfmpR0GAvWeg&bvm=bv.47008514,d.ZGU

Re my 4th "boxed" Q, infertility or by some medical misadventure. Modern medicine can test for occurrences like those.

Re the last "boxed" question (also possibly my 2nd), the RC Church reserves the right to annul any marriage that it considers to be unconsummated. I don't for a certainty but I suspect that if the Church annul's a marriage and gives the annulment in writing, then I think the state registry would have to accept that the church-annulled marriage is void and (possibly after some legal paperwork - divorce-type or other) would have to strike the recording of it from it's records. Re your last question, my answer is NO. The Irish Civil Partnership act allow's for divorce, though I doubt if it was meant to be for the reasons that the church might have for annulling a marriage

Strawberry Fields

Question for you guys,

Can a male who had sex with another man then marry a woman in a church?
or does it matter?
Like I know can't give blood.
Don't want to give away details

aloyisious

IMO, it'd be down to the O/P's conscience or sexual awareness whether he did or didn't marry a woman. There are quite a lot of Bisexual or Bi-curious men out there who play on both sides of the fence. The same could be said of women as well.

NuMarvel

dadvocate wrote: »

How does one go about 'proving' such a thing?

If you really want marriage to be about raising children, you'd be insisting of fertility tests. After all, couples have to give 3 months notice to marry, so there's enough time to do the tests and provide the results. At the very least, You would limit marriage by age.

dadvocate wrote: »

I don't know what you are getting at. Non-consummation gives grounds for divorce.

Ireland has adopted the no fault system for divorce, meaning no one has to give grounds for divorce. There would be no reason for that to change when same sex marriage is introduced.

dadvocate wrote: »

Non-consummatable should provide grounds for refusing to marry a couple and such couples should be directed towards a civil partnership that is legally recognised as being identical, in terms of tax breaks and legal protection, to marriage.

If civil partnerships were deemed to be equivalent to marriage in terms of law then there would be no need to re-write the English dictionary.

Never mind the dictionary. Changing civil partnerships in Ireland to be legally identical to marriage would require re-writing the Constitution as well amending a raft of existing legislation and introducing a plethora of new laws. And let's not get into how inefficient it would be to have two processes running side by side doing the same job, let alone how "Separate but equal" does not have a good track record.

In every way possible, it would be far easier to remove the one line preventing same sex marriage rather than initiating the convoluted and cumbersome mechanisms you want.

dadvocate wrote: »

I mean, I for one object to the use of the word 'coitus' to refer to sodomy.

There is 'coitus' and there is 'sodomy'. The two are NOT equivalent.

'Cunnilingus' and 'fellatio' are NOT intercourse.

Ah, that's why you sound familiar. You're Sheldon Cooper! :P

dadvocate

Strawberry Fields wrote: »

Question for you guys,

Can a male who had sex with another man then marry a woman in a church?
or does it matter?
Like I know can't give blood.
Don't want to give away details

Not only can he marry a woman in a church, but there will be no legal requirement for him to disclose to his new spouse that he was in a gay relationship.

She might have to contract AIDS in order to have the 'right' to that knowledge.

1ZRed

dadvocate wrote: »

Not only can he marry a woman in a church, but there will be no legal requirement for him to disclose to his new spouse that he was in a gay relationship.

She might have to contract AIDS in order to have the 'right' to that knowledge.

Yes, because only gay people have AIDS. The absolute shite I've read on this forum from certain posters is shocking

Kiwi in IE

dadvocate wrote: »

Secondly, couples who want to marry but intend not to procreate could lie about their intentions in order to 'beat the system'. And many pregnancies are accidental anyway. People who do not intend to have children often become pregnant.

There is no requirement to 'lie' in order to 'beat the system'. My partner and I recently completed the 3 months notice requirement with a Registrar and we were not asked about any intent to procreate. I must say had this subject been brought up by the Registrar I would have found it extremely strange. Not to mention highly intrusive and offensive.

dadvocate

aloyisious wrote: »

@Dadvocate: Adultery, I didn't raise that in my questions.

Same-sex union does NOT equate in law to same-sex civil marriage. Our republic does NOT have same-sex civil marriage.


My 2nd and 3rd "boxed" questions can be taken and answered singularly or jointly by a Yea or Nay reply.

re your answer to my third "boxed" Q, Heterosexual couples cannot avail of the Irish Civil Partnership, as the act specifies it's for same-sex couples only. Ironically, that's because of the protection offered to marriage by the constitution... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&ved=0CEYQFjAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thejournal.ie%2Fcivil-partnership-opposite-sex-couples-827630-Mar2013%2F&ei=YJuhUYjLMdDb7Aapo4H4BA&usg=AFQjCNHr1C4ROb0fvwMRMgcfmpR0GAvWeg&bvm=bv.47008514,d.ZGU

Re my 4th "boxed" Q, infertility or by some medical misadventure. Modern medicine can test for occurrences like those.

Re the last "boxed" question (also possibly my 2nd), the RC Church reserves the right to annul any marriage that it considers to be unconsummated. I don't for a certainty but I suspect that if the Church annul's a marriage and gives the annulment in writing, then I think the state registry would have to accept that the church-annulled marriage is void and (possibly after some legal paperwork - divorce-type or other) would have to strike the recording of it from it's records. Re your last question, my answer is NO. The Irish Civil Partnership act allow's for divorce, though I doubt if it was meant to be for the reasons that the church might have for annulling a marriage

I dealt with all of your questions with integrity while you dodged the additional issue I raised:

How can adultery occur in a same sex union?

From the article you quoted:

"Shatter said this was because the constitution grants a special status to marriage, which the State is required to “guard with special care”."

What does that mean and in what way are 'civil partnerships' NOT granted special status since the vast majority of the population is prohibited from availing of them?

1ZRed

dadvocate wrote: »

I dealt with all of your questions with integrity while you dodged the additional issue I raised:

How can adultery occur in a same sex union?

From the article you quoted:

"Shatter said this was because the constitution grants a special status to marriage, which the State is required to “guard with special care”."

What does that mean and in what way are 'civil partnerships' NOT granted special status since the vast majority of the population is prohibited from availing of them?

Oh I get it, because you think anal sex isn't "real" sex adultery cannot happen? That makes an awful lot of sense if true.

Benny_Cake

dadvocate wrote: »

Not only can he marry a woman in a church, but there will be no legal requirement for him to disclose to his new spouse that he was in a gay relationship.

She might have to contract AIDS in order to have the 'right' to that knowledge.

Mod note: Dadvocate banned for one week. May I remind everyone to take the charter into account when posting, in particular:

"Bigotry, crude generalisations and unreasonable antagonism will not be tolerated. This rule encompasses all intolerance towards creeds, beliefs, lifestyles or opinions that differ from one's own."

aloyisious

dadvocate wrote: »

I dealt with all of your questions with integrity while you dodged the additional issue I raised:

How can adultery occur in a same sex union?

From the article you quoted:

"Shatter said this was because the constitution grants a special status to marriage, which the State is required to “guard with special care”."

What does that mean and in what way are 'civil partnerships' NOT granted special status since the vast majority of the population is prohibited from availing of them?

Not being in a same sex union, I cannot answer your adultery question. If it is mentioned anywhere in the C.P act, then it may well also include the answer you seek. It's possible that no one has taken a case stated to see if there can be adultery in a same sex union. I'm assuming that by same-sex union, you mean C/P's.

As for what Mr Shatter meant, I can only suppose he has to rely on what the AG and the Supreme Court tell's him what the constitution mean's by the "special place" marriage has. I have to rely on what the "constitutional law" experts tell us what that part of the constitution mean's.

To the mind of the average "gay marriage" proponent, Civil Partnerships has no "special Status". MarriagEquality and "NOISE" the LGBT groups pushing for access to Civil Marriage, do NOT like the term "Gay Marriage". I don't like that term either. It is a mis-description for what is sought and what should be there in Irish Law, equal access to Civil Marriage to ALL Irish Citizens.

The CP act bar's a lot of Irish Citizens from equal access to Civil Marriage. It does what I would describe as preserving inequality in Irish Law. Some people use the term "separate but equal" to describe the Irish Civil Partnerships act position in law, in comparison to marriage. That's like the apartheid system of having separate race toilets; they both serve the same purpose but one may not use the O/P's facility without facing sanction from the law.

Re your answer, "I dealt with all of your questions", I wait for you to answer unequivocally (either "yes or no") to my question on whether homosexual couples should be allowed access to Civil Marriage.

@BennyCake and others. Edit: Ah, I didn't see the above 'til I posted the unedited version of the above, I spent too long editing and pruning it to get a reply across to Dadvocate. Sorry...

oceanclub

Just a question for those are against gay (civil) marriage: if it does eventually become law, and you were invited to one, would you attend or would you boycott it?

P.

Mod note: Merged with megathread

shes_crazy

I wouldn't attend one. There is no point to it. I'd make it very clear on the social grapevine that I don't recognise homosexual "marriage".

Simulated sacraments are a waste of everyone's time.

I'd go to the party afterwards though.

wonderfulname

shes_crazy wrote: »

Simulated sacraments are a waste of everyone's time.

It is in no way related to your Catholic sacrament, it's a legal union between two people.

Would you attend the civil marriage of a straight couple?

Delirium

shes_crazy wrote: »

I wouldn't attend one. There is no point to it. I'd make it very clear on the social grapevine that I don't recognise homosexual "marriage".

Simulated sacraments are a waste of everyone's time.

I'd go to the party afterwards though.

Why? You wouldn't recognise their marriage but you'd drink their beer/eat their food? Not a nice way to treat a couple that thought highly enough of you to invite them to their wedding.

shes_crazy

wonderfulname wrote: »

It is in no way related to your Catholic sacrament, it's a legal union between two people.

Would you attend the civil marriage of a straight couple?

Why appropriate the external elements of Christian marriage and ignore the internal elements?

Is atheism/humanism/secularism so unimaginative and culturally inferior that it can't think up its own customs?

shes_crazy

koth wrote: »

Why? You wouldn't recognise their marriage but you'd drink their beer/eat their food? Not a nice way to treat a couple that thought highly enough of you to invite them to their wedding.

Don't invite me then. Weddings are bad enough without having to act for the day.

Also, what makes you think that Catholics and homosexuals can't be friends? I have a few "gay" friends who know I have issue with elements of their lifestyle.

Delirium

shes_crazy wrote: »

Don't invite me then. Weddings are bad enough without having to act for the day.

Maybe the couple didn't know you are opposed to same-sex marriage? Still doesn't explain why you wouldn't just avoid the reception. Seems tacky IMHO to show up considering you're not there to celebrate the occasion, especially after avoiding the ceremony as a protest.

Also, what makes you think that Catholics and homosexuals can't be friends? I have a few "gay" friends who know I have issue with elements of their lifestyle.

I had presumed the gay couple were friends, hence the invitation to their wedding.

wonderfulname

shes_crazy wrote: »

Why appropriate the external elements of Christian marriage and ignore the internal elements?

Is atheism/humanism/secularism so unimaginative and culturally inferior that it can't think up its own customs?

Might I suggest you both research the origins of your own traditions and what constitutes a marriage, neither appear to be what you think.

shes_crazy

wonderfulname wrote: »

Might I suggest you both research the origins of your own traditions and what constitutes a marriage, neither appear to be what you think.

If you and your "sex" partner want to wear pink and yellow dresses in a Protestant church, more power to ye. I'd prefer not to have to witness it.

Delirium

shes_crazy wrote: »

Why appropriate the external elements of Christian marriage and ignore the internal elements?

Is atheism/humanism/secularism so unimaginative and culturally inferior that it can't think up its own customs?

Irony abounds! Marriage pre-dates Christianity.

wonderfulname

shes_crazy wrote: »

If you and your partner want to wear pink and yellow dresses in a Protestant church, more power to ye. I'd prefer not to have to witness it.

You are aware neither churches nor dresses are required for a marriage? Just a form, solemniser and some ink. Everything else is optional, including matrimony.

oceanclub

shes_crazy wrote: »

I wouldn't attend one. There is no point to it. I'd make it very clear on the social grapevine that I don't recognise homosexual "marriage".

Simulated sacraments are a waste of everyone's time.

I'd go to the party afterwards though.

To be honest, if I invited someone to my wedding and they ignored the ceremony and simply came to the party for food/drink, I'd be upset and probably not allow them in. Just to be clear, I'm assuming it's a friend who has invited you.

P.