Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

1…7071737576…218

Comments

  • #2162
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Perhaps, as a courtesy, you should consider your choice of language and recognise that equating the relationship between two loving adults in a very human relationship and a man and his pet - no matter how you intended it - could cause offense.

    Nor was I the only one who 'misinterpreted' and commented on your man and his lab comment so you were not as explicit as you seem to believe you were.

    Do you have a problem with courtesy being shown by all sides? :confused:

    I made my position crystal clear. I stated this on the thread. I never intended to say that, and I regret that some people did interpret it that way.

    My position is rather clear. I respect the right of people to live in ways that I disagree with. That includes in respect to formalising relationships. That's why I tolerated civil partnerships being extended despite the fact that Christianity was opposed.

    Where I disagree is that I don't believe this to be marriage. That's specifically referring to the union between a man and a woman. If marriage is redefined this will mean conflict between those who disagree, and those who agree with the redefinition and perhaps in a legal way. That's what I find regrettable about the whole thing. I'm more than happy to agree to disagree, but if the law tells me that those who disagree can't do that any more, what else are we expected to do?

    I apologise that my argument was misinterpreted and misused, but I do still think it was an entirely valid argument in and of itself.

    I don't think it is only those who disagree with you on this issue who are uncivil though. I think those who abuse the word bigot without considering what it actually means are about as uncivil as anyone else.

    If I have made any comments which are uncivil, I apologise for them, and I hope to avoid them going forward.


  • #2163
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    lazygal wrote: »
    It isn't our fault if we need to remind you of the points you chose to fail to address either.

    Sorry what?

    I genuinely don't understand the point of your one-line posts, they're incredibly unhelpful to say the least.


  • #2164
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Just on the "if marriage is redefined" aspect of the discussion, that presumes that the redefinition is yet to occur. As of 2001, it was redefined by Holland and other countries have followed suit.

    And that's only if you ignore same-sex marriage in ancient times. From what I've read online, Nero was supposedly married to two different men. That was around 60AD.

    So the redefintion is a minimum of 12 years old and could be possibly be considered to be have happened almost 2,000 years ago.

    By either measure, the proverbial horse has bolted.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2165
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    Just on the "if marriage is redefined" aspect of the discussion, that presumes that the redefinition is yet to occur. As of 2001, it was redefined by Holland and other countries have followed suit.

    And that's only if you ignore same-sex marriage in ancient times. From what I've read online, Nero was supposedly married to two different men. That was around 60AD.

    So the redefintion is a minimum of 12 years old and could be possibly be considered to be have happened almost 2,000 years ago.

    By either measure, the proverbial horse has bolted.

    The early Christian church was in an environment like that yes. Nero was also one of the most vicious persecutors of Christians.

    My issue isn't so much that some people want to redefine marriage, but people want to force everyone else to agree, not just tolerate. If most of society disagree with me, that's fine. However, when people pressure people to choose between Biblical Christianity and abandoning it, that's when I think things have gone wrong.


  • #2166
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »
    The early Christian church was in an environment like that yes. Nero was also one of the most vicious persecutors of Christians also.

    My issue isn't so much that some people want to redefine marriage, but people want to force everyone else to agree, not just tolerate. If most of society disagree with me, that's fine. However, when people pressure people to choose between Biblical Christianity and abandoning it, that's when I think things have gone wrong.

    But you think it is ok for the civil State to impose your definition of marriage - which you agree everyone doesn't share - on everyone?

    Why should your minority group get to dictate to the State how my minority group should be treated?

    Or do you disagree the Biblical Christians are a minority group?


  • Advertisement
  • #2167
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    But you think it is ok for the civil State to impose your definition of marriage - which you agree everyone doesn't share - on everyone?

    Why should your minority group get to dictate to the State how my minority group should be treated?

    Or do you disagree the Biblical Christians are a minority group?

    I've told you this numerous times already.

    If the State chooses to redefine marriage, that is up to them. What I do hope they do is allow for sufficient freedoms for those who disagree.


  • #2168
    lazygal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    philologos wrote: »

    I've told you this numerous times already.

    If the State chooses to redefine marriage, that is up to them. What I do hope they do is allow for sufficient freedoms for those who disagree.
    What freedoms are you looking for? Do you think state employees should be allowed to refuse to marry two men or women, or refuse to 'glorify' non heterosexual marriage in a state school?


  • #2169
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »
    I've told you this numerous times already.

    If the State chooses to redefine marriage, that is up to them. What I do hope they do is allow for sufficient freedoms for those who disagree.

    and you have been told numerous times is no one is asking religious organisations to perform same-sex marriages.

    As for those who work for the State, they should, as all employees should, be obliged to perform all of their duties as required by their job description - whether they choose to do so is a matter for their personal conscience but it is a simple matter that in that case they may be better off in a job that does conform to their religious ideology rather than one where they represent the civil State.

    Should we all get the chance to pick and choose which aspects of our jobs we are willing to perform or should we abide by the job description of our jobs?


  • #2170
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    and you have been told numerous times is no one is asking religious organisations to perform same-sex marriages.

    As for those who work for the State, they should, as all employees should, be obliged to perform all of their duties as required by their job description - whether they choose to do so is a matter for their personal conscience but it is a simple matter that in that case they may be better off in a job that does conform to their religious ideology rather than one where they represent the civil State.

    Should we all get the chance to pick and choose which aspects of our jobs we are willing to perform or should we abide by the job description of our jobs?

    I've listed a number of legal concerns that arise in the upcoming legislation here.

    I trust that God is sovereign and in control irrespective of what happens.


  • #2171
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    philologos wrote: »
    I've told you this numerous times already.

    If the State chooses to redefine marriage, that is up to them. What I do hope they do is allow for sufficient freedoms for those who disagree.

    From reading the UK Government's publications (here and here)on the same sex marriage bill, those who disagree with same sex marriage will have the same protections as those afforded to anyone else, e.g. those who disagree with divorce.

    If, to use the example previously given, Christian teachers who believe that divorce is wrong are able to teach their students about it, why can't they do the same for same sex marriage?


  • Advertisement
  • #2172
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »
    I've listed a number of legal concerns that arise in the upcoming legislation here.

    I trust that God is sovereign and in control irrespective of what happens.

    Legal concerns which were shown to have little basis in fact.

    But, even if they did - why should someone's religious beliefs result in the denial of equality to other people?

    Should women we treated as lesser citizens because Koranic Muslims would have ideological problems with equal rights for women or should women not be put in roles of authority over men?


  • #2173
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    philologos wrote: »
    I've listed a number of legal concerns that arise in the upcoming legislation here.

    Many of those concerns can equally apply today to other aspect of a religion's teachings. If a teacher believes that sex outside marriage is immoral, and comes across a situation where they have to teach about teenage pregnancy, should they be allowed to deviate from the syllabus if it contradicts their faith?


  • #2174
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    From reading the UK Government's publications (here and here)on the same sex marriage bill, those who disagree with same sex marriage will have the same protections as those afforded to anyone else, e.g. those who disagree with divorce.

    If, to use the example previously given, Christian teachers who believe that divorce is wrong are able to teach their students about it, why can't they do the same for same sex marriage?

    Read the document I provided a few days ago which present difficulties for teachers, hospital chaplains, and the legal status of the Church of England amongst other things.

    The proposed legislation unfortunately doesn't provide robust legislation to protect those who disagree (for example by believing in the Biblical definition of marriage).

    I've pointed to this ad-nauseum already, so I'm not going to dwell on it.


  • #2175
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Legal concerns which were shown to have little basis in fact.

    But, even if they did - why should someone's religious beliefs result in the denial of equality to other people?

    Should women we treated as lesser citizens because Koranic Muslims would have ideological problems with that?

    No they haven't been at all. By whom is the question.


  • #2176
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,052 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    philologos wrote: »
    Read the document I provided a few days ago which present difficulties for teachers, hospital chaplains, and the legal status of the Church of England amongst other things.
    NuMarvel obviously has, since they specifically referenced an example from it i.e. the teachers' personal belief. So why not address the point they're making?

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #2177
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    philologos wrote: »
    No they haven't been at all. By whom is the question.

    No - the question is why you believe the religious views of a minority should dictate the civil liberties of all citizens.

    Why should a Biblical Christian registrar dictate who can and cannot get married in the eyes of the State?

    For that matter what is the difference between what you want and a Koranic Muslim who refuses to recognize women as equal colleagues or as their boss?


  • #2178
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    philologos wrote: »
    Read the document I provided a few days ago which present difficulties for teachers, hospital chaplains, and the legal status of the Church of England amongst other things.

    The proposed legislation unfortunately doesn't provide robust legislation to protect those who disagree (for example by believing in the Biblical definition of marriage).

    I've pointed to this ad-nauseum already, so I'm not going to dwell on it.

    There's no point referring people back to that document if you're not going to answer questions that challenge you on it.

    I have read the document. Nowhere does it, nor you, address why people need more protections with the introduction of same sex marriage. Neither it, nor you, have addressed why the current protections are inadequate.

    So I'll say it to you plainly: The Biblical definition of marriage is man and woman, for life, to the exclusion of all others. Why are the protections that are currently in place for those who believe in the entirety of that statement inadequate for those who believe in just the man and woman part?


  • #2179
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Many of those concerns can equally apply today to other aspect of a religion's teachings. If a teacher believes that sex outside marriage is immoral, and comes across a situation where they have to teach about teenage pregnancy, should they be allowed to deviate from the syllabus if it contradicts their faith?
    I would hope that most teaching on teenage pregnancy would strongly discourage it, wouldn't you?

    (Not that this is relevant to the discussion at hand)


  • #2180
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    philologos wrote: »
    I would hope that most teaching on teenage pregnancy would strongly discourage it, wouldn't you?

    (Not that this is relevant to the discussion at hand)

    To cut down on cross-posting, I'll follow up on this when I get a reply to my previous post (here).


  • #2181
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    The early Christian church was in an environment like that yes. Nero was also one of the most vicious persecutors of Christians.

    My issue isn't so much that some people want to redefine marriage, but people want to force everyone else to agree, not just tolerate. If most of society disagree with me, that's fine. However, when people pressure people to choose between Biblical Christianity and abandoning it, that's when I think things have gone wrong.

    You realise that's a bigger discussion rather than just the topic of gay marriage. That's "how do society and religion co-exist".

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #2182
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    You realise that's a bigger discussion rather than just the topic of gay marriage. That's "how do society and religion co-exist".

    No. It's how should people tolerate disagreement.
    Clearly you don't value the freedom of conscience in society.


  • #2183
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    No - the question is why you believe the religious views of a minority should dictate the civil liberties of all

    I think grounds for conscientious objection should be respected on this issue.


  • #2184
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    philologos wrote: »
    No. It's how should people tolerate disagreement.
    Clearly you don't value the freedom of conscience in society.
    philologos wrote: »
    I think grounds for conscientious objection should be respected on this issue.

    You'll have the same freedoms and grounds as you currently have. It would benefit the discussion if you could explain why those will be insufficient for same sex marriage.


  • #2185
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    No. It's how should people tolerate disagreement.
    and who's disagreeing? The state and religious groups ;)

    Let's examine the post you made yesterday.
    philologos wrote: »
    The early Christian church was in an environment like that yes. Nero was also one of the most vicious persecutors of Christians.

    My issue isn't so much that some people want to redefine marriage, but people want to force everyone else to agree, not just tolerate. If most of society disagree with me, that's fine. However, when people pressure people to choose between Biblical Christianity and abandoning it, that's when I think things have gone wrong.

    So you could survive if gay marriage was allowed, and you've a problem with how the state will treat religious groups as a result of gay marriage being available. You're suggesting that there will be conflict between Christianity and the state. This holds true for any number of possible situations, not just gay marriage. For example, you want it so that teachers can refuse to discuss gay marriage due to religious beliefs.

    The other is the suggestion that churches will legally be required to carry out gay marriages, an idea that no-one on this thread has supported (on either side of the debate).
    Clearly you don't value the freedom of conscience in society.
    I'm guessing you didn't have your coffee this morning to make that unfounded accusation.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2186
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,659 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Phil has already linked to a summary of a legal opinion by Aidan O’Neill QC obtained, I think, by the Coalition for Marriage, an “an umbrella group of individuals and organisations in the UK that support traditional marriage and oppose any plans to redefine it.”

    For ease of reference, here’s the link again: http://c4m.org.uk/downloads/legalopinionsummary.pdf

    Couple of thoughts:

    - O’Neill is a leading professional, with a track record practising in civil liberties, equality law, employment law, human rights law, EU law and competition law in both England and Scotland. Any opinion of his has to be taken seriously, regardless of who sought it.

    - The fact that O’Neill provided the opinion to C4M does not suggest that he is a member or supporter of C4M. (I have no idea whether he is or not, but it would be in C4M’s interest to obtain an opinion from a QC not aligned with them, since it would carry greater credibility.)

    - The full opinion has not been published, SFAIK. All that has been published is a summary prepared by C4M, and presumably it summarises the parts of the opinion most favourable to the position of C4M (i.e. if O’Neill advises that in certain respects marriage equality will not cause a problem, they omit that from their summary.)

    It seems from the summary of the opinion that the principal concerns arise not so much from the introduction of same-sex marriage, but from the intersection of laws providing for same-sex marriage and equality/equal treatment legislation. So, for instance, O’Neill suggests that:

    - A hospital/prison/armed forces chaplain who preaches (not in the performance of his chaplaincy duties, but elsewhere) that marriage is ordained between men and women could lawfully be disciplined by his employer

    - Prospective foster parents could lawfully be rejected if they indicate that they do not support same-sex marriage.

    - A church which will not celebrate same-sex marriages could lawfully be refused permission to hire local government facilities (for any purpose, not just for celebrating marriages)

    - The clause of the same-sex marriage legislation which provides that churches cannot be compelled to celebrate same sex weddings “could be overturned” under European human rights law. (Note apparently O’Neill doesn’t say that it would be; just that it could be.)

    - In so far as it applies to the Church of England, that clause is also vulnerable because, as an established church, the CofE may be seen as an “emanation of the state” for purposes of EU law.

    Assume for a moment that all these points have merit - i.e. that O’Neill’s opinion is correct. You may be fine with some or all of these consequences of marriage equality, but they obviously do affect churches and ministers of religion, and they do raise serious questions about rights of conscience and religious freedom.

    A private member’s bill has just been introduced into the House of Commons to amend the Equality Act so as to protect “a person’s conscientious beliefs about the definition of marriage”, making it a ground upon which different treatment would generally be forbidden (or, at least, would have to be justified). The promoter of the Bill, a Conservative backbencher, thinks it would go at least some way to addressing the concerns raised by O’Neill’s opinion.

    As a private member’s bill, the measure has zero chance of passing into law. But it means that the issue of rights of conscience remains a live one, and if nothing else at some point the British government is going to have to respond to O’Neills concerns either (a) by arguing that O’Neill is mistaken, or (b) by accepting that he may be right, and amending their own draft legislation to avoid the problems he points to, or (c) by accepting that O’Neill is right, but saying that these are desirable and proper outcomes of the legislation (or some combination of these, of course).


  • #2187
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    I'm guessing you didn't have your coffee this morning to make that unfounded accusation.

    I'm having it now :)

    I still think on the basis of most of the responses (including yours) show that the right to freedom of conscience is being ignored in this discussion.

    Essentially it is agree with us or face legal consequences. I don't think that's right.

    Either way we're going around and around in circles.


  • #2188
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm having it now :)

    I still think on the basis of most of the responses (including yours) show that the right to freedom of conscience is being ignored in this discussion.

    Essentially it is agree with us or face legal consequences. I don't think that's right.
    Either way we're going around and around in circles.

    Why is your (and religious peoples) freedom of conscience more important that those on the other side of the fence? People in favour of gay marriage are listening to their conscience when they decide that it's not right to stop same sex couple marrying.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #2189
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »

    Why is your (and religious peoples) freedom of conscience more important that those on the other side of the fence? People in favour of gay marriage are listening to their conscience when they decide that it's not right to stop same sex couple marrying.

    It's not more important. Nor is it less important. I support and have supported very clearly on boards.ie that atheists and agnostics have freedom of conscience, the same for other religions.

    I've said clearly that if the State wants to legislate for same-sex marriage it can do so. I think the State should consider the right of others to disagree. Peregrinus' post explains the situation rather excellently.

    People don't believe the assurances because they aren't iron clad in the legislation. The Telegraph reported a few days ago that an advisor to Michael Gove saying that the assurances for teachers are open to legal question.

    I find it slightly bizarre that you pointed to Nero as a sign of being progressive when he carried out one of the most vicious and systematic persecution of Christians that the world has ever seen.


  • #2190
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,066 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    It's not more important. Nor is it less important. I support and have supported very clearly on boards.ie that atheists and agnostics have freedom of conscience, the same for other religions.

    I've said clearly that if the State wants to legislate for same-sex marriage it can do so. I think the State should consider the right of others to disagree. Peregrinus' post explains the situation rather excellently.

    People don't believe the assurances because they aren't iron clad in the legislation. The Telegraph reported a few days ago that an advisor to Michael Gove saying that the assurances for teachers are open to legal question.

    I find it slightly bizarre that you pointed to Nero as a sign of being progressive when he carried out one of the most vicious and systematic persecution of Christians that the world has ever seen.

    for someone that complains about people misinterepting your posts, you're no slouch yourself.

    I never pointed to Nero as a sign of being progressive, rather I was just pointing out that gay marriage existed long before the current debate on the topic began.

    Why shouldn't a teacher be open to legal questions if they refuse to cover gay marriage when it comes to discussing relationships in the classroom? Teachers are supposed to give information to the students so they can learn and create their own opinions on such topics.

    And it's my understanding that the CofE are potentially exposed to legal trouble because they're the state church. People are guaranteed the opportunity to marry in a CofE church irrespective of their religion. This is what has created the problem now that the UK are bringing forward the same-sex bill.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #2191
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,065 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    To philologos: can you lay out, in as short a space as possible, what legal requirements you feel the state should put into law to protect your religious beliefs in regard to marriage, should Gay Marriage be enacted into law here in this republic.

    As this thread has become bedded down in a debate about a denial of rights to others in either camp, with regard to gay marriage, maybe it's about time that persons from other (non-christian) religions should get involved here and post on how they view the effect, in their opinion, gay marriage would have on their religions views and beliefs of marriage.


Advertisement