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…129130132134135…218

Comments

  • #3932
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    Funny how divorce really shook up the whole "until death do us part" bit, eh?

    No problems since, even though the meaning of marriage was changed, and rightfully so, to accommodate divorce.

    Marriage is still marriage until death. I don't believe the formula under which people are married has been change to say "until divorce do us part".
    Divorce is what it always was, a civil machination. People who remarry after divorce while their spouse is still alive are committing adultery. State sponsored adultery granted, but adultery none the less.


  • #3933
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Festus wrote: »
    If definitions can be changed on a whim then the definition is meaningless.

    Which is apt.
    Until late last century the definition of rape meant that a man could not be guilty of raping his wife. The definition of rape was changed and now a man can be found guilty of raping his wife. Does that change render the definition of rape meaningless? Or perhaps it is only definitions that you don't agree with that you have a problem with...

    MrP


  • #3934
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Festus wrote: »
    Marriage is still marriage until death. I don't believe the formula under which people are married has been change to say "until divorce do us part".
    Divorce is what it always was, a civil machination. People who remarry after divorce while their spouse is still alive are committing adultery. State sponsored adultery granted, but adultery none the less.

    Marriage too is a civil machination. That Christian religions have incorporated into their beliefs doesn't take away from that. Marriage was around long before the founding of the Christian faith, and the rights being sought for gay and lesbian couples are civil and legal rights.

    The Christian concept of marriage, that of man and woman, for life, to the exclusion of all others, won't be expected to change. Just as the Church isn't obliged to recognise marriages that include a divorced person, they won't be required to recognise marriages of gay and lesbian couples. But as with divorced people remarrying, Christian teachings can't be used as a reason for not letting same-sex couples marry either.


  • #3935
    mbiking123
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,034 ✭✭✭mbiking123


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Marriage too is a civil machination. That Christian religions have incorporated into their beliefs doesn't take away from that. Marriage was around long before the founding of the Christian faith, and the rights being sought for gay and lesbian couples are civil and legal rights.

    The Christian concept of marriage, that of man and woman, for life, to the exclusion of all others, won't be expected to change. Just as the Church isn't obliged to recognise marriages that include a divorced person, they won't be required to recognise marriages of gay and lesbian couples. But as with divorced people remarrying, Christian teachings can't be used as a reason for not letting same-sex couples marry either.

    Some parts of the world a man is allowed more than one wife and others a woman is allowed more than one husband. I wonder could that be allowed in Ireland

    'Polygamy (from πολύς γάμος polys gamos, translated literally in Late Greek as "many married")[1] is a marriage which includes more than two partners.[1] When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, the relationship is called polygyny; and when a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry. If a marriage includes multiple husbands and wives, it can be called group or conjoint marriage'

    Mmmmm I wonder could that happen here


  • #3936
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    mbiking123 wrote: »
    Some parts of the world a man is allowed more than one wife and others a woman is allowed more than one husband. I wonder could that be allowed in Ireland

    'Polygamy (from πολύς γάμος polys gamos, translated literally in Late Greek as "many married")[1] is a marriage which includes more than two partners.[1] When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, the relationship is called polygyny; and when a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry. If a marriage includes multiple husbands and wives, it can be called group or conjoint marriage'

    Mmmmm I wonder could that happen here

    Seeing as how this thread is related to issues where homosexuality and Christianity intersect, and not about various types of marriages, I'm not sure this is the appropriate place to discuss group marriages. It could be an interesting discussion, but it would be off-topic.

    As I've said to the last two posters that brought up this issue when discussing same sex marriage (not on this thread), it's probably best to start a new thread in the appropriate forum so that the discussions don't overlap.


  • Advertisement
  • #3937
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    mbiking123 wrote: »
    Some parts of the world a man is allowed more than one wife and others a woman is allowed more than one husband. I wonder could that be allowed in Ireland

    'Polygamy (from πολύς γάμος polys gamos, translated literally in Late Greek as "many married")[1] is a marriage which includes more than two partners.[1] When a man is married to more than one wife at a time, the relationship is called polygyny; and when a woman is married to more than one husband at a time, it is called polyandry. If a marriage includes multiple husbands and wives, it can be called group or conjoint marriage'

    Mmmmm I wonder could that happen here
    Notice that in those countries where polygamy is commonplace homosexuality is often illegal.

    Hmmm, guess polygamy doesn't lead to same sex marriage or vice versa, does it?


  • #3938
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    MrPudding wrote: »
    Until late last century the definition of rape meant that a man could not be guilty of raping his wife. The definition of rape was changed and now a man can be found guilty of raping his wife. Does that change render the definition of rape meaningless? Or perhaps it is only definitions that you don't agree with that you have a problem with...

    MrP


    Was the definition of rape changed? Forcing a woman to have sex against her will? I think not.

    The definition of rape was not changed. What was changed was the law.
    It changed the application of rape law to include spousal rape.


  • #3939
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Marriage too is a civil machination. That Christian religions have incorporated into their beliefs doesn't take away from that. Marriage was around long before the founding of the Christian faith, and the rights being sought for gay and lesbian couples are civil and legal rights.

    The Christian concept of marriage, that of man and woman, for life, to the exclusion of all others, won't be expected to change. Just as the Church isn't obliged to recognise marriages that include a divorced person, they won't be required to recognise marriages of gay and lesbian couples. But as with divorced people remarrying, Christian teachings can't be used as a reason for not letting same-sex couples marry either.

    Indeed marriage does predate Christianity. and Judaeism. and every other religion and none. Marriage was instituted by God when he created human beings.


  • #3940
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,163 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Oh boy, another person is about to go full creationist. :rolleyes:


  • #3941
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    Why so surpised? :rolleyes:

    This is the Christianity Forum ... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #3942
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,055 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Festus wrote: »
    Was the definition of rape changed? Forcing a woman to have sex against her will? I think not.

    The definition of rape was not changed.     What was changed was the law.
    It changed the application of rape law to include spousal rape.

    From a legal point of view, it was.

    The legal system said that a husband couldn't rape something that was his property and/or that by getting married the wife had agreed to having sex with husband for the duration of the marriage).

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



  • #3943
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    koth wrote: »
    From a legal point of view, it was.

    The legal system said that a husband couldn't rape something that was his property and/or that by getting married the wife had agreed to having sex with husband for the duration of the marriage).

    If that is the case then you will have to use some other term other than rape as in this context rape is not rape but something else so your statement makes no sense.

    In order for your statement to make sense we have to agree on a definition of rape.

    So, are you saying that the law said that a husband could not have non-consensual sex with his wife?


  • #3944
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Festus wrote: »
    Indeed marriage does predate Christianity. and Judaeism. and every other religion and none. Marriage was instituted by God when he created human beings.

    But that's not something I believe. Is it right that civil and legal rights are denied purely on the basis of someone else's' beliefs?


  • #3945
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,055 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Festus wrote: »
    If that is the case then you will have to use some other term other than rape as in this context rape is not rape but something else so your statement makes no sense.

    In order for your statement to make sense we have to agree on a definition of rape.

    So, are you saying that the law said that a husband could not have non-consensual sex with his wife?

    I'm saying that a husband could not commit rape. It didn't meet the criteria of rape as it was defined back then.

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



  • #3946
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    But that's not something I believe. Is it right that civil and legal rights are denied purely on the basis of someone else's' beliefs?


    that depends on whether or not you believe in democracy.

    In a democracy the wants and beliefs of the majority can cause issues for some minorities. It all depends on the nature of the democracy you living in.

    Is it a Christian Democracy, a Socialist Democracy or a Communist Democracy?

    Power to the People ultimately depends on the nature and morals of the People.


  • #3947
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    koth wrote: »
    I'm saying that a husband could not commit rape. It didn't meet the criteria of rape as it was defined back then.

    Well, that's the law and the law only ever really serves the powerful, ultimately. It may give appearances of serving the ordinary, but most of us know the reality.

    Fact of the matter is that in a Christian marriage sex can only ever be by mutual consent. The law can, and usually does, say what it wants to suit the whims of whomsoever is pulling the strings at the time but in the eyes of God one person forcing another to have sexual relations against their will is wrong, regardless of marital status.

    Ergo, rape is rape, if by rape you mean non-consensual sex


  • #3948
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,055 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    but rape is a criminal offence. The law doesn't work on the premise of rape meaning X to Christians, Y to everyone else. It didn't matter what religion a husband was, he couldn't rape his wife as rape was defined.

    Rape is currently defined broadly as forcing someone to have sex against their will. But it wasn't always defined as such.

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



  • #3949
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,040 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Festus wrote: »
    Fact of the matter is that in a Christian marriage sex can only ever be by mutual consent
    Fact of the matter is that in Christianity, marriage can only be performed by a priest in a Christian ceremony. Ergo, nobody is married except for those in a Christian marriage.

    Right?

    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



  • #3950
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    28064212 wrote: »
    Fact of the matter is that in Christianity, marriage can only be performed by a priest in a Christian ceremony. Ergo, nobody is married except for those in a Christian marriage.

    Right?

    Does the formula contain the words " what God has joined together..." ?


  • #3951
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    koth wrote: »

    Rape is currently defined broadly as forcing someone to have sex against their will. But it wasn't always defined as such.

    Can you provide the previous definitions, or links to such?


  • Advertisement
  • #3952
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,040 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Festus wrote: »
    Does the formula contain the words " what God has joined together..." ?
    I think some of them say Allah, others have multiple Gods, and lots don't include God at all. Are they not real marriages?

    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



  • #3953
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,055 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Festus wrote: »
    Can you provide the previous definitions, or links to such?
    ..
    Rape is the commission of unlawful sexual intercourse or unlawful sexual intrusion. Rape laws in the United States have been revised over the years, and they vary from state to state.


    Historically, rape was defined as unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman against her will. The essential elements of the crime were sexual penetration, force, and lack of consent. Women who were raped were expected to have physically resisted to the utmost of their powers or their assailant would not be convicted of rape. Additionally, a husband could have sex with his wife against her will without being charged with rape.



    Beginning in the 1970s, state legislatures and courts expanded and redefined the crime of rape to reflect modern notions of equality and legal propriety.


    Source



    In the 19th century, state laws around the country defined rape as the carnal knowledge of a woman when achieved by force by a man other than her husband. According to a principle known as coverture, a husband had authority over his wife’s person and property. Therefore, women could not withhold sex from their husbands.


    Source

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



  • #3954
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    Festus wrote: »
    Was the definition of rape changed? Forcing a woman to have sex against her will? I think not.
    The definition of rape was not changed. What was changed was the law.
    It changed the application of rape law to include spousal rape.
    This is the interesting thing, at the time rape was a common law offence so the definition did change. Prior to the relevant case the definition of rape precluded a man form raping his wife. This was based on contract principles, the wife agreed to have sex with the husband and was, therefore, not in a position to refuse. As the man had a contractual right to sex he could not commit rape. This common law definition was changed by judges.
    But you raise an interesting point. In the Californian constitution the definition of marriage was in gender neutral terms. This was the cases for decades. Therefore, allowing same sex marriage required no change of definition, marriage was defined as something that “two persons” agreed to. Therefore, allowing same sex marriage did not actually require a redefinition of marriage, the definition that was operant at the time was conducive to same sex marriage. So why all the whining?
    MrP



  • #3955
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    koth wrote: »
    ..


    I don't see anything there that provides for an alternative definition of rape.

    I see you highlighted a part that says that a husband could not be charged with rape but that does not mean that he did not commit rape. All it means is that he could not be charged with rape.


  • #3956
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    MrPudding wrote: »
    This is the interesting thing, at the time rape was a common law offence so the definition did change. Prior to the relevant case the definition of rape precluded a man form raping his wife. This was based on contract principles, the wife agreed to have sex with the husband and was, therefore, not in a position to refuse. As the man had a contractual right to sex he could not commit rape. This common law definition was changed by judges.
    But you raise an interesting point. In the Californian constitution the definition of marriage was in gender neutral terms. This was the cases for decades. Therefore, allowing same sex marriage required no change of definition, marriage was defined as something that “two persons” agreed to. Therefore, allowing same sex marriage did not actually require a redefinition of marriage, the definition that was operant at the time was conducive to same sex marriage. So why all the whining?
    MrP

    Oh, do stop whinging Mr P.

    Rape was not re-defined. Who could be charged with rape was.

    Rape is what it always was.


  • #3957
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,055 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Festus wrote: »
    I don't see anything there that provides for an alternative definition of rape.

    I see you highlighted a part that says that a husband could not be charged with rape but that does not mean that he did not commit rape. All it means is that he could not be charged with rape.
    In the 19th century, state laws around the country defined rape as the carnal knowledge of a woman when achieved by force by a man other than her husband. According to a principle known as coverture, a husband had authority over his wife’s person and property. Therefore, women could not withhold sex from their husbands.
    This principle meant that "rape is rape" wasn't always so. The law reduced the wife to property and meant that she essentially had no say regarding sex with her husband. If he wanted it, he could have it and the definnition of rape excluded this act as being referred to as rape.

    It wasn't that it was viewed as rape but marriage meant it was okay. It wasn't viewed as rape.

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



  • #3958
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    koth wrote: »
    This principle meant that "rape is rape" wasn't always so. The law reduced the wife to property and meant that she essentially had no say regarding sex with her husband. If he wanted it, he could have it and the definnition of rape excluded this act as being referred to as rape.

    It wasn't that it was viewed as rape but marriage meant it was okay. It wasn't viewed as rape.

    But it was still rape. Try looking at it from the woman's perspective


  • #3959
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Festus wrote: »
    that depends on whether or not you believe in democracy.

    In a democracy the wants and beliefs of the majority can cause issues for some minorities. It all depends on the nature of the democracy you living in.

    Is it a Christian Democracy, a Socialist Democracy or a Communist Democracy?

    Power to the People ultimately depends on the nature and morals of the People.

    Limiting the rights of minorities because of majority is the tyranny of the majority.


  • #3960
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,055 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Festus wrote: »
    But it was still rape. Try looking at it from the woman's perspective

    I am. They had no legal protection from a husband that raped ( as we now define rape) her. They were no better than property. I really don't understand why this is difficult to grasp.

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



  • Advertisement
  • #3961
    Festus
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,087 ✭✭✭Festus


    koth wrote: »
    I am. They had no legal protection from a husband that raped ( as we now define rape) her. They were no better than property. I really don't understand why this is difficult to grasp.

    Are you confusing yourself?

    Rape was given as an example of something for which its definition has changed.

    so far all that is being presented to support this are statements that support the contention that only the law as to who could be charged with rape changed.

    The woman was still raped, by the definition then as now, but the law was not designed to allow for her husband to be charged.

    No evidence has been presented to support an alternative definition of rape.

    The fact that rape within marriage was not considered in law to be rape does not mean that the definition of rape changed. All it means is that the law changed.


Advertisement