SSM Referendum Spring 2015

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Because as I've said before the idea of homosexuality doesn't sit right with me.

Then yes, you are homophobic. Obviously not on the same level as Iona or the Westboro Baptists, but still homophobic.

It's exactly as me saying "because black people don't sit right with me" would make it a racist statement.

Anyway, I'm not to keen on the thought of two guys having sex, so do you know what I do? I don't think about two dudes having sex! Just like I don't think about old people or overweight people going at it.

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Because as I've said before the idea of homosexuality doesn't sit right with me.

How will I vote? I won't even vote, what other people do with their lives has no impact on me. Each to their own.

If you really believe that why not vote yes? Voting no won't make homosexuals go away but helping this pass could bring a lot of happiness to families out there.

Just to change the tone up a bit, I've a question for ye lot. Say a gay/lesbian couple got a civil partnership, does it become upgraded to a civil marriage (if the referendum passes that is) or do the couple need to apply for one?

Zemuppet wrote: »

Just to change the tone up a bit, I've a question for ye lot. Say a gay/lesbian couple got a civil partnership, does it become upgraded to a civil marriage (if the referendum passes that is) or do the couple need to apply for one?

That's an interesting one. I'd presume they'd need to apply for one. AFAIK civil partnerships are also available to straight couples so I guess whatever framework exists for them to 'upgrade' would apply to same sex couples currently in civil partnerships

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Ok hypothetical scenario (and I not comparing this to homosexuality before anybody explodes) say a 75 yo male marries an 18 yo girl. I bet this would "sit right" in many peoples opinions. Give a good reason why they shouldn't marry? It's very very hard to explain.

They're both consenting adults, I don't see how its any of my business to judge their relationship.

P_1 wrote: »

That's an interesting one. I'd presume they'd need to apply for one. AFAIK civil partnerships are also available to straight couples so I guess whatever framework exists for them to 'upgrade' would apply to same sex couples currently in civil partnerships

No. Civil partnerships are only currently available to gay couples.

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

But would it sit right with you? Please don't tell me you're initial reaction wouldn't be WTF.

My initial reaction would be that it's none of my business

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Sorry but this "fact" has been brought up numerous times before and is wholly untrue. Exclusive homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom is incredibly incredibly rare.

In other words, you know that it's a natural behaviour in animals, and you still claim it's unnatural. I see...

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Ok hypothetical scenario (and I not comparing this to homosexuality before anybody explodes) say a 75 yo male marries an 18 yo girl. I bet this would not "sit right" in many peoples opinions. Give a good reason why they shouldn't marry? It's very very hard to explain.

It may not sit right with some people, but they would have reasons for being uncomfortable with it. You're claiming there's no reason for your attitude to homosexuality.

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Well it kind of nullifies the impact of your original point.

What was my original point?

fran17 wrote: »

Jesus Christ for starters,mark 10:6-7,and every civilisation that existed since then.i mean to ask a question like that is to question the entire history of the world and the morals that were upholded til this very day.that would be one big ass thread we'd need.
would it not give your cause more legitimacy to name it a same sex union as the word marriage itself has the historical meaning maritare,latin for to provide a husband or wife.ie male and female?
does the use of the word marriage not dilute the result you seek?

Hey, guess what:

* marriage was around way before Jesus, Christianity, or Judaism

* marriage is seen in some form in most cultures around the world, most of which don't follow an abrahamic faith (Judaism, Christianity or Islam)

* there is no single, common or universal definition or form of marriage across the world or throughout history - polygamy, monogamy, patriarchal marriage, matriarchal marriage, romantic marriage, transactional marriages etc are all common in various places, cultures and times

* same sex marriages have been recorded in various cultures going back thousands of years and in some instances are older than yeah Christian marriage sacrament

*the bible mainly addressed polygamous transactional marriages where women were chattels to be bought and sold, were subservient to their husband and had no rights whatsoever - that type of marriage is no very much illegal in Ireland

*modern marriage based on an equal romantic partnership is less than 100 years old - Jesus and the bible would likely have disapproved of it as the equal role women now have violates numerous biblical provisions

* early Christians didn't view marriage as a sacrament at all, or as something the church should have any role or involvement in. If I recall correctly it only became a sacrament in the dark or Middle Ages - almost a thallus and years after the Christian church had been founded

* just because you might believe Jesus had magical powers, doesn't mean the rest of us do. What he may have said isn't relevant to any debate on civil marriage


If you are going to try and lecture is about the history of marriage, I would have thought you should actually try to find out something about it first.

As for your arguments regarding the etymology of the word "marriage", the Latin root "to provide with a husband or wife" doesn't have the meaning you suggest (between a man and woman only).

One cousin easily provide a man with a husband, and this still stay within the original Latin meaning.

In any event, if you are going to try and construct a linguistic argument you should be aware that linguists recognise that the meaning of words can evolve over time, and that often times the present meaning and usage bears no meaning to it's origin.

E.g. ****** would be an apt one in this context, as would gay and queer themselves.

Also, you could argue that "to provide with a husband or wife" is out of sync with the modern meaning of marriage. Nowadays nobody provides a husband or wife to anybody else - people freely enter the marriage contract themselves on the basis of a mutual commitment.

So we either scrap the word for both or recognise that language evolves.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

And it used to mean for life but that go changed.

It used to mean the purchase of one or more women who became your property to rape, enslave and beat as you pleased.

Modern marriage bears no resemblance to the biblical sort.

PeteFalk78 wrote: »

Where did I mention it was a natural behaviour in animals?

You've acknowledged that homosexuality is observed in the animal kingdom, which indicates it being a natural behaviour.