How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Tasden · 28-01-2015 07:51PM

sup_dude wrote: »

"Neither man nor woman fully captures what it is to be human"... It all went downhill from here. It's all about how marriage is between a man and a woman. I disagree.

Yeah perhaps the person who posted the link could clarify what exactly they thought of the letter/what it means..?

reprise · 28-01-2015 07:53PM

sup_dude wrote: »

"Neither man nor woman fully captures what it is to be human"... It all went downhill from here. It's all about how marriage is between a man and a woman. I disagree.

You don't have to agree. You do have to realise that the arguments are there.

Ave Sodalis · 28-01-2015 07:54PM

reprise wrote: »

You don't have to agree. You do have to realise that the arguments are there.

And can be argued against. However, if I attempt this, you'd say I'm being hostile.

Zen65 · 28-01-2015 07:59PM

reprise wrote: »

Thanks eviltwin, I'd be very interested in your (and everyones) thoughts on the second letter in the Irish Times today.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/marriage-referendum-1.2081576

It's a very well written letter.

The underlying thinking is fundamentally flawed however. It reminds me of the argument that certain Golf Clubs used to make about not allowing full membership for females.

But they can still play golf

They can serve on committees

But it's a stretch too far to allow them full membership. They should be happy that we allow them associate membership . . . years ago that would not have been allowed.

The underlying desire to mark a difference in status on the basis of gender is at the heart of it, and that's either homophobia or misogyny, neither of which should be supported by our constitution.

reprise · 28-01-2015 07:59PM

Tasden wrote: »

Yeah perhaps the person who posted the link could clarify what exactly they thought of the letter/what it means..?

Sure, i thought it was very well written and as a married man myself, with childern, quite striking. I thought there was a very well argued point on changing marriage so fundamentally, that it ceases to be that which it is, to accomadate same sex couples.

COYVB · 28-01-2015 08:01PM

reprise wrote: »

Thanks eviltwin, I'd be very interested in your (and everyones) thoughts on the second letter in the Irish Times today.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/marriage-referendum-1.2081576

You can't expect a letter that attempts to push nature as a defense for marriage to be taken seriously. Marriage is a human construct, and absolutely not a "nature" thing - conversely, gay couples are found throughout the animal kingdom, if one were to go that particular route.

It seems to me that a lot of people on the no side are getting caught up on the word marriage. I don't think gay couples care if it's called marriage or "superfab lifelove" - they want the same rights, as they rightly should. Let us straighties keep the word marriage, who gives a crap, but give gay couples a direct equivalent in every single way, if that'll stop the no side getting their knickers in a twist.

The word doesn't matter; it's a made up human word for a relatively recent concept.

COYVB · 28-01-2015 08:03PM

reprise wrote: »

I thought there was a very well argued point on changing marriage so fundamentally, that it ceases to be that which it is, to accomadate same sex couples.

They're not changing marriage though. My marriage won't change. Yours won't change. It's just allowing gay people to have their unions recognised as having the very same rights as yours or mine - and anyone who has a problem with that, they've got bigger issues to contend with

Zen65 · 28-01-2015 08:05PM

reprise wrote: »

I thought there was a very well argued point on changing marriage so fundamentally, that it ceases to be that which it is, to accomadate same sex couples.

Would you agree however, that it would not change your marriage in any way?

After all, same sex marriage is permitted elsewhere on the planet, and I'm guessing that your marriage hardly noticed? Why then should you believe that allowing SSM in Ireland would make any difference to you? It would, of course, make a huge difference for the better to homosexual couples.

Moreover if you're a member of a religious organisation that does not recognise SSM, take comfort that this change in constitution would not force those religions to recognise same sex marriage in a sacrament.

Tasden · 28-01-2015 08:05PM

reprise wrote: »

Sure, i thought it was very well written and as a married man myself, with childern, quite striking. I thought there was a very well argued point on changing marriage so fundamentally, that it ceases to be that which it is, to accomadate same sex couples.

But why does marriage need to be only something that is between a man and woman? And why should we oppose that change, apart from "it always was, so always should be"? I suppose what I don't understand in that letter is that it doesn't argue WHY its a problem for marriage to become something between two men or two women? (Or it does but I'm just not understanding)

Why would we need to create a "gay" marriage and keep "normal" marriage? Instead of just letting marriage be something for two people in a loving relationship?

floggg · 28-01-2015 08:07PM

sup_dude wrote: »

"Neither man nor woman fully captures what it is to be human"... It all went downhill from here. It's all about how marriage is between a man and a woman. I disagree.

I enjoyed that. Nice to know I'm not fully capable of being human or enjoying the human experience.

Does that mean my relationship is sub-human?

Ave Sodalis · 28-01-2015 08:10PM

floggg wrote: »

I enjoyed that. Nice to know I'm not fully capable of being human or enjoying the human experience.

Does that mean my relationship is sub-human?

Not only that, you're subhuman until you find someone of the opposite gender. You're not human unless you're married. Being married to someone of the opposite gender is the only goal anyone should ever have and your life is not complete until you've done so.

COYVB · 28-01-2015 08:10PM

Tasden wrote: »

"it always was, so always should be"

While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, there is some history of recorded same-sex unions around the world. Various types of same-sex unions have existed, ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.

A same-sex union was known in Ancient Greece and Rome, ancient Mesopotamia, in some regions of China, such as Fujian province, and at certain times in ancient European history. These same-sex unions continued until Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) was issued in 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans, which prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome and ordered that those who were so married were to be executed.

Same-sex marital practices and rituals were more recognized in Mesopotamia than in ancient Egypt. The Almanac of Incantations contained prayers favoring on an equal basis the love of a man for a woman and of a man for man.

In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies. Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.

Same sex marriage: Taking the marriage back!

Tasden · 28-01-2015 08:12PM

floggg wrote: »

I enjoyed that. Nice to know I'm not fully capable of being human or enjoying the human experience.

Does that mean my relationship is sub-human?

Tbh as a straight female, I'm not sure I've experienced the "human experience" discussed in that letter

reprise · 28-01-2015 08:13PM

COYVB wrote: »

They're not changing marriage though. My marriage won't change. Yours won't change. It's just allowing gay people to have their unions recognised as having the very same rights as yours or mine - and anyone who has a problem with that, they've got bigger issues to contend with

Can we put this to bed? My marriage will be unchanged by the referendum. I am focused on the wisdom of changing that which makes marriage what it is.

Ave Sodalis · 28-01-2015 08:14PM

reprise wrote: »

Can we put this to bed? My marriage will be unchanged by the referendum. I am focused on the wisdom of changing that which makes marriage what it is.

What people are asking is: what does it matter to you?

Zen65 · 28-01-2015 08:14PM

In seeking equality with something unlike yourself, by changing it in order to join it, the thing that you join is no longer what you were trying to join in the first place.

I think this was said when Mary Robinson ran for presidency in Ireland. In truth, she improved the meaning of Irish President beyond anything that her predecessors had achieved. Change, though difficult for some to accept, is often for the good.

COYVB · 28-01-2015 08:15PM

reprise wrote: »

Can we put this to bed? My marriage will be unchanged by the referendum. I am focused on the wisdom of changing that which makes marriage what it is.

Nothing is changing marriage from its original meaning though. Do some reading on it. The church banned it in the 5th century. That's 1600 years out of the 5000 years of recorded history where SSM was not "acceptable", by the doing of the church. What about the other 3400 years?

reprise · 28-01-2015 08:17PM

floggg wrote: »

I enjoyed that. Nice to know I'm not fully capable of being human or enjoying the human experience.

Does that mean my relationship is sub-human?

I think he was referring the the possibility of procreation. Don't let that stop you.

COYVB · 28-01-2015 08:18PM

reprise wrote: »

I think he was referring the the possibility of procreation. Don't let that stop you.

We have evolved to a stage where you don't need a man and a woman to physically make a baby any more

Ave Sodalis · 28-01-2015 08:19PM

reprise wrote: »

I think he was referring the the possibility of procreation. Don't let that stop you.

He never mentioned that but are infertile couples only half human?

eviltwin · 28-01-2015 08:20PM

Every married person sees their marriage a different way. Some see it as creating a family unit or a religious sacrament, some see it as the only valid union in which to have kids, some do it for legal protection, some do it for money etc etc etc.

I'm sure the guy who wrote the letter sees his marriage differently to how I see mine and that's fine. But who is to say his view is better than mine or vice versa?
I see celebrities getting married and divorced again within a matter of weeks and wonder what they are doing and I watch those shows on TLC of the Duggers with their 19 children or the Browns with their four wives and I wonder how they can do it but is their marriage any less valid than mine just because they choose to see it in a different way? Of course not. It's their life, it's nothing to do with me.

It's the same for gay people. Just another way of doing things. Vive la difference

Nodin · 28-01-2015 08:20PM

reprise wrote: »

I think he was referring the the possibility of procreation. Don't let that stop you.

So we should remove the right of marriage for the infertile?

reprise · 28-01-2015 08:21PM

Zen65 wrote: »

I think this was said when Mary Robinson ran for presidency in Ireland. In truth, she improved the meaning of Irish President beyond anything that her predecessors had achieved. Change, though difficult for some to accept, is often for the good.

Remind me, what did she change?

reprise · 28-01-2015 08:22PM

sup_dude wrote: »

He never mentioned that but are infertile couples only half human?

That rabbit hole again? Pass.

Nodin · 28-01-2015 08:23PM

reprise wrote: »

That rabbit hole again? Pass.

You brought up "the possibility of procreation"

Ave Sodalis · 28-01-2015 08:24PM

reprise wrote: »

That rabbit hole again? Pass.

I actually have lost count how many times I've brought this up with you and you still refuse to come up with a reasoning behind it.

You say these things about marriage are only for this and that and therefore doesn't support SSM. The same logic can be applied to other types of couple and yet when it's pointed out to you, you basically shove your fingers in your ears and go "blah blah blah" and yet you want a reasonable discussion...

reprise · 28-01-2015 08:24PM

COYVB wrote: »

We have evolved to a stage where you don't need a man and a woman to physically make a baby any more

How many of theses little miracles were born in Ireland last year?

Whosthis · 28-01-2015 08:27PM

Have all of the political parties come out in support of the referendum yet? I can't imagine any of them publicly supporting the no campaign but it would be interesting to see if any of them stay silent.

reprise · 28-01-2015 08:27PM

sup_dude wrote: »

I actually have lost count how many times I've brought this up with you and you still refuse to come up with a reasoning behind it.

You say these things about marriage are only for this and that and therefore doesn't support SSM. The same logic can be applied to other types of couple and yet when it's pointed out to you, you basically shove your fingers in your ears and go "blah blah blah" and yet you want a reasonable discussion...

I have given you reasons several times but you refuse to listen.

I think the argument that for same sex couples To be allowed marry as some married couples don't have children, amongst your weakest. For my other reasons, please refer to my posts earlier in the thread.

floggg · 28-01-2015 08:29PM

reprise wrote: »

Sure, i thought it was very well written and as a married man myself, with childern, quite striking. I thought there was a very well argued point on changing marriage so fundamentally, that it ceases to be that which it is, to accomadate same sex couples.

Its eloquently written, but actually not very well argued at all.

it assumes gender to e the defining feature of marriage, without offering any evidence or further argument in support of that contention. It then uses that assumption to form the basis of an argument against change.

It makes the same mistake regarding human nature and its supposed expression through gender, reciting some eloquent but ultimately baseless, subjective and meaningless phrases about what the author considers to be human nature.

And of course it completely misstates what is said in the Constitution regarding marriage - which makes no reference to gender in regard to marriage.

Its central argument regarding human nature is really an eloquent, but quite transparent way of setting up heterosexual relationships as superior, and thus contains the corollary implication that same sex relationships are inferior and that gay people are not truly capable of living the human experience (nice that).

In short, misguided musings which mistake subjective beliefs as universal truths and which clearly evidences the authors view of same sex relationships as inferior.

The eloquently phrased and coded arguments will go down very well with those who are already believers in his message.

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Comments