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

SW wrote: »

You may take it up with the spokes-person for the group that were to speak at the event and/or theJournal.ie, as that is what he is quoted as saying on theJournal.ie.



Link to source

I did speak to him and others personally. He was misquoted/represented. So the clarification is, the hotel, because they were threatened with a protest/media circus, called the organizers the morning before and said they couldn't host it. The organizers could not find another suitable location in time.

I do believe this is a freedoom of speech issue first & foremost. I also believe that this referendum will pass by a minimum of 70% for change. I will be shocked if it's less and completely flabbergast if it passes by less than 60%.

I have tried to be open minded and listen to all sides and I've learnt a lot from folk who have been willing to have calm factual discussion (very hard to come across to be honest). I have learnt for example that the civil partnership act was sloppy legislation and in the (extremely) unlikely event that this referendum doesn't pass, it should be rectified. Many gay couples who wish to make their relationship have legal standing have invested a lot in homes and pensions and that should be protected.

SW wrote: »

Do you know why they'd prefer a civil partnership rather than marriage, if you don't mind me asking?

Different reasons.

For some, it stems from a feeling that the State is overreaching its authority in presuming to regulate marriage.

Others want a complete separation of church and State. After all, they reason, they have been repeatedly told during the current referendum debate that religious marriage and civil marriage are two separate things. In that case, why get married twice with two separate concepts of marriage? Their reasons for marrying are primarily tied up in the religious concept of marriage, so it makes more sense to ditch the civil marriage altogether.

However, it makes sense for there to be some legal arrangement to deal with tax & inheritance and such like (things, unlike love or religious marriage, which are a legitimate concern of a government). Civil partnership meets these needs admirably. So a civil partnership, offered without discrimination to all couples irrespective of gender, would be their preferred option.

Whatever happens, I think that the days of either Church or State holding a monopoly on marriage are over. People are going to increasingly use the word 'marriage' to refer to varying kinds of relationships, irrespective of whether they are recognised by the State or the Church.

Nick Park wrote: »

Different reasons.

For some, it stems from a feeling that the State is overreaching its authority in presuming to regulate marriage.

Others want a complete separation of church and State. After all, they reason, they have been repeatedly told during the current referendum debate that religious marriage and civil marriage are two separate things. In that case, why get married twice with two separate concepts of marriage? Their reasons for marrying are primarily tied up in the religious concept of marriage, so it makes more sense to ditch the civil marriage altogether.

However, it makes sense for there to be some legal arrangement to deal with tax & inheritance and such like (things, unlike love or religious marriage, which are a legitimate concern of a government). Civil partnership meets these needs admirably. So a civil partnership, offered without discrimination to all couples irrespective of gender, would be their preferred option.

Whatever happens, I think that the days of either Church or State holding a monopoly on marriage are over. People are going to increasingly use the word 'marriage' to refer to varying kinds of relationships, irrespective of whether they are recognised by the State or the Church.

...............................................................................................

Yes. the voters are being told repeatedly that religious marriage and civil marriage are two separate things, because that is the truth and has been so for decades now. If you get a Religious Marriage, you are NOT required to have a Civil Marriage. All the state requires is that the married couple register that Religious Marriage with it.

Through that process the state has been regulating marriage for decades now with the willing co-operation of all the churches, synagogues etc acting in a dual role by doing state registrar duties and, until now, the churches have had no problem with the state registering marriages.

I'm a bit surprised to learn that there are people who think they are required to go through both a religious marriage ceremony and a civil marriage ceremony to get married here. Thank heaven that there are both religious and civil authorities around to tell them the reality is that they do NOT need both.

Civil marriage has been around for decades for heterosexual couples who do not want a religious marriage. Are you seriously proposing that they be told that they cannot marry except through a religious marriage ceremony? That would be in conflict with any notion that any marriage monopoly is ending.

Edot. Sorry Nick, we're not jumping all over you. Ta Katy. I spent too much time editing and deleting repitition in mine, you pipped me at the post.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

They have every right to make that requirement if the individual intends to have the marriage registered in law.

That wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about those who wish to get married in church and don't give two hoots whether the marriage is registered in law.

An increasing number are questioning but you have the direction entirely wrong. They are questioning the need to get married in a church at all. They will still be married under the law for the benefits that flow therefrom.

You are making the mistake of thinking the direction is either/or.

People are questioning in both directions.

An increasing number of people are choosing not to have religious marriages - and that is a very good thing in my opinion. If someone is not religious then far better to avoid the hypocrisy of making promises to a God that they don't follow.

However, an increasing number of people are also questioning why their marriage should be any business of the State at all. Such people see marriage as a religious ceremony, and therefore no need for State involvement.

Why not civil marriage as it has been practised and will be practised?

Because some people don't see that their marriage is any business of the State. But they would still benefit from civil partnerships which are an eminently sensible institution, albeit one that has been denied to heterosexual couples.

Nick Park wrote: »

Because some people don't see that their marriage is any business of the State. But they would still benefit from civil partnerships which are an eminently sensible institution, albeit one that has been denied to heterosexual couples.

I'm having trouble understanding the logic here. If they want the state to have no part in their marriage, then why ask for civil partnership? It seemed to me they want the protection the state affords marriage attached to their religious marriage but refuse to admit it.
By all means have the religious marriage and if you feel that strongly that the state has no part then don't signed the register but don't expect support or protection from the state which you refused to signed up for!

Is this some roundabout way of claiming the word marriage as exclusively a religious term? Or is it some muddy thinking about the role of the state in private matters because if it is then they need to realise that marriage is not a private matter. It's a public event.

Millie Careful Shipwreck wrote: »

He referred to the fractiousness and disorder among the Corinthians. Paul didn't just pick on women in telling to be silent.
He dealt with a host of issues including incest, immorality, gluttony, the sharing of the bread and cup in memorial and how those in willful i should not partake and disorder in how the church conducted itself when it came together.
This first letter is actually Paul's second letter to them. He mentions in the early part of the letter how he wrote to them before.
The women were talking and disrupting the meeting, hence his instruction to keep silent. People who say he refused to let women speak ignore his other instructions regarding them praying and prophesying ( 1 Cor 11.15)..They obviously weren't being told they couldn't speak.
As for covering their heads in the presence of God, Paul addressed the spiritual significance in what was done and how men and women represented the Church and Christ in what was done. Anyone who ignores the spiritual significance doesn't know what its about.

OK, let's retrace our steps somewhat shall we?

The issue concerns Paul's misogynistic views presented in 1 Corinthians 14:34-35:

" Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church."

Now, we have agreed that the church in Corinth at the time of this epistle (53-57CE) was in great disorder and Paul writes to them to tackle some of the issues. The specific issue in question in Chapter 14 is about the behaviour of people in Church. What makes the passage above stand out is that Paul's language throughout most of the chapter is quite egalitarian. He refers to brothers and sisters four times throughout the chapter. When dealing with the issue of speaking in Church Paul indicates that there is great disorder with lots of people clamouring to prophesy and speak in tongues and tries to bring it under control:

"If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three—should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret."

So Paul is not blaming the women for this, nor is there any evidence that only the women were clamouring for attention. In fact, Paul actually says in verse 31 that everyone should be afforded their turn to speak:

"For you can all prophesy in turn so that everyone may be instructed and encouraged."

So when Paul comes to make his statement in verses 34 & 35, his statement is odd for two reasons. Firstly, by singling out a single gender he changes the tone from the egalitarianism of the rest of the chapter. Secondly, it stands in marked contrast to the instruction in Verse 31.

There are three ways to resolve this contradiction.

1. The verses are authentically written by Paul. If you believe that scripture is divinely inspired then all of this epistle (and all the other epistles) were actually written by Paul. This is supported (if you begin with the base divine inspiration assumption) by 1 Timothy 2:9-15 which echoes the same sentiment. This, however, brings us back to the original problem. If Paul is to be listened to when he speaks against homosexuals then why shouldn't he be listened to when he speaks against women.

2. The verses are a later interpolation by an unknown author. As I have shown above, the change in language and tone make it likely that this was a later interpolation. The general scholarly consensus is that this was done by persons unknown. This would require you to abandon the assumption that all of the Pauline epistles are authentically Paul just because the early Church said so. Given your previous posts I think we can agree that this is a non-starter for you.

3. The verses are a later edit by Paul. This, for my money, is most likely. As I have posted previously Paul is quite hypocritical in his writings and a lot of what he writes can be seen as platitudes for the sake of the audience. A degree of fan service, if you will. I think its likely that the verses added in 34-35 were an olive branch to any Jewish readers of the letter, a way to make Paul's general message more palatable to Jewish converts. This means that the views are not reflective of Paul's own views but it also shatters the notion that Paul is reflecting the will of God.

Millie Careful Shipwreck wrote: »

I've no problem with the idea that some of the letters were dictated and written by scribes. It was a common occurrence throughout the bible. Jeremiah refers to his scribe. Paul also used scribes. Its accepted his eyesight was failing and he needed a scribe to write for him.

Actually, that's not the case at all. When I refer to pseudepigraphal works, I mean that they are by someone unknown who is pretending to be the author. They are not working in collaboration with or under the direction of the claimed author, just pretending to be them. Like fake celebrity accounts on Twitter.

For example, the general scholarly consensus is that the Petrine epistles were written between 100-150CE. This means that even the earliest date for composition would be 35 years after Peter was already dead. So not the work of a scribe.

Millie Careful Shipwreck wrote: »

You mentioned Jude, whether he referenced it or not is of no real importance The chances are that he read it. It was common for the letters to be sent to various churches to be read there. Colossians refers to the letter sent to the Laodiceans and they were told to read each others letters.

The chances that Peter read the epistle of Jude is precisely zero. The agreed date range for the composition of the epistle of Jude is 66-90CE. So Peter would already have been dead for AT LEAST two years before the earliest possible publication date for Jude. So he couldn't have read it. Which means that the inclusion of references to Jude means that Peter couldn't possibly have written it. And that's before all the other evidence which I outlined last time.

Millie Careful Shipwreck wrote: »

As for dates of writing it was accepted by the early church that these letters were indeed written by those who said they wrote them and they were included in the Canon. Other authors were dismissed and not included. Christendom is happy to go along with this, just like Hebrews author and origin is unknown but just seemed to fit and was therefore accepted.

See, there we were having a very nice scriptural argument and you have to go and ruin it by making an appeal to authority. You see we know from actual evidence that in several cases that these letters were not written by those who are claimed to have written them. The Petrine epistles are a good example of this but your mention of Hebrews is also interesting here. Hebrews is an epistle which is not just anonymously written but it is also internally anonymous. However, the important thing here is that the acceptance of Hebrews in the Canon was not as clear cut as you make out. Early Church fathers such as Tertullian and Origen had already brought the authorship of Hebrews into question. In fact Origen's comments on the matter outline why appealing to the authority of the Canon is a weak argument for authenticity:

"That the character of the diction of the epistle entitled To the Hebrews has not the apostle’s rudeness in speech, who confessed himself rude in speech, that is, in style, but that the epistle is better Greek in the framing of its diction, will be admitted by everyone who is able to discern differences of style. But again, on the other hand, that the thoughts of the epistle are admirable, and not inferior to the acknowledged writings of the apostle, to this also everyone will consent as true who has given attention to reading the apostle…. But as for myself, if I were to state my own opinion, I should say that the thoughts are the apostle’s, but that the style and composition belonged to one who called to mind the apostle’s teachings and, as it were, made short notes of what his master said. If any church, therefore, holds this epistle as Paul’s, let it be commended for this also. For not without reason have the men of old handed it down as Paul’s. But who wrote the epistle, in truth God knows. Yet the account which has reached us [is twofold], some saying that Clement, who was bishop of the Romans, wrote the epistle, others, that it was Luke, he who wrote the Gospel and the Acts."

It is clear from this passage that for Origen and those who assembled the Canon that authenticity wasn't exactly their highest priority. It was more important to them that the document contained a message that they thought worthy of spreading rather than who wrote it. Which is fine in a lot of ways, unless you're trying to argue that the author is speaking for God (which you have done).

That is the problem which you have yet to meaningfully address. If Paul in Romans is reflecting divine will in speaking out against homosexuals then why do Christians not also speak out against the other things which Paul criticises?

I’m not sure that I agree with either Tommy or Nick on this one.

My starting point is that I observe civil partnership to be something created largely to accommodate the demand for recognition of same-sex conjugal relationships, while at the same time denying those relationships the status, or the label, of marriage.

Once we allow same-sex couples to marry, it’s not clear to me that there’s any need for civil partnership any more.

Tommy suggests that there is a “clear distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage”, and if I understand him rightly Nick suggests that “civil partnership” might be a useful structure to accommodate civil marriage, as distinct from religious marriage. Tommy does not agree.

But my disagreement is more fundamental; I don’t think there is a clear distinction between religious marriage and civil marriage; there’s just marriage, the public committed conjugal union of two people. intended to engage the recognition and respect of the community. There are religious weddings and civil weddings, but both of those rituals are intended to inaugurate the same relationship, and engage the same status. Regardless of whether they have a civil wedding or a religious wedding, the couple are making their public commitment with the intention of getting the recognition and acceptance and support of their family, friends and wider community for them as a conjugal couple.

Nick talks about a couple “getting married for religious reasons”, but deciding separately whether they want the legal, administrative, etc recognition of the state for their union. From my perspective (and I think this is an entirely Christian viewpoint) if they don’t want legal, administrative, etc recognition then they don’t want to be married at all; they just want the appearance or label of marriage for a relationship which is, in fact, not a marriage, because it doesn’t engage, or seek, or accept, wider societal recognition. To put it bluntly, they want to be called married, while in fact each remaining free to go off and actually marry somebody else.

Me and my current squeeze can make all the lovey-dovey promises we want to one another, and we can scatter all the rose petals we like, and cut all the cakes. But until we make those promises publicly, with the desire and intention that they be recognised, accepted and respected by our community, and that we be thereafter treated by the community as a married couple, we are not married. And if we go through a ritual which is intentionally crafted not to engage some of the societal consequences of marriage, then I don’t think we are marrying. It’s different if we’d like to get legally married but we can’t, because of some defect or restriction in the law of the place where we are living. But if we could have the legal status of marriage, and deliberately don’t engage it, it seems to me that’s inconsistent with the mainstream Christian concept of marriage.

So, whatever the role for civil partnership is, I don’t think it can be the optional add-on that Christians can seek if they want recognition of their marriage. If they don’t want recognition for it, their relationship may be wonderful and beautiful and loving, but it’s not a marriage. I think most churches would decline to celebrate a marriage for a couple who were intentionally evading the legal status of marriage.

Could civil partnership have a role for a relationship which, while it is significant, is materially different from marriage? This is, in fact, the role it does have in France, where a “civil solidarity pact” carries less privileges, and less obligations, than a marriage, and is intended to accommodate couples who live together but do not wish to make the open-ended commitment to one another that marriage involves. For example, civil partners in France don’t have the immigration rights that spouses have; civil partnership are more easily dissolved than marriages; civil partners lose their tax advantages if they cease to live together.

I think the question here is, is there a need in Ireland for recognition of “less-than-married” couples? I think we have already started down a slightly different road, which is that of assimilating cohabitants to the position of married couples simply by virtue of the fact that they are cohabiting, without them going through any ceremony at all. So cohabiting couples, for example, who break up can go to court and have access to the same range of property adjustment orders, maintenance orders, etc as do separating spouses. if we also introduced civil partnership on the French model we’d have the bizarre result that, by forming a civil partnership, a couple could reduce the degree of official recognition that their relationship would receive. I remain to be persuaded that there is a need for this.

Pereginus, we agree. I too see marriage both religious and civil as expressions of the human need to have their conjugal unions recognised as valid by the society they live in.
But their is a difference between religious and civil marriage in the benefits and burdens they place on the participants. Their is no sacramental aspect to civil marriage for one thing. This is not to denigrate civil marriages, they are just as valid as every other marriage, it's just to highlight the difference.
Their are situations where people do find themselves in family type situations through circumstances, they need support but not the full set of obligation that marriage entails. The French model covers this. Once we have full marriage equality civil partnership is no longer necessary but some mechanisms is needed to cover these situations.


I can't support the idea of marriage by default whare a couple can find themselves through cohabitation bound by legal obligation. I can't support this and at the same time claim everyone has the right to marry. If you have the right to marry then an equal and opposite right to not marry exists. Fair is fair!

tommy2bad wrote: »

But their is a difference between religious and civil marriage in the benefits and burdens they place on the participants. Their is no sacramental aspect to civil marriage for one thing.

Actually, there may be. A marriage between two baptised people is sacramental. And, while the Catholic church requires Catholics to marry in a Catholic ceremony (or get a dispensation from their bishop) as a condition of validity, it imposes - and can impose - no such condition on non-Catholics. So if two baptised non-Catholics marry in a civil ceremony, in the Catholic view that's a sacramental marriage.

But - the larger point - so what? You say that there are differences between religious and civil marriages on the benefits and burdens they place on the participants, but even if sacramentality were a consistent distinction between civil and religious marriage, it's not one which brings with it any difference in benefits or burdens (either from the State's point of view or the church's).

tommy2bad wrote: »

Their are situations where people do find themselves in family type situations through circumstances, they need support but not the full set of obligation that marriage entails. The French model covers this . . . I can't support the idea of marriage by default whare a couple can find themselves through cohabitation bound by legal obligation. I can't support this and at the same time claim everyone has the right to marry. If you have the right to marry then an equal and opposite right to not marry exists. Fair is fair!

I take your point. But if you think the need for recognition of "less than marriage" arises out of "situations" and "circumstances", is it entirely consistent to say that in order to engage that recognition a couple should have to opt to go through a ceremony or ritual? If the situation and the circumstances exist, shouldn't we be recognising the situation and the circumstances, and responding accordingly?

I take your point that a right to marry implies a right not to marry. But, of course, this relationship is not marriage; it's less-than-marriage. Does a right not to marry imply a right to have all your relationships ignored officially, unless you choose to seek official recognition?

aloyisious wrote: »

Read this (if you please) from lawyers for "yes".

http://www.lawyers4yes.ie/pdf/Lawyers4Yes_Legal_Issues_Update.pdf

I have to say, I believe that because we're voting to change our constitution there'll be a lot of litigation to follow. Is it cynical of me that I'm not one bit surprised that many 'Lawyers' are 'for Yes'.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Do you have a point?

Was that addressed to me? If so, I do have a point.

I believe that there'll be a huge amount of litigation