69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
http://news.yahoo.com/irish-vote-gay-marriage-landmark-referendum-110758359.html
DUBLIN (Reuters) - The Irish voted on Friday on whether to allow gay marriage, just two decades after decriminalizing homosexuality, with a strong early turnout likely to favor the 'Yes' side.
With the once mighty Catholic Church's influence ravaged by child abuse scandals, opinion polls indicated the proposal would pass by as much as two-to-one, making Ireland the first country to adopt same-sex marriage via a popular vote.
On a survey of polling stations at 1200 GMT (0800 ET), Irish national broadcaster RTE said turnout could potentially be one of the highest for a referendum in years.
"It's quite amazing. I'd say at this stage the turnout would be about 50 percent more than the last referendum," James Barry, returning officer for Dublin, told Newstalk radio, referring to the 39 percent who voted in an unsuccessful bid to abolish the upper house of parliament in 2013.
The result may depend on whether younger voters, tens of thousands of whom registered as the campaign gathered momentum, turn out to cast their ballots.
The result, which will be declared on Saturday, may also reveal an urban/rural split. When voters legalized divorce by a razor thin majority in 1995, only five of the 30 constituencies outside Dublin backed the proposal.
International interest made the hashtag #VoteYes the top trending issue on Twitter and thousands of Irish expatriates made the trip home from Britain and as far afield as New York and Sydney to vote, groups encouraging the 'Yes' vote, using the hashtag #hometovote, said.
"I've been genuinely overwhelmed by the scale and the scope of the hometovote movement," said Joey Kavanagh of the Get The Boat 2 Vote group, as he and about 50 others made the eight-hour journey by train and ferry from London to Dublin.
"It's a very festive, celebratory atmosphere. At the moment we're hanging up posters in the lounge and stringing up balloons. People are just very eager to get back."
Gay marriage is backed by all political parties, championed by big employers and endorsed by celebrities, all hoping it will mark a transformation in a country that was long regarded as one of the most socially conservative in Western Europe.
The Catholic Church, whose doctrine teaches that homosexuality is a sin, has mainly limited its 'No' campaigning to sermons to its remaining flock, a marked contrast with active public opposition to similar moves in France and elsewhere.
Instead, lay groups have led the opposition, raising concerns over parenthood and surrogacy rights for gay couples. Many believe the recognition of the legal rights of same-sex couples in 2009 is sufficient.
"I don't think it's necessary because it's covered in the civil partnership arrangements," said Sean, a retiree voting in the leafy Dublin suburb of Blackrock. Only a couple of his friends were voting 'Yes', he said.
"I'm not convinced, I think it's wrong and I don't agree with it."
I'm hoping that this passes
65628
Post by: welshhoppo
Good on you Ireland. Hope it's a yes.
20983
Post by: Ratius
It will imo.
Without hyperbole literally everyone I know is voting yes.
Whilst anecdotal at best Id be stunned if this wasnt the pattern country wide.
80451
Post by: Sienisoturi
 Ratius wrote:It will imo.
Without hyperbole literally everyone I know is voting yes.
Whilst anecdotal at best Id be stunned if this wasnt the pattern country wide.
Capitals tend to be the most liberal places in any country, so it might be that the percentage of supporters outside Dublin is smaller.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Really hope this passes! If it does, just sorry I won't be there to drink the tears of the intolerant bigots of the Iona Institute. It was a dirty campaign, with many of the same old faces doing the muck spreading.
My parents live down the country in a fairly poor and conservative area, and even there, and even among their friends, there is not a single No voter that they know. But it could be a "shy No".
Still, excited to see what tomorrow brings, and hopeful that I can be proud to be Irish for once.
20983
Post by: Ratius
Granted Sien. However I still think itll be a majority yes vote. Youth seems particularly engaged on the matter for once.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Some rural areas are very conservative. Again on the news last night we had people arguing against gay marriage because children need a man an a woman to raise them properly. The non sequitur in this argument never gets old. Marriage and children, one does not need the other, plenty of unmarried couples have children and the extension of this logic is that any couple that cannot conceive a child shouldn't be allowed to marry.
78869
Post by: Shadow Captain Edithae
Has the result been announced yet?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Rural areas also hold under half the country's voters though, so though I agree that rural areas (especially those near the border with Northern Ireland) are likely to be conservative on this issue, the polls seem to suggest that they are outweighed by their liberal neighbours and the large amounts of liberal folk living in the cities of Dublin, Cork, Galway and Limerick.
Polls are still open, so the result probably won't be clear til the morning I'd reckon.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
It would take a day or two to tally the votes, no?
16387
Post by: Manchu
I hope this passes and that it becomes apparent to Irish Catholics that it is not in fact incompatible with their faith.
20983
Post by: Ratius
Again on the news last night we had people arguing against gay marriage because children need a man an a woman to raise them properly. The non sequitur in this argument never gets old. Marriage and children, one does not need the other, plenty of unmarried couples have children and the extension of this logic is that any couple that cannot conceive a child shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Yes its been tedious to listen to tbh. To the point I simply shut off. All one has to do is walk down Dublins docklands to see a happily married "normal" couple raising their kids responsibly by selling heroin out of the kids buggy.
Ah righto 
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Yeah, but Ratius, won't you please tink of dee tchiltren!
What has disgusted me about the campaign was how often and how blatantly the No side implied that all homosexual men are degenerate paedophiles.
16387
Post by: Manchu
LOL All I can think of is: Down wit dis sort of ting. Careful now.
92905
Post by: Silent Puffin?
My brother in law (well my sister in law's husband what ever that is) is voting no.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
As a proud Irish descendent. Im glad for this.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
 Howard A Treesong wrote: Again on the news last night we had people arguing against gay marriage because children need a man an a woman to raise them properly. The non sequitur in this argument never gets old. Marriage and children, one does not need the other, plenty of unmarried couples have children and the extension of this logic is that any couple that cannot conceive a child shouldn't be allowed to marry.
I still maintain the opinion that kids do need to be raised by a father and a mother.... Though over time, I have seen and come to realize that sometimes "dad" is a woman, and "mom" is a man. I do still believe that they need to be two separate people, as the statistics still show that single parent household children grow up with more issues than those in the "stability" of a two parent household. In many instances, particularly if you watch enough American sports, you'll see some "sob story" about a poor single mother working 8 jobs and having hell-raiser kids until "Bubba-Joe" got into high school and met Coach McCoacherson who became a father figure to "Bubba". However, for as great a father figure as that guy is, how many other hundreds and thousands of those same athletes end up in jail because they didn't see Coach the same way? Or, because their athletic talent wasnt as great as Bubba's, Coach didn't take the same kind of time?
Anyhow, that's not really the topic here, and I sincerely hope that the vote in Ireland can spring some further action in other Western Nations for further equality under the law.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Early indications point to an overwhelming Yes victory- to the point where the No side have conceded defeat already.
Just interested to see the margin of victory and the regional spread of votes, now.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
 Ensis Ferrae wrote: Howard A Treesong wrote: Again on the news last night we had people arguing against gay marriage because children need a man an a woman to raise them properly. The non sequitur in this argument never gets old. Marriage and children, one does not need the other, plenty of unmarried couples have children and the extension of this logic is that any couple that cannot conceive a child shouldn't be allowed to marry.
I still maintain the opinion that kids do need to be raised by a father and a mother.... Though over time, I have seen and come to realize that sometimes "dad" is a woman, and "mom" is a man. I do still believe that they need to be two separate people, as the statistics still show that single parent household children grow up with more issues than those in the "stability" of a two parent household. In many instances, particularly if you watch enough American sports, you'll see some "sob story" about a poor single mother working 8 jobs and having hell-raiser kids until "Bubba-Joe" got into high school and met Coach McCoacherson who became a father figure to "Bubba". However, for as great a father figure as that guy is, how many other hundreds and thousands of those same athletes end up in jail because they didn't see Coach the same way? Or, because their athletic talent wasnt as great as Bubba's, Coach didn't take the same kind of time? .
Children need a good role model when they grow up. A boy needs a male role model, a girl needs a female role model, disabled children greatly profit from disabled role models etc. Not "need" as in "do or die", but rather "highly beneficial". Same-sex relationships can certainly raise a child and most certainly better than a lot of regular couples. After all, they have to go through a real struggle to get a child and don't get children "by accident", as many, many regular couples...or even relationships do. Those children, however, should still have access to a corresponding gender role model. This is especially important with boys, early on, as pre-school / elementary school teachers are mostly female. In regards to the overall motion of the thread: hope it goes through. There's nothing wrong with allowing people to marry whoever they want. Just change tax laws in accordance.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Really curious to see if I was right about the Border Counties. Cavan-Monaghan is 50:50 at the moment, when the rest of the country is firmly Yes. Will definitely want to look at the numbers.
Northern Ireland will be the only part of the British Isles where same sex marriage is illegal soon.
(Heh, technically, the Republic of Ireland therefore legalized ssm before the United Kingdom  )
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Northern Ireland gets to opt out of lots of things being passed by parliament. They are the only part of the UK that doesn't allow gay marriage, still doesn't allow gay men to donate blood, doesn't allow abortion and lagged behind the rest of the UK on both legalisation of homosexuality and equalising ages of consent ('Save Ulster from Sodomy'). It's an embarrassment.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
There are actually good reasons for this, backed up by objective data, not homosexual hate.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32856232
Early indications suggest the Republic of Ireland has voted to legalise same-sex marriage in a historic referendum.
More than 3.2m people were asked whether they wanted to amend the country's constitution to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.
Government ministers have said they believe it will pass, while prominent "no" campaigners have conceded defeat.
Counting started at 09:00 BST on Saturday morning. An "unusually high" turnout has been reported.
A result is expected by mid to late afternoon on Saturday.
If the change is approved, the Republic of Ireland would become the first country to legalise same-sex marriage through a popular vote.
Minister for Equality Aodhan O Riordain said on Twitter: "I'm calling it. Key boxes opened. It's a yes. And a landslide across Dublin. And I'm so proud to be Irish today."
Minister for Health Leo Varadkar, who earlier this year came out as the Republic of Ireland's first openly gay minister, said the campaign had been "almost like a social revolution".
Speaking from the Dublin count, he told Irish broadcaster RTE that it appeared about 75% of votes being counted there were in favour of legalising same-sex marriage.
Some prominent "no" campaigners have already conceded defeat.
David Quinn of the Iona Institute, a Catholic group, said it was "obviously a very impressive victory for the 'yes' side".
"Obviously there's a certain amount of disappointment, but I'm philosophical about the outcome," he told RTE.
"It was always going to be an uphill battle - there were far fewer organisations on the 'no' side, while all the major political parties were lined up on the 'yes' side and you had major corporations coming out for the first time to say how we should vote on a particular issue."
An 'unusually high' turnout has been reported
Dublin, Limerick and Waterford passed the 60% electorate turnout mark, while in Cork, Carlow, Kilkenny, Donegal, Tipperary, Kerry and Galway it was above 50%.
The upper courtyard of Dublin Castle is open to 2,000 people for people to view the declarations on a large screen.
Before Friday, votes had already been cast in some islands as well as hospitals, hospices and nursing homes. Irish citizens who are registered were allowed to vote, but there was no postal voting. Many people returned to Ireland to cast their votes.
They were asked whether they agreed with the statement: "Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex."
The referendum was being held 22 years after homosexual acts were decriminalised in Ireland.
In 2010, the Irish government enacted civil partnership legislation, which provided legal recognition for gay couples.
Banners encouraging voters to support the Yes and the No campaign in the Irish same-sex marriage referendum
The result of the referendum is expected some time on Saturday
But there are some important differences between civil partnership and marriage, the critical one being that marriage is protected in the constitution while civil partnership is not.
Presidential candidates
A constitutional convention established by the Irish government in 2013 considered the specifics of a proposal on extending marriage rights, as well as discussing other changes to the constitution.
It voted in favour of holding a referendum on same-sex marriage and the date was announced by Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Enda Kenny earlier this year.
If the measure is passed, Catholic churches will continue to decide for themselves whether to solemnise a marriage.
The leader of the Catholic Church in Ireland, Eamon Martin, has said the church may look at whether it continues to perform the civil side of solemnisation if the change comes in.
A separate referendum, on whether the eligibility age of presidential candidates should be lowered from 35 to 21, was being held at the same time, along with a parliamentary by-election in the Carlow-Kilkenny constituency.
Same-sex marriage is currently legal in 19 countries worldwide.
18690
Post by: Jimsolo
 Sigvatr wrote:
There are actually good reasons for this, backed up by objective data, not homosexual hate.
I'm given to understand that this data is neither current not remotely objective.
80451
Post by: Sienisoturi
 Jimsolo wrote: Sigvatr wrote:
There are actually good reasons for this, backed up by objective data, not homosexual hate.
I'm given to understand that this data is neither current not remotely objective.
Has there been any more current data? inb4 link to an article, I want to see the actual study paper.
92905
Post by: Silent Puffin?
Sigvatr wrote:
There are actually good reasons for this, backed up by objective data, not homosexual hate.
Not really. Its based on an increased risk of HIV and that it can take months for HIV antibodies to be produced. In the UK, gay men can donate blood if they have not had sex in the last 12 months as this is deemed to be a safe window for detectable antibody production. The risk is very small although blood transfusion is so heavily regulated that tiny risks are given very serious consideration.
A blanket ban is completely unnecessary and to be honest the current system is on some pretty shaky ground. I expect it to be revised in the near future.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Jimsolo wrote: Sigvatr wrote: There are actually good reasons for this, backed up by objective data, not homosexual hate.
I'm given to understand that this data is neither current not remotely objective.
Not going in-depth in this here, just as a first number as of the Robert Koch institute, 2013, 75% of newly infected HIV victims were homosexual men. The significantally higher risk to infect yourself with HIV among homosexual men is the main reason for why they are not allowed to donate blood. This isn't a blanket ban, however, as they may still donate blood if taking a HIV test. They just don't get a blanket allowance and have to take more obstacles than straight men have to - for objective reasons. /e: Talking of Germany / France here, but there's a very recent EU court verdict (end of April '15) that states what I described above. Disallowing male homosexuals from donating blood is fully in order if certain requirements are met. As the UK / GB is still part of the EU, they can just refer to said verdict but also have to follow it by not maintaining blanket bans.
92905
Post by: Silent Puffin?
In the UK its about 50% and as there is a mandatory lifestyle questionnaire that has to be taken before donating blood (I believe that this is EU wide) high risk individuals can be weeded out (of any sexuality). For example a group that is deemed to be high risk of HIV infection are prostitutes and they are dealt with via the questionnaire. There are perfectly reasonable arguments for removing a blanket ban on Gay men donating blood.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Sigvatr wrote:
Children need a good role model when they grow up. A boy needs a male role model, a girl needs a female role model, disabled children greatly profit from disabled role models etc. Not "need" as in "do or die", but rather "highly beneficial". Same-sex relationships can certainly raise a child and most certainly better than a lot of regular couples. After all, they have to go through a real struggle to get a child and don't get children "by accident", as many, many regular couples...or even relationships do. Those children, however, should still have access to a corresponding gender role model. This is especially important with boys, early on, as pre-school / elementary school tea
I like the idea that gender-based role models seem to be restricted to biological sex. They can teach them how only boys can use blue toys, and girls pink ones. Otherwise, you might have kids not learning how to function as the clearly delineated gender society expects them to be. And that would be terrible.
80451
Post by: Sienisoturi
 Ketara wrote: Sigvatr wrote:
Children need a good role model when they grow up. A boy needs a male role model, a girl needs a female role model, disabled children greatly profit from disabled role models etc. Not "need" as in "do or die", but rather "highly beneficial". Same-sex relationships can certainly raise a child and most certainly better than a lot of regular couples. After all, they have to go through a real struggle to get a child and don't get children "by accident", as many, many regular couples...or even relationships do. Those children, however, should still have access to a corresponding gender role model. This is especially important with boys, early on, as pre-school / elementary school tea
I like the idea that gender-based role models seem to be restricted to biological sex. They can teach them how only boys can use blue toys, and girls pink ones. Otherwise, you might have kids not learning how to function as the clearly delineated gender society expects them to be. And that would be terrible.
Could you please elaborate this a little bit more?
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
 Silent Puffin? wrote:
In the UK its about 50% and as there is a mandatory lifestyle questionnaire that has to be taken before donating blood (I believe that this is EU wide) high risk individuals can be weeded out (of any sexuality). For example a group that is deemed to be high risk of HIV infection are prostitutes and they are dealt with via the questionnaire. There are perfectly reasonable arguments for removing a blanket ban on Gay men donating blood.
A blanket ban currently violates EU law. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ketara wrote:
I like the idea that gender-based role models seem to be restricted to biological sex. They can teach them how only boys can use blue toys, and girls pink ones. Otherwise, you might have kids not learning how to function as the clearly delineated gender society expects them to be. And that would be terrible.
Yes, that obviously was what I saying *roll eyes*
11029
Post by: Ketara
 Sienisoturi wrote: Ketara wrote: Sigvatr wrote:
Children need a good role model when they grow up. A boy needs a male role model, a girl needs a female role model, disabled children greatly profit from disabled role models etc. Not "need" as in "do or die", but rather "highly beneficial". Same-sex relationships can certainly raise a child and most certainly better than a lot of regular couples. After all, they have to go through a real struggle to get a child and don't get children "by accident", as many, many regular couples...or even relationships do. Those children, however, should still have access to a corresponding gender role model. This is especially important with boys, early on, as pre-school / elementary school tea
I like the idea that gender-based role models seem to be restricted to biological sex. They can teach them how only boys can use blue toys, and girls pink ones. Otherwise, you might have kids not learning how to function as the clearly delineated gender society expects them to be. And that would be terrible.
Could you please elaborate this a little bit more?
By all means.
Sigvatr asserted a number of things. Firstly, that children need role models. He then went on to assign the appropriate role models as being male/female, and that boys/girls would need to match with ones that he feels are appropriate (boys to males, and girls to females). Now whilst he did state that it should be a 'gender role model' (and therefore did not exclude the idea that a woman who identified as a male in terms of gender could be an appropriate male role model), he did however, automatically assign the boys to the male gender role and the girls to the female gender role.
In other words, Sigvatr believes firstly that boys should be inculcated into the gender concept of being a 'male' and girls that of a 'female', and further, that is necessary in order to provide them with good 'role models' who identify as either one. That is to say, children should be provided with specific role models who identify as specific genders, in order to inculcate the children into becoming either one (I'll provide Sigvatr the benefit of the doubt here, and assume that he does not oppose a boy who feels that way inclined being provided with a female gender role model to emulate).
As the concept of male and female are social constructs however, what he is advising is nothing less than gender indoctrination. It is one thing to advise that a role model be provided to portray values or behaviours (a good/tough/caring person is one regardless of gender). By linking the idea of a role model to the concepts of gender, Sigvatr is asserting that gender is the value/behaviour which should be imparted to children.
In the Western world, this would usually mean that a man should be tough, strong, assertive, like 'toys' which are based on action and adventure, and so forth. A woman meanwhile, should be empathetic, concerned for her appearance, and so forth.
Such a view of the world implicitly rejects the idea that people should be able to select to emulate, like and hold whichever values they please from either or no gender, regardless of biological sex. After all, if any gender role model could impart the necessary values to raise a healthy child, then the specified link to gender would be absolutely meaningless. A pair of biological woman could raise a male child and be perfect role models by demonstrating both those positive attributes identified as being 'manly' (so toughness, and so on) and female (being empathetic and so on).
Sigvatr clearly states that this is impossible, and that the child would still need 'access to a corresponding gender role model'. The idea that the two ladies could function in an agender sense, and impart good values & behaviours, and that the child might not be of a set gender or indeed, even require a set gender, is implicitly rejected.
50832
Post by: Sigvatr
Lie. I'll quote for you:
Not "need" as in "do or die", but rather "highly beneficial".
You're born either a man or a woman. Period. There's an extremely small percentage of the population as in really small that is neither where it's impossible to determine the gender at birth. I'd like to exclude those and would, due to a lack of experience on this matter, just follow the law and allow those to have no official gender at birth and let them then later on choose what to pick. But alas, that's the tiny percentage. Dwindling.
Back to the previous point: man or woman. End of the story. No tralala in between. That's what you're born. Now, you can then /identify/ as another gender, if you want to. That is absolutely in order and part of your personality. Whether that requires psychological councelling...well, I'll leave it at that. That depends on your point of view.
Now, you're born a man or a woman and thus share all traits that go along with it. Sexual dimorphism etc. Physical and psychological traits. Being more similar to someone allows for easier identification, easier adaption and prevents adaptive stress.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
What if you where born the wrong sex?
11029
Post by: Ketara
Sigvatr wrote:Lie. I'll quote for you:
Not "need" as in "do or die", but rather "highly beneficial".
You're born either a man or a woman. Period.
Biologically, yes.
Back to the previous point: man or woman. End of the story. No tralala in between. That's what you're born. Now, you can then /identify/ as another gender, if you want to.
I don't think you quite understand the point I'm making. Biological 'man' and 'woman' are one thing. Genders, such as 'male' and 'female' are another. If a biological man/woman can impart all the necessary values/behaviours to produce a good person without needing to link them to gender, than there is no need to have 'male' or 'female' (in the gender sense) role models. You just need role models. The gender becomes irrelevant.
The gender is only relevant if you wish to attach gender related concepts to the behaviours/traits imparted/inculcated/indoctrinated into children. If you disavow that now, then fair enough, but then you're directly contradicting what you said before.
92905
Post by: Silent Puffin?
62% in favour.
I always though that Ireland was a very socially conservative country going by their politics, social history and general outlook. It seems that things have changed dramatically.
20983
Post by: Ratius
Some parts are but things have changed dramatically over the last 20 years or so.
92905
Post by: Silent Puffin?
Ratius wrote:Some parts are but things have changed dramatically over the last 20 years or so.
It seems that the further you go northwest from Dublin the lower the yes vote was 
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Yeah, the Border regions, as expected, had the weakest Yes vote and the only No majority. The north is actually a lot more conservative, and it's Protestant (by majority  ), zing.
Still. Not too much backslapping deserved yet- let's hope this energy is maintained and pressure mounts to fix our abysmal abortion laws. Then I will be truly satisfied with my home country. But a good night, and a rare day when I'm proud to be Irish.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Sigvatr wrote:
There are actually good reasons for this, backed up by objective data, not homosexual hate.
AIDS? Just do a blood test, not exactly expensive or difficult. Everyone's blood should be screened as a matter of course.
Japan doesn't allow anyone who has lived in the UK more than six months to donate blood, because of mad cow disease.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
The problem is the blood test is not 100% accurate, and there is no way to make it 100% accurate. All blood is screened of course, more than once, but if a contaminated sample makes it through, then because samples are pooled, you lose a large amount of blood.
It's a risk management thing, because the population have such an elevated risk of HIV, it's not worth the risk to take blood from them, or at least, that is the judgement made in some countries. I imagine the risk is quite small and needs to just be balanced against the hurt feelings of the gay men excluded. Lesbians are not a high risk group so there is no restriction for them, it isn't a homophobia thing really.
The problem with Mad Cow is that it's a prion disorder, and there's no test for it, so no way to be sure the blood is not contaminated.
92905
Post by: Silent Puffin?
 Kilkrazy wrote:
AIDS? Just do a blood test, not exactly expensive or difficult.
There can be a significant delay between contracting HIV and having a detectable level of anti HIV antibodies so there is some validity to selectively exclude high risk groups, I just don't think that all gay men fall into a high risk group. Incidentally the risk of contracting HIV from donated blood in the UK is 1 in 17 million (the same odds as winning the Euromillions jackpot  )
There is no satisfactory blood test for 'mad cow disease' which is why British people tend to be excluded from giving blood abroad.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Congratulations Ireland. Good job. 
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I bet the Eurovision parties in Dublin are something else tonight.
55909
Post by: gianlucafiorentini123
 Da Boss wrote:I bet the Eurovision parties in Dublin are something else tonight.
We didn't even get in this year 
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
Da Boss wrote:I bet the Eurovision parties in Dublin are something else tonight.
A 'Yes' to gay marriage
The Eurovision on the telly
Rainbows over Cork & Dublin
There could never be any other result
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Congrats, Ireland, well done!
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Y'know, you would think a country that has a fondness for rainbows, treasure at the end of a rainbow & little men would have done this alot earlier.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 hotsauceman1 wrote:Y'know, you would think a country that has a fondness for rainbows, treasure at the end of a rainbow & little men would have done this alot earlier.
Sure, if you ignore the overwhelming historical religiosity of the country.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Anyone could see this is a joke.
Jeez. Im Irish. My family is Irish Immigrants. I know how religious they are.
443
Post by: skyth
It's good that it passed...But there is always something chilling about putting rights up for popular vote...
71510
Post by: blood ravens addiction
sorry to be that guy, but i dis-agree with homo-sexuality, i don't dislike the people it's just their opinions. No offense.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Skyth: Yeah, it is unfortunate. It's due to the Irish Constitution having some specific language about the role of the family. So any law granting marriage rights to homosexuals would have been open to legal challenge, and the legal advice the government got was that it would be ruled unconstitutional. So the constitution needed to be amended, and that requires a popular vote. An odd situation, a left over of the fact that the guy that wrote our constitution was a pretty die hard catholic.
Blood Raven's Addiction: Well, homophobes are pretty common, so I guess you'll have company, at least.
80451
Post by: Sienisoturi
Da Boss wrote:Yeah, the Border regions, as expected, had the weakest Yes vote and the only No majority. The north is actually a lot more conservative, and it's Protestant (by majority ), zing.
Still. Not too much backslapping deserved yet- let's hope this energy is maintained and pressure mounts to fix our abysmal abortion laws. Then I will be truly satisfied with my home country. But a good night, and a rare day when I'm proud to be Irish.
What are these abysmal abortion laws?
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Da Boss wrote:
Blood Raven's Addiction: Well, homophobes are pretty common, so I guess you'll have company, at least.
Just disliking homosexuality does not make one a homophobe. Automatically Appended Next Post: Ketara wrote: Sigvatr wrote:Lie. I'll quote for you:
Not "need" as in "do or die", but rather "highly beneficial".
You're born either a man or a woman. Period.
Biologically, yes.
Back to the previous point: man or woman. End of the story. No tralala in between. That's what you're born. Now, you can then /identify/ as another gender, if you want to.
I don't think you quite understand the point I'm making. Biological 'man' and 'woman' are one thing. Genders, such as 'male' and 'female' are another. If a biological man/woman can impart all the necessary values/behaviours to produce a good person without needing to link them to gender, than there is no need to have 'male' or 'female' (in the gender sense) role models. You just need role models. The gender becomes irrelevant.
The gender is only relevant if you wish to attach gender related concepts to the behaviours/traits imparted/inculcated/indoctrinated into children. If you disavow that now, then fair enough, but then you're directly contradicting what you said before.
Gender and biological sex are not the same thing, but in Western (and all other) culture they are always linked to each other. Society expects a person to fit in the gender that corresponds with his/her biological sex. Not following this pattern is possible but leads to a lot of problems and possibly being rejected from society. Therefore I think it is better to indoctrinate children with the "correct" gender identity, as this is for their own good and will allow them to function better in society than if you raised them without clear genders.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
Didn't you get threatened with a ban and have a post deleted for fairly anti-homosexual views and how they were presented? I vaguely remember this being a thing.
18178
Post by: Crystal-Maze
 Iron_Captain wrote: Da Boss wrote:
Blood Raven's Addiction: Well, homophobes are pretty common, so I guess you'll have company, at least.
Just disliking homosexuality does not make one a homophobe.
I think that disliking homosexuality kind of does made you a homophobe. Google's first definition:
"homophobia
ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə,ˌhəʊmə-/
noun
noun: homophobia
dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."
Iron_Captain wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: Sigvatr wrote:Lie. I'll quote for you:
Not "need" as in "do or die", but rather "highly beneficial".
You're born either a man or a woman. Period.
Biologically, yes.
Back to the previous point: man or woman. End of the story. No tralala in between. That's what you're born. Now, you can then /identify/ as another gender, if you want to.
I don't think you quite understand the point I'm making. Biological 'man' and 'woman' are one thing. Genders, such as 'male' and 'female' are another. If a biological man/woman can impart all the necessary values/behaviours to produce a good person without needing to link them to gender, than there is no need to have 'male' or 'female' (in the gender sense) role models. You just need role models. The gender becomes irrelevant.
The gender is only relevant if you wish to attach gender related concepts to the behaviours/traits imparted/inculcated/indoctrinated into children. If you disavow that now, then fair enough, but then you're directly contradicting what you said before.
Gender and biological sex are not the same thing, but in Western (and all other) culture they are always linked to each other. Society expects a person to fit in the gender that corresponds with his/her biological sex. Not following this pattern is possible but leads to a lot of problems and possibly being rejected from society. Therefore I think it is better to indoctrinate children with the "correct" gender identity, as this is for their own good and will allow them to function better in society than if you raised them without clear genders.
It is not an adequate excuse that 'society would reject' a person who does not follow gender norms; this is a problem with society, not the individual. We should not just 'indoctrinate' children with the 'correct' (how I loathe that usage) gender because it is easier; we should work on changing society.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Nope nope nope
50326
Post by: curran12
 blood ravens addiction wrote:sorry to be that guy, but i dis-agree with homo-sexuality, i don't dislike the people it's just their opinions. No offense.
Ok I'll bite.
Simple question. Why do you disagree?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Disliking homosexuality is pretty much the definition of homophobia.
Ireland does not allow abortion, and has in the past put travel bans on people who tried to leave the country to have abortions elsewhere, or refused to allow asylum seekers who had been raped (just one example) to leave, even when said asylum seeker was suicidal at the thought of giving birth to her rapist's child.
It's a national disgrace.
18178
Post by: Crystal-Maze
Nope nope nope
The 'suffering years of abuse' and 'psychological torture', as well as the 'increase in chance of suicide' is because trans people currently inhabit a society which does not understand them, often refuses to acknowledge their gender identity whilst stubbornly misgendering them, and often acts in a hostile manner towards them. This is the kind of attitude that I was talking about changing; it is an intolerance which has no place in modern society.
As to the 'genital mutilation' as you put it, by which I'll asume you mean transgender surgeries rather than FGM (a whole different issue entirely) - nobody takes such descisions lightly, and nobody wants to create a climate where they are. But stigmatising surgeries which alleviate the gender dysphoria of people suffering from it (massively improving their quality of life) is not a good thing.
Some people are trans whether society wants them to be or not. Its just a fact. I'm talking about creating an attitude in society where that fact is not stigmatised, so that trans people do not suffer verbal and physical abuse from a select group of individuals in the society they occupy.
121
Post by: Relapse
Crystal-Maze wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Da Boss wrote:
Blood Raven's Addiction: Well, homophobes are pretty common, so I guess you'll have company, at least.
Just disliking homosexuality does not make one a homophobe.
I think that disliking homosexuality kind of does made you a homophobe. Google's first definition:
"homophobia
ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə,ˌhəʊmə-/
noun
noun: homophobia
dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."
The definition says dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people, which is different than disagreeing with their homosexuality.
18178
Post by: Crystal-Maze
Relapse wrote:Crystal-Maze wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Da Boss wrote:
Blood Raven's Addiction: Well, homophobes are pretty common, so I guess you'll have company, at least.
Just disliking homosexuality does not make one a homophobe.
I think that disliking homosexuality kind of does made you a homophobe. Google's first definition:
"homophobia
ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə,ˌhəʊmə-/
noun
noun: homophobia
dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."
The definition says dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people, which is different than disagreeing with their homosexuality.
That's very little real difference unless you think that homosexuality is a seperable part of a person i.e. freely chosen.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
As I have said before. It being a choice shouldnt matter. You make a choice to be in your religion, should you be punished for it.
121
Post by: Relapse
hotsauceman1 wrote:As I have said before. It being a choice shouldnt matter. You make a choice to be in your religion, should you be punished for it.
I have plenty of people that disagree with my religion, just as I disagree with other people's politics or religion, and no one punishes anyone over it.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Ok, then why say people should marry because of your religion?
121
Post by: Relapse
I might not be understanding your question. Are you talking about the proclamation that was given back in 1995? Back when it was given, people were pretty much saying, yes, and the sky is blue. Nowadays it becomes clear why it was given:
https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Relapse wrote:Crystal-Maze wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Da Boss wrote:
Blood Raven's Addiction: Well, homophobes are pretty common, so I guess you'll have company, at least.
Just disliking homosexuality does not make one a homophobe.
I think that disliking homosexuality kind of does made you a homophobe. Google's first definition:
"homophobia
ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə,ˌhəʊmə-/
noun
noun: homophobia
dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."
The definition says dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people, which is different than disagreeing with their homosexuality.
What does 'disagreeing' with someone's orientation actually mean if it's not a dislike or prejudice? Is it like disagreeing with their race? What would that mean if it's different? This needs more explanation for me to follow.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
Its just an argument I hear alot from religious folks.
"Well its just a choice and it being a choice doesnt mean you have a right to marriage"
Then I just say that if it is a choice, so is religion, and by that logic we can ban Mormons, Christians, Pagans or just anyone.
121
Post by: Relapse
Howard A Treesong wrote:Relapse wrote:Crystal-Maze wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Da Boss wrote:
Blood Raven's Addiction: Well, homophobes are pretty common, so I guess you'll have company, at least.
Just disliking homosexuality does not make one a homophobe.
I think that disliking homosexuality kind of does made you a homophobe. Google's first definition:
"homophobia
ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə,ˌhəʊmə-/
noun
noun: homophobia
dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."
The definition says dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people, which is different than disagreeing with their homosexuality.
What does 'disagreeing' with someone's orientation actually mean if it's not a dislike or prejudice? Is it like disagreeing with their race? What would that mean if it's different? This needs more explanation for me to follow.
I have seen a lot of evidence on both sides whether the sexuality is choice or biological. Automatically Appended Next Post: hotsauceman1 wrote:Its just an argument I hear alot from religious folks.
"Well its just a choice and it being a choice doesnt mean you have a right to marriage"
Then I just say that if it is a choice, so is religion, and by that logic we can ban Mormons, Christians, Pagans or just anyone.
I'm not saying ban anything. A person's choice is a person's choice if it doesn't illegally interfere with others.
18178
Post by: Crystal-Maze
Relapse wrote: Howard A Treesong wrote:Relapse wrote:Crystal-Maze wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Da Boss wrote:
Blood Raven's Addiction: Well, homophobes are pretty common, so I guess you'll have company, at least.
Just disliking homosexuality does not make one a homophobe.
I think that disliking homosexuality kind of does made you a homophobe. Google's first definition:
"homophobia
ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə,ˌhəʊmə-/
noun
noun: homophobia
dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."
The definition says dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people, which is different than disagreeing with their homosexuality.
What does 'disagreeing' with someone's orientation actually mean if it's not a dislike or prejudice? Is it like disagreeing with their race? What would that mean if it's different? This needs more explanation for me to follow.
I have seen a lot of evidence on both sides whether the sexuality is choice or biological.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote:Its just an argument I hear alot from religious folks.
"Well its just a choice and it being a choice doesnt mean you have a right to marriage"
Then I just say that if it is a choice, so is religion, and by that logic we can ban Mormons, Christians, Pagans or just anyone.
I'm not saying ban anything. A person's choice is a person's choice if it doesn't illegally interfere with others.
Then what on earth does disagreeing with homosexuality mean if people are allowed to make that 'choice' (not going in to whether it is a choice or not). That is a genuine question. Do you just not like the idea of gay people?
I agree with Hotsauceman that it should not matter whether or not it is a choice, btw.
121
Post by: Relapse
And I answered his question. You just don't like the answer.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Howard A Treesong wrote:Relapse wrote:
The definition says dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people, which is different than disagreeing with their homosexuality.
What does 'disagreeing' with someone's orientation actually mean if it's not a dislike or prejudice? Is it like disagreeing with their race? What would that mean if it's different? This needs more explanation for me to follow.
To jump with Mr. Treesong here... Why does anyone disagree with anything? It's because they dislike it. You might here a vegan or vegetarian say, "You should eat this delicious and nutritious veggie burger, because I disagree with your choice of eating a 100% Prime Grade A beef hamburger" They are arguing or disagreeing with choice of burger based on their own dislike of meat products.
On the flip side of that, why on earth would I EVER say, "Don't eat that bacon cheeseburger because X" when I love bacon?
This applies to pretty much every argument I can think of: Ford vs. Chevy, Apple vs. PC, Playstation vs. XBox, Red Sox/Yankees, gay/straight, everything... if you are arguing against something it's because somewhere whether you admit or realize, somewhere you have a strong dislike of that something.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Relapse wrote:And I answered his question. You just don't like the answer.
Did you choose you sexuality? I know I didn't mine.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
It is possible that people who disagree with homosexuality have made in-depth studies of the various possible effects on society of homosexuality and come to the rational conclusion that homosexuality is a negative influence on society and therefore it is to be deprecated.
I don't believe that myself but I am advancing it as a theoretical argument.
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Ensis Ferrae wrote:On the flip side of that, why on earth would I EVER say, "Don't eat that bacon cheeseburger because X" when I love bacon?
"Don't eat that bacon cheeseburger because that means there's less for me!"?
64217
Post by: greatbigtree
I'm a strong believer that whether Homosexuality is a choice, or a natural inkling, it doesn't matter. It's nobody's business but the consenting adults that are involved. I'm Hetero by nature and by choice. In some horrible, and intensely disturbing universe, if someone threatened my loved ones with torture and death unless I had sex with a man... I think I'd be able to make it happen. So I could choose to engage in a homosexual act, but I can't think of any realistic situation in which I would.
In the mirror, if someone told me I couldn't love my wife because [again, Bizzaro world] only Homosexuality was socially acceptable, I'd have to say that it's in my nature to be attracted to the gender that I am, and I choose to follow that nature. Thankfully I can ignore the assorted pressures that afflict Homosexual people in our universe, because I'm a straight, white, 30-something man. I don't think I can legitimately claim that I'm being discriminated against by anybody.
In my youth, Homosexual slurs were the go-to put down, and I participated in it. I'm ashamed of my past actions, and I have a strong feeling that I hurt people that were my friends without knowing it. Today, I try to be accepting of other people, though old habits die hard and I sometimes slip into poor choices of words.
More than anything, I realized that I have no way of knowing how my two boys will "turn out". I ask myself what they would think if I used Homosexual slurs around them while they grow up, and they "turn out" to be Homosexual? I'm probably not using the right terms, but the concept is sound. I can't stand the idea that my boys would think I thought less of them for being who they were born to be / choosing to be the people they want to be. It wouldn't matter, I'd love them just the same.
So congratulations to Ireland. It's not something I think needs to be voted upon, but I'm glad that the vote carries human rights as they should be.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
MrDwhitey wrote:Didn't you get threatened with a ban and have a post deleted for fairly anti-homosexual views and how they were presented? I vaguely remember this being a thing.
I don't remember what it was I said, but yes. I don't hate or dislike homosexuals at all though, sometimes I just say stupid things or my words get interpreted wrongly. Crystal-Maze wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Da Boss wrote: Blood Raven's Addiction: Well, homophobes are pretty common, so I guess you'll have company, at least.
Just disliking homosexuality does not make one a homophobe.
I think that disliking homosexuality kind of does made you a homophobe. Google's first definition: "homophobia ˌhɒməˈfəʊbɪə,ˌhəʊmə-/ noun noun: homophobia dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."
I disagree with that definition. For me, homophobia is more than just disliking homosexuals. A homophobe doesn't just dislike, he really hates homosexuals. The 'phobe' part in these words comes from the Greek word φόβος, which means fear. In English language, a phobia usually means an irrational fear, not just a dislike. If I dislike bananas, does that mean I have a phobia for bananas? Crystal-Maze wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Automatically Appended Next Post: Ketara wrote: Sigvatr wrote:Lie. I'll quote for you: Not "need" as in "do or die", but rather "highly beneficial".
You're born either a man or a woman. Period.
Biologically, yes. Back to the previous point: man or woman. End of the story. No tralala in between. That's what you're born. Now, you can then /identify/ as another gender, if you want to.
I don't think you quite understand the point I'm making. Biological 'man' and 'woman' are one thing. Genders, such as 'male' and 'female' are another. If a biological man/woman can impart all the necessary values/behaviours to produce a good person without needing to link them to gender, than there is no need to have 'male' or 'female' (in the gender sense) role models. You just need role models. The gender becomes irrelevant. The gender is only relevant if you wish to attach gender related concepts to the behaviours/traits imparted/inculcated/indoctrinated into children. If you disavow that now, then fair enough, but then you're directly contradicting what you said before.
Gender and biological sex are not the same thing, but in Western (and all other) culture they are always linked to each other. Society expects a person to fit in the gender that corresponds with his/her biological sex. Not following this pattern is possible but leads to a lot of problems and possibly being rejected from society. Therefore I think it is better to indoctrinate children with the "correct" gender identity, as this is for their own good and will allow them to function better in society than if you raised them without clear genders.
It is not an adequate excuse that 'society would reject' a person who does not follow gender norms; this is a problem with society, not the individual. We should not just 'indoctrinate' children with the 'correct' (how I loathe that usage) gender because it is easier; we should work on changing society.
Society is made up of people. By saying society is wrong you are essentially saying: The vast majority of the people are wrong because they do not adhere to my opinion. What makes you so sure that you are in the right, and human society is wrong? According to a democratic point of view, society can not be wrong.
18178
Post by: Crystal-Maze
Iron_Captain wrote:
Society is made up of people. By saying society is wrong you are essentially saying: The vast majority of the people are wrong because they do not adhere to my opinion. What makes you so sure that you are in the right, and human society is wrong? According to a democratic point of view, society can not be wrong.
Sometimes the vast majority of people are wrong; if it didn't happen society would never progress at all.
Children who are trans face a childhood where everything that happens around them feels wrong because they are constantly misgendered. I think that this is right because it is what is reported to me by individuals who identify as transgendered, and because I have read widely in the area during the last five years of my degree.
I struggle to see how the continuing stigmatisation of trans individuals could possibly be helpful for society in general, but particularly for the individuals themselves. These children would have been happier throughout their lives (i.e. less at risk of depression and related conditions, including suicide) if their identity had been accepted when they first came to it, rather than after years of struggle. They would be less at risk of bullying and social rejection if somebody had told their bullies that the trans individual's identity was valid, and not an object for stigmatization. It does not need to be, and it is slowly becoming an identity that society is more accepting of.
Besides, in my democracy we protect the rights of trans individuals; your flag tells me you are from the netherlands; are you so different over there?
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Words change meanings and expand/adapt beyond those of their constituent roots. The root definition of the 'phobia' of homophobia does not lead to the requirement that you need to fear gay people in order to be accurately described as being a homophobic person.
I've seen the argument before and it's a nonsense. That some people attempt to redefine the word in an overly literal fashion, that is not anything like that in actual usage, in order to down play suggestions that they may qualify as being homophobic, instead of actually offering some evidence to the contrary, is rather telling.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Crystal-Maze wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Society is made up of people. By saying society is wrong you are essentially saying: The vast majority of the people are wrong because they do not adhere to my opinion. What makes you so sure that you are in the right, and human society is wrong? According to a democratic point of view, society can not be wrong.
Sometimes the vast majority of people are wrong; if it didn't happen society would never progress at all. Children who are trans face a childhood where everything that happens around them feels wrong because they are constantly misgendered. I think that this is right because it is what is reported to me by individuals who identify as transgendered, and because I have read widely in the area during the last five years of my degree. I struggle to see how the continuing stigmatisation of trans individuals could possibly be helpful for society in general, but particularly for the individuals themselves. These children would have been happier throughout their lives (i.e. less at risk of depression and related conditions, including suicide) if their identity had been accepted when they first came to it, rather than after years of struggle. They would be less at risk of bullying and social rejection if somebody had told their bullies that the trans individual's identity was valid, and not an object for stigmatization. It does not need to be, and it is slowly becoming an identity that society is more accepting of.
Fair enough. You make a good point. Still, I am afraid society is not going to change in this regard anytime soon. Crystal-Maze wrote: Besides, in my democracy we protect the rights of trans individuals; your flag tells me you are from the netherlands; are you so different over there?
There is a sea of difference between the UK and the Netherlands, but in this regard we are the same, yes. But while I may live in the Netherlands now, I grew up mostly in Crimea, and culture there is very different from the West. Howard A Treesong wrote:Words change meanings and expand/adapt beyond those of their constituent roots. The root definition of the 'phobia' of homophobia does not lead to the requirement that you need to fear gay people in order to be accurately described as being a homophobic person. I've seen the argument before and it's a nonsense. That some people attempt to redefine the word in an overly literal fashion, that is not anything like that in actual usage, in order to down play suggestions that they may qualify as being homophobic, instead of actually offering some evidence to the contrary, is rather telling.
Words are often interpreted differently by different people. Imo, you need to have more than just a simple dislike to be a homophobe. If you use it that way it just turns into a meaningless insult to slander anyone who does not support gay marriage (or whatever issue the speaker supports) whatever their actual reasons may be.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Kilkrazy wrote:It is possible that people who disagree with homosexuality have made in-depth studies of the various possible effects on society of homosexuality and come to the rational conclusion that homosexuality is a negative influence on society and therefore it is to be deprecated.
It's theoretically possible. It isn't true.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote:If you use it that way it just turns into a meaningless insult to slander anyone who does not support gay marriage (or whatever issue the speaker supports) whatever their actual reasons may be.
But if you're opposed to gay marriage you have crossed the line into hate/dislike/whatever. There's really no justification at this point for opposing gay marriage that doesn't essentially consist of "I hate gay people". The supposedly rational arguments against it have been demolished over and over again, and all that's left is the hate.
30287
Post by: Bromsy
What if you are just staunchly anti marriage and your dislike of gay marriage stems from that?
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 Peregrine wrote:
But if you're opposed to gay marriage you have crossed the line into hate/dislike/whatever. There's really no justification at this point for opposing gay marriage that doesn't essentially consist of "I hate gay people". The supposedly rational arguments against it have been demolished over and over again, and all that's left is the hate.
You can say this over and over and over again until you're blue in the face.
It doesn't make you more right any of the time.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
 cincydooley wrote: Peregrine wrote: But if you're opposed to gay marriage you have crossed the line into hate/dislike/whatever. There's really no justification at this point for opposing gay marriage that doesn't essentially consist of "I hate gay people". The supposedly rational arguments against it have been demolished over and over again, and all that's left is the hate.
You can say this over and over and over again until you're blue in the face. It doesn't make you more right any of the time.
How is he wrong exactly? Edit: I just realised that sounds kind of combative. I'm legitimately curious about it.
47598
Post by: motyak
Because there is also irrational fear? That's about all I can think.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
cincydooley wrote:You can say this over and over and over again until you're blue in the face.
It doesn't make you more right any of the time.
Then please, provide a rational argument against gay marriage that hasn't already been destroyed over and over again.
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
cincydooley wrote: Peregrine wrote:
But if you're opposed to gay marriage you have crossed the line into hate/dislike/whatever. There's really no justification at this point for opposing gay marriage that doesn't essentially consist of "I hate gay people". The supposedly rational arguments against it have been demolished over and over again, and all that's left is the hate.
You can say this over and over and over again until you're blue in the face.
It doesn't make you more right any of the time.
It's not repetition that makes his assertion right, it's simple fact.
5470
Post by: sebster
Relapse wrote:I have seen a lot of evidence on both sides whether the sexuality is choice or biological.
You have seen bad evidence provided by liars and idiots.
To break it down simply, there are people who are either straight or gay. They could not 'choose' to be attracted to anything but their basic biological preference. Straight attraction accounts for somewhere around 96 or 97% of the population, and about 2% as gay. The other 1 to 2% are bi-sexual, and this is where the junk scientists sexual science do their work. They point out that bi-sexuals can actually shift their preference, and well, duh. These are people who are born with attraction to both sexes, or a pendulum that switches between attraction to one & the other, or one of a bunch of other tendencies, so of course you'll get some ability to switch between the two if you put enough therapy in - though it's remarkable how little this affects even bi-sexual people.
The con, of course, is in taking that small amount of change of preference achieved in bi-sexual people, and claiming that such change could be applied to all gay people. Which is just wrong - no therapy has ever been able to make a purely gay person change preference, all it has ever achieved is depression & suicide. Automatically Appended Next Post: cincydooley wrote:You can say this over and over and over again until you're blue in the face.
It doesn't make you more right any of the time.
More to the point, he can keep saying it until someone, somewhere, comes up with an argument against gay marriage that doesn't ultimately boil down to 'I hate gay people'. It ain't gonna happen, people opposed to gay marriage have been trying to think of a decent reason for ages now, and everything they've come up with has been silly and kind of sad.
73078
Post by: The Division Of Joy
It depresses me that we still live in an age where some people think sexual orientation is a choice. It's so backward and ignorant.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
The Division Of Joy wrote:It depresses me that we still live in an age where some people think sexual orientation is a choice. It's so backward and ignorant.
Me too. Straight people don't choose to be straight so why do people think it's any different for gay people?
And as others have said, even if it was a choice, it shouldn't matter. It's not a choice that hurts anyone in any way, so why should they lose rights even if they did make a choice?
42144
Post by: cincydooley
While I agree, show me the data.
You can't because nothing overwhelmingly substantial exists. Automatically Appended Next Post: Peregrine wrote: cincydooley wrote:You can say this over and over and over again until you're blue in the face.
It doesn't make you more right any of the time.
Then please, provide a rational argument against gay marriage that hasn't already been destroyed over and over again.
That's just the thing: they haven't been "destroyed;" they've been reduced to "if you have a problem with it you're a bigot that hates gays" regardless of any rationale by people that dislike religion.
There are huge swathes of difference between disapproval and hate. Huge.
Yet that seems to be continuously lost on the self righteous SJWs of the world.
It all goes back to the ease in which we throw out the word "bigot" and slap anyone that disagrees with us with it. It's a rallying cry, really, of the American left.
47181
Post by: Yodhrin
cincydooley wrote:While I agree, show me the data.
You can't because nothing overwhelmingly substantial exists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Peregrine wrote: cincydooley wrote:You can say this over and over and over again until you're blue in the face.
It doesn't make you more right any of the time.
Then please, provide a rational argument against gay marriage that hasn't already been destroyed over and over again.
That's just the thing: they haven't been "destroyed;" they've been reduced to "if you have a problem with it you're a bigot that hates gays" regardless of any rationale by people that dislike religion.
There are huge swathes of difference between disapproval and hate. Huge.
Yet that seems to be continuously lost on the self righteous SJWs of the world.
It all goes back to the ease in which we throw out the word "bigot" and slap anyone that disagrees with us with it. It's a rallying cry, really, of the American left.
Huh, have we all sprouted American flags suddenly, in this thread discussing a gay marriage referendum in Ireland, where this thread of conversation was started by several people disagreeing with someone from Eastern Europe?
I'll also note, despite continuing to assert that these rational arguments exist and are simply being dismissed out of hand by evil SJWs, you've still not actually cited one as requested. And you know what, yes, if someone makes arguments against a group of people and those arguments are taken apart piece by piece right in front of that person, yet they still insist the group they were arguing against is somehow wrong/bad/twisted, I am going to assume they're just a bigot who was using those discredited arguments as a cloak for their disgust and/or hatred and/or misdirected self-loathing, because that's a pattern which has been borne out many, many times in history particularly over the course of the 20th century.
We've passed the stage where people can plausibly claim ignorance now; gays don't cause hurricanes, or bring down the wrath of God, or "destroy marriage", or "convert" children, they're just people who deserve the same basic respect and consideration, both from the law and from other people, that everyone else enjoys.
If you actually know a rational argument against that proposition, make it.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Peregrine wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote:If you use it that way it just turns into a meaningless insult to slander anyone who does not support gay marriage (or whatever issue the speaker supports) whatever their actual reasons may be.
But if you're opposed to gay marriage you have crossed the line into hate/dislike/whatever. There's really no justification at this point for opposing gay marriage that doesn't essentially consist of "I hate gay people". The supposedly rational arguments against it have been demolished over and over again, and all that's left is the hate.
So what if you have no problem with homosexuals living together etc. at all, but still are opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons?
18178
Post by: Crystal-Maze
Iron_Captain wrote: Peregrine wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Iron_Captain wrote:If you use it that way it just turns into a meaningless insult to slander anyone who does not support gay marriage (or whatever issue the speaker supports) whatever their actual reasons may be.
But if you're opposed to gay marriage you have crossed the line into hate/dislike/whatever. There's really no justification at this point for opposing gay marriage that doesn't essentially consist of "I hate gay people". The supposedly rational arguments against it have been demolished over and over again, and all that's left is the hate.
So what if you have no problem with homosexuals living together etc. at all, but still are opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons?
Then its (probably) less a problem with homophobia on the part of the individual, and more the collective, organised homophobia of the religious institution. I recognise that people can view their religion as overriding the moral laws of the country; some members of my family hold opinions like that. However, viewed from outside of the institution (i.e. where the teachings of that institution are not viewed as sacrosanct), then it still just looks a lot like organized homophobia.
73999
Post by: Haight
Good on the Irish for holding the referendum, hopefully it passes, but i'm not optimistic. As 5th generation Irish-American myself (and 5 generations later, still over 60% of my ancestry is of Irish decent), I say this with great love, but the home of my ancestors is not known for being terribly progressive in matters like this ; Divorce only became legal in 1995.
However, on the same token, if they do pass this, then it really does speak volumes about how far that nation has come in just a small handful of decades time. Hopefully tradition will pay heed to reason.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
 Haight wrote:Good on the Irish for holding the referendum, hopefully it passes, but i'm not optimistic. As 5th generation Irish-American myself (and 5 generations later, still over 60% of my ancestry is of Irish decent), I say this with great love, but the home of my ancestors is not known for being terribly progressive in matters like this ; Divorce only became legal in 1995.
However, on the same token, if they do pass this, then it really does speak volumes about how far that nation has come in just a small handful of decades time. Hopefully tradition will pay heed to reason.
Did it not already? It was a majority yes vote.
18178
Post by: Crystal-Maze
Its already passed with flying colours, people. There were rainbows in the sky and everything.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Iron_Captain wrote:So what if you have no problem with homosexuals living together etc. at all, but still are opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons?
You're still over the "hate" line, because marriage is a secular legal contract that has nothing to do with your religion. Adding "because god said so" to your belief doesn't change anything.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Peregrine wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:So what if you have no problem with homosexuals living together etc. at all, but still are opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons?
You're still over the "hate" line, because marriage is a secular legal contract that has nothing to do with your religion. Adding "because god said so" to your belief doesn't change anything.
As well, if you were an American (and I know that IC isn't one), and arguing from the point of "America is a Christian nation, founded by good Christian men!", then I can point out with factual, first-hand evidence that this is not true, and therefore, arguing from a position of religious morality is literally building a strawman because there is nothing under that argument to support it.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
cincydooley wrote:That's just the thing: they haven't been "destroyed;" they've been reduced to "if you have a problem with it you're a bigot that hates gays" regardless of any rationale by people that dislike religion.
No, they've been destroyed. There is no credible argument that gay marriage is bad, other than "I don't like it". Every supposedly rational argument against it has been disproved over and over again, to the point that no reasonable and informed person could possibly believe them. So that leaves two categories of people who believe the "rational" arguments against gay marriage:
1) The bigots whose real motives are "I hate gay people" or "eww, gross", and who just want a "scientific" pretense to make it look like their argument isn't just bigotry.
2) People who don't know enough about the subject to have an informed opinion, but insist on having one anyway.
But feel free to demonstrate that I'm wrong, and that there's a legitimate rational argument against gay marriage. Based on the fact that you've just complained about how mean "the left" is instead of providing one the first time I asked I suspect you know you can't provide one.
There are huge swathes of difference between disapproval and hate. Huge.
Not really, because there's no reasonable justification for that disapproval. If you say "I disapprove of black people" we all know that you're a racist and the only reason you're saying "disapprove" is because you're trying to pretend that what you're saying isn't incredibly offensive.
It all goes back to the ease in which we throw out the word "bigot" and slap anyone that disagrees with us with it. It's a rallying cry, really, of the American left.
No, it's a rallying cry of the American right, because it's a blatant straw man. There are lots of people who disagree with me but don't get a "bigot" label. We can argue all day about taxes/gun control/etc and you'll be wrong, but you (probably) aren't a bigot. But when a person is making an argument that is nothing more than "I don't like you and I don't think you should have the same rights as the rest of us" then yeah, the "bigot" label is appropriate no matter how politely the argument is made.
5470
Post by: sebster
cincydooley wrote:While I agree, show me the data. You can't because nothing overwhelmingly substantial exists.
While the call to find a single gay gene was always far too simplistic given the complexity of gene interactions and the place of pre and post natal environmental conditions, and so there will never be the 'smoking gun' to show to people who refuse to see it, there simply hasn't been an honest case for homosexuality as choice for a decade now. We know, for instance, that the more brothers you had born before you, the more likely you are to be gay. Homosexuality as biology will tell you that the mother's immune system actually becomes more effective at fighting testosterone as she has more boys, reducing that hormone as she has more boys, increasing the chance of homosexuality. Homosexuality as choice will tell you that if a person sees older brothers around them, then they choose to be gay... which is stupid. And we know that gay people are more likely to have hair that curls counter-clockwise. That gay men are more likely to be left handed or ambidextrous. That the twin siblings of gay people are much more likely to be gay themselves. That gay men respond subconsciously to male pheromones, while straight men respond to female pheromones. And even if we ignore all of that, haven't you ever wondered why, if homosexuality is a choice, that not one single therapy has ever managed to make people make a different choice? Not one single person, under all manner of therapies, including some really invasive stuff, has ever gone from absolute homosexual attraction to anything less than that. How in the feth does that reconcile with any kind of sensible belief that homosexuality is a choice. That's just the thing: they haven't been "destroyed;" they've been reduced to "if you have a problem with it you're a bigot that hates gays" regardless of any rationale by people that dislike religion.
No, they've been destroyed. Looking beyond any moral argument, the basic logic of arguments like 'but its special rights for gay people' and 'but it's about the sanctity of the word' have been utterly, completely laid bare as utter tosh. Nonsense. Things believed by people unwilling or incapable of actually thinking about the issue. There are huge swathes of difference between disapproval and hate. Huge.
In many ways simple disapproval is worse. With hate at least there's anger and confusion driving it, but dispassionate disapproval - "I have nothing at stake and realise you are harming no-one, but I just think it's important to disapprove for no particular reason at all".... what a gakky way to go about thinking about life. It all goes back to the ease in which we throw out the word "bigot" and slap anyone that disagrees with us with it. It's a rallying cry, really, of the American left.
This I actually agree with. The left is all too often only really interested in dismissing any alternative argument with a simple moral wave of the hand - say bigot, feel morally superior and move on. But of course, as much as the left has all too often opted for easy moral judgement... they still won, because the right's arguments against gay equality were just so terrible.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Haight wrote:Good on the Irish for holding the referendum, hopefully it passes, but i'm not optimistic. As 5th generation Irish-American myself (and 5 generations later, still over 60% of my ancestry is of Irish decent), I say this with great love, but the home of my ancestors is not known for being terribly progressive in matters like this ; Divorce only became legal in 1995.
However, on the same token, if they do pass this, then it really does speak volumes about how far that nation has come in just a small handful of decades time. Hopefully tradition will pay heed to reason.
Passed by over 60% of the population, only one constituency voted No out of the entire island. It is true that Ireland was extremely socially conservative, but things have changed rapidly in the last 20 years and it is no longer as bad as people think. Gently suggesting you reassess your view because it is likely to piss off a lot of Irish people like myself who are very socially liberal.
I am hopeful that we should have a referendum on abortion soon and it should also pass, though it will be a much, much harder fight. And then the Catholic Church can give up it's grip on our hospitals and schools and I would be satisfied enough to consider moving home again.
80451
Post by: Sienisoturi
Da Boss wrote: Haight wrote:Good on the Irish for holding the referendum, hopefully it passes, but i'm not optimistic. As 5th generation Irish-American myself (and 5 generations later, still over 60% of my ancestry is of Irish decent), I say this with great love, but the home of my ancestors is not known for being terribly progressive in matters like this ; Divorce only became legal in 1995.
However, on the same token, if they do pass this, then it really does speak volumes about how far that nation has come in just a small handful of decades time. Hopefully tradition will pay heed to reason.
Passed by over 60% of the population, only one constituency voted No out of the entire island. It is true that Ireland was extremely socially conservative, but things have changed rapidly in the last 20 years and it is no longer as bad as people think. Gently suggesting you reassess your view because it is likely to piss off a lot of Irish people like myself who are very socially liberal.
I am hopeful that we should have a referendum on abortion soon and it should also pass, though it will be a much, much harder fight. And then the Catholic Church can give up it's grip on our hospitals and schools and I would be satisfied enough to consider moving home again.
I am curious, are you for abortion only when there is a good reason, or for abortion beign legal regardless of the reason?
4042
Post by: Da Boss
I am for abortion on demand, I don't think women should have to justify their choices to anyone. I would be happy if we at least liberalised it so that women at medical risk, or who had been raped, or who have a confirmed fatal fetal abnormality, or so on, could abort. The grotesque situations that happen with our current system are a national shame.
Who gets to decide what a good reason is, after all?
I don't particularly want to get into an abortion debate here though, because I'm pretty sure my views on it will just offend everyone, on every side
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
Meh, I'm similar, but I go by, freely available, but rare. There should be heavy investment in sex-ed which isn't abstinence only, stuff like IUDs covered by insurance, ect.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
It's not like abortions are ten a penny in countries where there are liberal abortion laws. It's not a pleasant thing for anyone to go through.
Though yeah, getting the Church out of our schools might help on the sex ed front.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Peregrine wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:So what if you have no problem with homosexuals living together etc. at all, but still are opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons?
You're still over the "hate" line, because marriage is a secular legal contract that has nothing to do with your religion. Adding "because god said so" to your belief doesn't change anything.
It has everything to do with my religion, because this concept of "secular marriage" originates from it. Marriage is one of the Sacred Mysteries, there is no such thing as secular marriage, that would be like saying there is a secular baptism. Marriage, for religious people, goes far beyond being just a simple legal contract.
443
Post by: skyth
Just because your religion wants to claim marriage doesn't mean that they have the sole right to the word.
79194
Post by: Co'tor Shas
But, IC, in almost all countries (i.e. those who are not theocracies) there is a legal definition of marriage that has nothing to do with religion. It's why aethists, ect can marry, and why marriages don't have to be preformed by a priest. Religious marriage is still the same, nobody is forcing priests to marry gay people, but the non-religious entity that issues marriage licenses to people has to.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Iron_Captain wrote:It has everything to do with my religion, because this concept of "secular marriage" originates from it. Marriage is one of the Sacred Mysteries, there is no such thing as secular marriage, that would be like saying there is a secular baptism. Marriage, for religious people, goes far beyond being just a simple legal contract.
This is indisputably false. Marriage is older than your religion, and has existed outside of your religion for all of known history. The fact that your religion has its own ceremonies and rules involving marriage does not grant your religion ownership of it. Nor does it give you any right to say who may or may not sign a secular legal contract at the local courthouse.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
Iron_Captain wrote: Peregrine wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:So what if you have no problem with homosexuals living together etc. at all, but still are opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons?
You're still over the "hate" line, because marriage is a secular legal contract that has nothing to do with your religion. Adding "because god said so" to your belief doesn't change anything.
It has everything to do with my religion, because this concept of "secular marriage" originates from it. Marriage is one of the Sacred Mysteries, there is no such thing as secular marriage, that would be like saying there is a secular baptism. Marriage, for religious people, goes far beyond being just a simple legal contract.
However for non religious people, that's what it is. I'm all for people having religion, but I don't like them pushing that on others, which is exactly what saying gay people can't get married because MY religion says so is doing. And it's not like things haven't changed with regards to marrige and religion before. Divorce used to be forbidden, are you against that too?
18178
Post by: Crystal-Maze
Iron_Captain wrote: Peregrine wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:So what if you have no problem with homosexuals living together etc. at all, but still are opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons?
You're still over the "hate" line, because marriage is a secular legal contract that has nothing to do with your religion. Adding "because god said so" to your belief doesn't change anything.
It has everything to do with my religion, because this concept of "secular marriage" originates from it. Marriage is one of the Sacred Mysteries, there is no such thing as secular marriage, that would be like saying there is a secular baptism. Marriage, for religious people, goes far beyond being just a simple legal contract.
The thing is, it doesn't come from your religion (whichever religion it is). The idea of marriage occurs in -nearly all- religions in the world, and means slightly different things to each religion. If we were to say that secular marriage were non-valid, then we would have to say that religious marriage solemnised by any other faith that 'state endorsed faith x' would be null and void. Which we don't want to do, because that would be mean to most religious people. But if the state is ok to solemnise marriage, then its alright for them to solemnise whatever marriages they like. Iron_Captain wrote: I disagree with that definition. For me, homophobia is more than just disliking homosexuals. A homophobe doesn't just dislike, he really hates homosexuals. The 'phobe' part in these words comes from the Greek word φόβος, which means fear. In English language, a phobia usually means an irrational fear, not just a dislike. If I dislike bananas, does that mean I have a phobia for bananas?
Alternatively; we're allowed to define words however we want. I disagree with the definition of marriage which would not allow same-sex marriages. For me, marriage is more than just being into the opposite sex.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
PS: my religion states that only gay marriages are valid, so I expect the immediate removal of straight marriages. And you can't have any objection to this demand, because you've already established that you believe that "my religion says that marriage is defined this way" is a valid argument.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
Peregrine wrote:PS: my religion states that only gay marriages are valid, so I expect the immediate removal of straight marriages. And you can't have any objection to this demand, because you've already established that you believe that "my religion says that marriage is defined this way" is a valid argument.
Exactly. You can't write laws and expect to cover all religions, and you can't pick one. Religion should have no bearing on laws and definitely not on people's rights.
5534
Post by: dogma
Da Boss wrote:
I don't particularly want to get into an abortion debate here though, because I'm pretty sure my views on it will just offend everyone, on every side
Abortions for some, miniature Irish flags for others!
83121
Post by: eddieazrael
Fully agree - religious rights are perfectly fine in any context.. right up until they reach the point where they start telling people not of that religion what they can and cannot do.. If you choose to live your life by a set of rules (arbitrary or not, based on magic/voices in your head/some Supreme Deity) then that's your choice...just don't expect everyone else to be obliged to follow them too. Just because something is 'traditional' or 'has always been done that way' doesn't necessarily make it right or just.
5534
Post by: dogma
Iron_Captain wrote: It has everything to do with my religion, because this concept of "secular marriage" originates from it. Marriage is one of the Sacred Mysteries, there is no such thing as secular marriage, that would be like saying there is a secular baptism.
Secular marriage has been around longer than all three Abrahamic religions.
Iron_Captain wrote:
Marriage, for religious people, goes far beyond being just a simple legal contract.
Whether or not a given religious institution sanctifies a marriage has no bearing on the privileges accorded as a result of that legal contract. This means both that people can be married in the eyes of the state but not in the eyes of a religious institution, and that people can be married in the eyes of a religious institution but not in the eyes of the state.
Put differently, there is nothing wrong with a religious institution refusing to wed a homosexual couple, the problem comes when people start trying to prevent the state from doing so.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Co'tor Shas wrote:But, IC, in almost all countries (i.e. those who are not theocracies) there is a legal definition of marriage
And in almost all countries this form of marriage is connected to religion.
Co'tor Shas wrote:nobody is forcing priests to marry gay people,
They do in the Netherlands
Peregrine wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:It has everything to do with my religion, because this concept of "secular marriage" originates from it. Marriage is one of the Sacred Mysteries, there is no such thing as secular marriage, that would be like saying there is a secular baptism. Marriage, for religious people, goes far beyond being just a simple legal contract.
This is indisputably false. Marriage is older than your religion, and has existed outside of your religion for all of known history. The fact that your religion has its own ceremonies and rules involving marriage does not grant your religion ownership of it. Nor does it give you any right to say who may or may not sign a secular legal contract at the local courthouse.
No, you are indisputably false.
A form of social contract called marriage existed already before Christianity (and even there it was already tied to religion, just to different ones), but the current form of marriage as practiced in the West comes from the Christian tradition.
And whatever its origins, the fact that marriage for most Christians is not just a legal contract but also has very deep religious meanings does not change.
And no, while religion does not give one the right to say who or may not sign a legal contract, that does not mean you can't be opposed to it for religious reasons.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
Are you also opposed to people wearing garments made of mixed fibres? Leviticus 19:19. Tattoos? Divorce? Wearing gold? If not, why are you against gay people getting married? If you're going to pick and choose parts of the religion to follow, then you must be against gay marriage for a more personal reason than 'my religion says so'.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Iron_Captain wrote:A form of social contract called marriage existed already before Christianity (and even there it was already tied to religion, just to different ones), but the current form of marriage as practiced in the West comes from the Christian tradition.
It does not come from any "Christian tradition". Christianity adds nothing to the concept of (legal/secular) marriage. In fact, virtually all of the privileges and obligations involved in marriage have nothing to do with religion. The Christian bible certainly doesn't determine things like tax rates or hospital visitation rights.
And whatever its origins, the fact that marriage for most Christians is not just a legal contract but also has very deep religious meanings does not change.
What's your point? You're indisputably wrong about your religion having ownership of secular/legal marriage, so why do your religion's beliefs about secular/legal marriage matter at all?
And no, while religion does not give one the right to say who or may not sign a legal contract, that does not mean you can't be opposed to it for religious reasons.
You can be opposed for that reason, but that makes you a bigot. You don't like another person's beliefs (or lack of beliefs), and you want to force them to follow your religion's rules. The correct answer in this situation is to acknowledge that, while your religion does not recognize gay marriage, your religion has no authority over marriage as a secular legal contract and allow people who don't care about your religion's rules or ceremonies to live their lives without interference.
5534
Post by: dogma
Iron_Captain wrote:
A form of social contract called marriage existed already before Christianity (and even there it was already tied to religion, just to different ones), but the current form of marriage as practiced in the West comes from the Christian tradition.
Well, it wasn't actually called "marriage". Marriage is just a catchall term we use to denote a particular class of union between two or more people, which is one of the reasons that any argument regarding homosexuality and the dilution of marriage is likely to be rather silly. As to your claim about marriage and the Christian tradition in the West: How do you reconcile that position with the existence of non-Christian marriages in the same part of the world? Or, for that matter, the absence of any overt ties to Christianity throughout most of the same?
At any rate, marriage has never been universally tied to religion. Indeed, one of the more prominent elements of marriage throughout history has been service to one's group, as opposed to any sort of higher power. A great example of this was Sparta, where marriage was primarily about service to the state.
Iron_Captain wrote:
And no, while religion does not give one the right to say who or may not sign a legal contract, that does not mean you can't be opposed to it for religious reasons.
You certainly can, but that isn't usually the best way to begin an argument regarding a secular institution.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Iron_Captain wrote: but the current form of marriage as practiced in the West comes from the Christian tradition.
And whatever its origins, the fact that marriage for most Christians is not just a legal contract but also has very deep religious meanings does not change.
And that "Christian tradition" is deeply rooted in the Church's desire to make more money. Guys like Charlemagne weren't married in a church, they were married to whomever they pleased because they were the king. It wasn't until much later, like 12-1300s that major and minor nobles began to seek the priests "approval" as a sign to the people that they ruled through the will of "god", and the priests granted these blessings... for a price. Soon, it became common practice for everyone to seek the priests blessing on their marriage, and the church was knee deep in gold.
And no matter how secular MY marriage contract is, in no way invalidates YOUR religious experience in YOUR marriage. So keep your pompous religious BS out of my marriage, and the marriages of everyone else, thank you very much. (that is the "royal" your, not you individually IC)
Additionally, legalizing gay marriage for everyone doesn't in any way invalidate the religious practices or meanings that the religious types get from their marriage, whether they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Pastafarian or Rastafarian. As such, again, falling on "my religion says so" is not a valid reason for making something legal or illegal.
68714
Post by: VorpalBunny74
This is terrible news - I'm very much against the Irish being allowed to marry
(just kidding, you Irish are alright)
16689
Post by: notprop
I'm happy for the Irish to marry, so long as they don't propagate! 
Seriously though chaps why all the arguments? Who actually gives a feth who invented marriage and they're all different (what with being personal and all), so Just have an Raspberry Dakari, some Gay Cake and relax.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
Also, can I just point out Iron_Captains lie before.
The Netherlands does not force priests to marry gay couples. We force government officials to marry gay couples, because it's their job.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Peregrine wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:A form of social contract called marriage existed already before Christianity (and even there it was already tied to religion, just to different ones), but the current form of marriage as practiced in the West comes from the Christian
It does not come from any "Christian tradition". Christianity adds nothing to the concept of (legal/secular) marriage. In fact, virtually all of the privileges and obligations involved in marriage have nothing to do with religion. The Christian bible certainly doesn't determine things like tax rates or hospital visitation rights.
How much do you actually know of Christianity? Not much evidently. The Bible is not the only source of Christian teachings, far from it. "Marriage" was made a religious institution by the Council of Verona in 1184 as confirmed and expanded upon in the Council of Trent in 1564, which established that a marriage can only be valid when conducted by a priest.
Marriage existed before the Christian tradition, as it does in every culture, but you will find those forms of marriage are often quite different from the modern Western concept of marriage which is evolved from the (Catholic) Christian tradition.
Peregrine wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:And whatever its origins, the fact that marriage for most Christians is not just a legal contract but also has very deep religious meanings does not change.
What's your point? You're indisputably wrong about your religion having ownership of secular/legal marriage, so why do your religion's beliefs about secular/legal marriage matter at all?
I am not wrong here because this is a point I never made in the first place. It seems all you ever do is putting forward strawman arguments.
My religion's beliefs about marriage matter because they are my beliefs (and also of a significant part of society) and since we supposedly all live in a democracy they should therefore be respected.
Peregrine wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:And no, while religion does not give one the right to say who or may not sign a legal contract, that does not mean you can't be opposed to it for religious reasons.
You can be opposed for that reason, but that makes you a bigot. You don't like another person's beliefs (or lack of beliefs), and you want to force them to follow your religion's rules. The correct answer in this situation is to acknowledge that, while your religion does not recognize gay marriage, your religion has no authority over marriage as a secular legal contract and allow people who don't care about your religion's rules or ceremonies to live their lives without interference.
I don't want to force anyone to follow my religion's rules. I acknowledge that my religion has no authority over secular marriage and allow people who don't care about my religion to live without interference. That does not chance however the fact that I still dislike gay marriage for religious reasons. You can accept something while disliking it.
 Soladrin wrote:Also, can I just point out Iron_Captains lie before.
The Netherlands does not force priests to marry gay couples. We force government officials to marry gay couples, because it's their job.
Now you sound like a Soviet official, twisting words to make them appear different from what they actually are.
The only way for a priest to conduct a marriage in the Netherlands is if he officially registers with the government, so in effect, the Dutch government does force priests to either marry gay couples or not perform marriages at all.
dogma wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:
A form of social contract called marriage existed already before Christianity (and even there it was already tied to religion, just to different ones), but the current form of marriage as practiced in the West comes from the Christian tradition.
Well, it wasn't actually called "marriage". Marriage is just a catchall term we use to denote a particular class of union between two or more people, which is one of the reasons that any argument regarding homosexuality and the dilution of marriage is likely to be rather silly. As to your claim about marriage and the Christian tradition in the West: How do you reconcile that position with the existence of non-Christian marriages in the same part of the world? Or, for that matter, the absence of any overt ties to Christianity throughout most of the same?
At any rate, marriage has never been universally tied to religion. Indeed, one of the more prominent elements of marriage throughout history has been service to one's group, as opposed to any sort of higher power. A great example of this was Sparta, where marriage was primarily about service to the state.
Iron_Captain wrote:
And no, while religion does not give one the right to say who or may not sign a legal contract, that does not mean you can't be opposed to it for religious reasons.
You certainly can, but that isn't usually the best way to begin an argument regarding a secular institution.
Unless one were of the opinion that said secular institution should be replaced by a religious institution.
The problem is that law forces the Church to accept secular marriages as valid marriages. Gay marriage, which in Christian teachings is a perversion of the sacred concept of marriage therefore also has to be accept as valid marriage, which would be blasphemy and explains the strong opposition from the Church.
The best way out as far as I can see would be to seperate religious marriage and secular marriage completely. In other words, allow religious institutions to conduct their own form of marriage that would be equally legally valid as a secular marriage. Right now the only way to get married is by a secular marriage. Even better would also be to give both forms of marriage a different name also.
47598
Post by: motyak
That's up there with the least equitable ways to deal with it. Also, in your rambly, often times toeing the rule 1 line post just there Iron Captain, you missed responding to one of the people who addressed you. I'll help.
 ImAGeek wrote:Are you also opposed to people wearing garments made of mixed fibres? Leviticus 19:19. Tattoos? Divorce? Wearing gold? If not, why are you against gay people getting married? If you're going to pick and choose parts of the religion to follow, then you must be against gay marriage for a more personal reason than 'my religion says so'.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Just being in a democracy doesn't follow that your beliefs must be respected, especially to the extent that they take precidence over other people's right to equality. I'm not sure where this attitude that your 'beliefs' should expect automatic respect comes from.
443
Post by: skyth
Regardless, 'my religion says so' only has bearing on you. It has no bearing on what other people may do.
Also, bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.
48412
Post by: treslibras
Iron_Captain wrote:
Marriage existed before the Christian tradition, as it does in every culture, but you will find those forms of marriage are often quite different from the modern Western concept of marriage which is evolved from the (Catholic) Christian tradition.
So would you agree that by introducing divorce (by no means a christian dogma and one of the reasons why GB has their own church nowadays) western societies have surpassed the historical phase were marriage was defined and regelemented primarily by christian law in the western christian world?
The lutheran church is accepting re-marriages and nowadays also gay marriages in my country. Are they wrong to do so? Who decides that?
Iron_Captain wrote:
The problem is that law forces the Church to accept secular marriages as valid marriages.
Care to elaborate that argument? Being married is a legal status. A legal status does not grant special privileges in church, unless I have forgotten about some sacraments that are reserved to married couples? A church can still say "well, from our point of view, you are not married." They are not forced to publish your wedding in their church newspaper, they do not give you the special "I was married in church and I am proud of it" sticker etc.
If that was the case, your country would have an issue with the separation of church and state. Is that the case? Then that would be a topic in itself but with little connection to the underlying question in discussion here.
Iron_Captain wrote:
The best way out as far as I can see would be to seperate religious marriage and secular marriage completely. In other words, allow religious institutions to conduct their own form of marriage that would be equally legally valid as a secular marriage. Right now the only way to get married is by a secular marriage. Even better would also be to give both forms of marriage a different name also.
I do not get your point. Equality under law is already the case (in most of Europe, at least): Everyone has to marry secularly to get the civil status (and the privileges) of "being married" but only those who wish - and fit their religion's preferred vision of a couple - may marry religiously. If that religious wedding gives you (metaphysical) boni, so be it. Your choice.
What you want is to give a religious ceremony legal status. Which is actually the opposite of separation of legal/secular status and religious status. (welcome to Islam!)
If you have a problem to marry legally (whichever that may be, given that you are not forced to do it), then do not do it. You can still marry in church and get all the benefits from church/religion associated with that.
Just do not expect society/the state to give you a legal status/ privileges despite the fact that you do not want to be part of said society/state.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
motyak wrote:That's up there with the least equitable ways to deal with it. Also, in your rambly, often times toeing the rule 1 line post just there Iron Captain, you missed responding to one of the people who addressed you. I'll help.
How exactly am I toeing the rule 1? If I do, I am not realising it myself. ImAGeek wrote:Are you also opposed to people wearing garments made of mixed fibres? Leviticus 19:19. Tattoos? Divorce? Wearing gold? If not, why are you against gay people getting married? If you're going to pick and choose parts of the religion to follow, then you must be against gay marriage for a more personal reason than 'my religion says so'.
The Bible ≠ Christian teachings. Established Christian teachings (Such as Catholicism or Orthodoxy) take elements from the Bible, but not everything in the Bible is part of their teachings. And many elements also come from other sources (theological councils and literature) over the centuries. I am against gay marriage for a personal reason, but this personal reason is purely because it contradicts the teachings of my religion. Howard A Treesong wrote:Just being in a democracy doesn't follow that your beliefs must be respected, especially to the extent that they take precidence over other people's right to equality. I'm not sure where this attitude that your 'beliefs' should expect automatic respect comes from.
If you read the constitution of your country (and most other Western countries) you will see it says that every religious belief is to be respected. If and how the right to religious freedom conflicts the right to not be discriminated is really complicated. skyth wrote:Regardless, 'my religion says so' only has bearing on you. It has no bearing on what other people may do.
Agreed. skyth wrote:
Also, bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.
Define bigotry
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Iron_Captain wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:nobody is forcing priests to marry gay people,
They do in the Netherlands
Iron_Captain wrote:
I am not wrong here because this is a point I never made in the first place. It seems all you ever do is putting forward strawman arguments.
First quote is verbatim what you said... will the courts please note this into evidence
IC, you did in fact, say that priests are forced to marry couples in the Netherlands. Just because a clergyman needs to register with the state that he/she is wanting to conduct marriages, is not the same as forcing him/her to marry anyone and everyone.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
Iron_Captain wrote:
ImAGeek wrote:Are you also opposed to people wearing garments made of mixed fibres? Leviticus 19:19. Tattoos? Divorce? Wearing gold? If not, why are you against gay people getting married? If you're going to pick and choose parts of the religion to follow, then you must be against gay marriage for a more personal reason than 'my religion says so'.
The Bible ≠ Christian teachings. Established Christian teachings (Such as Catholicism or Orthodoxy) take elements from the Bible, but not everything in the Bible is part of their teachings. And many elements also come from other sources (theological councils and literature) over the centuries. I am against gay marriage for a personal reason, but this personal reason is purely because it contradicts the teachings of my religion.
Right... so someone else decided that wearing clothes made of mixed fibres is fine but gay people getting married isn't. So there's still picking and choosing of which parts to follow. And now people decide it's not okay for gay people to get married, not because it's in a holy text, but because someone else decided that we should follow that particular part of the holy text..?
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Iron_Captain wrote:
skyth wrote:
Also, bigotry wrapped in religion is still bigotry.
Define bigotry
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot
bigot : a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
 treslibras wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Marriage existed before the Christian tradition, as it does in every culture, but you will find those forms of marriage are often quite different from the modern Western concept of marriage which is evolved from the (Catholic) Christian tradition.
So would you agree that by introducing divorce (by no means a christian dogma and one of the reasons why GB has their own church nowadays) western societies have surpassed the historical phase were marriage was defined and regelemented primarily by christian law in the western christian world?
No, divorce was already allowed under Christian law. treslibras wrote:The lutheran church is accepting re-marriages and nowadays also gay marriages in my country. Are they wrong to do so? Who decides that?
The Lutheran Church does, and they are free to do so. Christianity is not a single religion but rather a collection of many different but related religions. What the Lutheran Church of your country does has no bearing on the teachings and beliefs of other churches, and individual christians are free to have any beliefs they want. treslibras wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: The problem is that law forces the Church to accept secular marriages as valid marriages.
Care to elaborate that argument? Being married is a legal status. A legal status does not grant special privileges in church, unless I have forgotten about some sacraments that are reserved to married couples? A church can still say "well, from our point of view, you are not married." They are not forced to publish your wedding in their church newspaper, they do not give you the special "I was married in church and I am proud of it" sticker etc. If that was the case, your country would have an issue with the separation of church and state. Is that the case? Then that would be a topic in itself but with little connection to the underlying question in discussion here.
Marriage is a legal status, but it is also a religious status (See this for information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_marriage#Eastern_Orthodoxy) A Church can not say "from our point of view you are not married" because a Church has to recognise a legal, secular marriage as valid. Since the only possible form of marriage under current law in the West is secular marriage, secular and religious marriage are currently one and the same. All a Church can do under Western law is to affirm a marriage that already exists. treslibras wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: The best way out as far as I can see would be to seperate religious marriage and secular marriage completely. In other words, allow religious institutions to conduct their own form of marriage that would be equally legally valid as a secular marriage. Right now the only way to get married is by a secular marriage. Even better would also be to give both forms of marriage a different name also.
I do not get your point. Equality under law is already the case (in most of Europe, at least): Everyone has to marry secularly to get the civil status (and the privileges) of "being married" but only those who wish - and fit their religion's preferred vision of a couple - may marry religiously. If that religious wedding gives you (metaphysical) boni, so be it. Your choice. What you want is to give a religious ceremony legal status. Which is actually the opposite of separation of legal/secular status and religious status. (welcome to Islam!) If you have a problem to marry legally (whichever that may be, given that you are not forced to do it), then do not do it. You can still marry in church and get all the benefits from church/religion associated with that. Just do not expect society/the state to give you a legal status/ privileges despite the fact that you do not want to be part of said society/state.
Currently, because the only possible marriage is a secular marriage, a secular marriage is also a religious marriage. By seperating these two by making religious marriage an alternate form of legal marriage you would take away the Church's arguments against gay marriage by removing the religious meaning given by churches to secular marriages. I do not get what is wrong about religious marriages (or Islam for that matter). ImAGeek wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: ImAGeek wrote:Are you also opposed to people wearing garments made of mixed fibres? Leviticus 19:19. Tattoos? Divorce? Wearing gold? If not, why are you against gay people getting married? If you're going to pick and choose parts of the religion to follow, then you must be against gay marriage for a more personal reason than 'my religion says so'.
The Bible ≠ Christian teachings. Established Christian teachings (Such as Catholicism or Orthodoxy) take elements from the Bible, but not everything in the Bible is part of their teachings. And many elements also come from other sources (theological councils and literature) over the centuries. I am against gay marriage for a personal reason, but this personal reason is purely because it contradicts the teachings of my religion.
Right... so someone else decided that wearing clothes made of mixed fibres is fine but gay people getting married isn't. So there's still picking and choosing of which parts to follow. And now people decide it's not okay for gay people to get married, not because it's in a holy text, but because someone else decided that we should follow that particular part of the holy text..?
That is exactly how it goes, yes. And it is also the reason religions splinter into so many different forms because people disagree with following a particular part of a holy text or have a different interpretation of it.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
So you're still choosing to follow that part, so it's still a personal thing.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
So than, are people who force same-sex marriages upon religious groups bigoted for refusing to accept the beliefs of that religious group? Automatically Appended Next Post: Ensis Ferrae wrote:Iron_Captain wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:nobody is forcing priests to marry gay people,
They do in the Netherlands
Iron_Captain wrote:
I am not wrong here because this is a point I never made in the first place. It seems all you ever do is putting forward strawman arguments.
First quote is verbatim what you said... will the courts please note this into evidence
IC, you did in fact, say that priests are forced to marry couples in the Netherlands. Just because a clergyman needs to register with the state that he/she is wanting to conduct marriages, is not the same as forcing him/her to marry anyone and everyone.
Okay, that is indeed a difference there.
Of course, what I meant by that is that if priests (or any religous person for that matter) in the Netherlands want to conduct a marriage, they are forced to also conduct gay marriages.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
Iron_Captain wrote:
So than, are people who force same-sex marriages upon religious groups bigoted for refusing to accept the beliefs of that religious group?
No, because one interferes with people's rights, and the other doesn't.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
ImAGeek wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:
So than, are people who force same-sex marriages upon religious groups bigoted for refusing to accept the beliefs of that religious group?
No, because one interferes with people's rights, and the other doesn't.
How does it not interfere with the right to freedom of religion? Forcing something contrary to one's religion upon someone limits that person in his free conduct of religious practices. It would be like a law stating that all muslims have to also eat pork if they want to eat any meat at all.
55577
Post by: ImAGeek
No it's not. You can still practice your religion, and believe whatever you want. On the other hand, people can't get married like the other 95% or whatever of the population, just because they happen to be marrying someone of the same gender.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Kilkrazy wrote:Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.
No, but they are forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they want to conduct marriages and accept same-sex marriage as part of one of their religious rituals.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
There is no compulsion on churches to perform same-sex marriages.
18698
Post by: kronk
Iron_Captain wrote:
homophobia
dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people."
I disagree with that definition. For me, homophobia is more than just disliking homosexuals. A homophobe doesn't just dislike, he really hates homosexuals. The 'phobe' part in these words comes from the Greek word φόβος, which means fear. In English language, a phobia usually means an irrational fear, not just a dislike. If I dislike bananas, does that mean I have a phobia for bananas?
1. It doesn't matter if you disagree with it. I disagree that I have to pay for wine and can't have sex with Natalie Portman dressed at Daredevil. Wine should be free and Natalie should get with the program already. However, facts are facts, regardless of our opinions. 2. Phobia doesn't always mean fear. I have been diagnosed as photophobic. I am not afraid of bright lights, but I am extremely sensitive to it and have to wear sunglasses when I'm outside during the day, even when it is overcast. Edit: Yes, Kronk isn't fething perfect.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Iron_Captain wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.
No, but they are forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they want to conduct marriages and accept same-sex marriage as part of one of their religious rituals.
No, they are not.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Iron_Captain wrote:
Ensis Ferrae wrote:Iron_Captain wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:nobody is forcing priests to marry gay people,
They do in the Netherlands
Iron_Captain wrote:
I am not wrong here because this is a point I never made in the first place. It seems all you ever do is putting forward strawman arguments.
First quote is verbatim what you said... will the courts please note this into evidence
IC, you did in fact, say that priests are forced to marry couples in the Netherlands. Just because a clergyman needs to register with the state that he/she is wanting to conduct marriages, is not the same as forcing him/her to marry anyone and everyone.
Okay, that is indeed a difference there.
Of course, what I meant by that is that if priests (or any religous person for that matter) in the Netherlands want to conduct a marriage, they are forced to also conduct gay marriages.
And you're really going to need to provide evidence for this statement of yours.
40392
Post by: thenoobbomb
Iron_Captain wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.
No, but they are forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they want to conduct marriages and accept same-sex marriage as part of one of their religious rituals.
No, they're not.
Not in the Netherlands, either. Priests do the ceremony. Government officials do the paperwork that you need to sign.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
 thenoobbomb wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.
No, but they are forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they want to conduct marriages and accept same-sex marriage as part of one of their religious rituals.
No, they're not.
Not in the Netherlands, either. Priests do the ceremony. Government officials do the paperwork that you need to sign.
The religious ceremony is not the actual marriage. It is just a ceremony to affirm the already existing marriage, which is done in a civil ceremony by a civil servant. In the Netherlands, this civil servant is called a 'trouwambtenaar' (not sure how that translates in English) and he/she is often not actually in government service. It is more of a side job, and many priests do it because it is the only way they can conduct marriages in the Netherlands. This never used to be a problem until the government introduced a law that forbid refusing to marry same-sex couples. This led to the problem of the so called 'weigerambtenaar' and the fact that priests are now forced to also marry same-sex couples (which is against their religion) if they want to conduct marriages at all (and in non-protestant denominations it is important to have it done by a priest).
A good solution to this problem would be to allow priests to conduct legal marriages seperate from civil marriage.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Iron_Captain wrote: thenoobbomb wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.
No, but they are forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they want to conduct marriages and accept same-sex marriage as part of one of their religious rituals.
No, they're not.
Not in the Netherlands, either. Priests do the ceremony. Government officials do the paperwork that you need to sign.
The religious ceremony is not the actual marriage. It is just a ceremony to affirm the already existing marriage, which is done in a civil ceremony by a civil servant. In the Netherlands, this civil servant is called a 'trouwambtenaar' (not sure how that translates in English) and he/she is often not actually in government service. It is more of a side job, and many priests do it because it is the only way they can conduct marriages in the Netherlands. This never used to be a problem until the government introduced a law that forbid refusing to marry same-sex couples. This led to the problem of the so called 'weigerambtenaar' and the fact that priests are now forced to also marry same-sex couples (which is against their religion) if they want to conduct marriages at all (and in non-protestant denominations it is important to have it done by a priest).
A good solution to this problem would be to allow priests to conduct legal marriages seperate from civil marriage.
A Civil Marriage IS the legal marriage, the Religious ceremony is just window dressing.
Also, I'm going to need a bit more evidence of this "forcing" than just your word for it.
And if that is indeed the law in the Netherlands, how do those priests cope with being forced to marry people that are divorced? Or not even from their religion? Seems to me that if that was true, then those priests were being forced to do things that went against their religion long before same sex marriages were an issue.
18178
Post by: Crystal-Maze
Iron_Captain wrote: thenoobbomb wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.
No, but they are forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they want to conduct marriages and accept same-sex marriage as part of one of their religious rituals.
No, they're not.
Not in the Netherlands, either. Priests do the ceremony. Government officials do the paperwork that you need to sign.
The religious ceremony is not the actual marriage. It is just a ceremony to affirm the already existing marriage, which is done in a civil ceremony by a civil servant. In the Netherlands, this civil servant is called a 'trouwambtenaar' (not sure how that translates in English) and he/she is often not actually in government service. It is more of a side job, and many priests do it because it is the only way they can conduct marriages in the Netherlands. This never used to be a problem until the government introduced a law that forbid refusing to marry same-sex couples. This led to the problem of the so called 'weigerambtenaar' and the fact that priests are now forced to also marry same-sex couples (which is against their religion) if they want to conduct marriages at all (and in non-protestant denominations it is important to have it done by a priest).
A good solution to this problem would be to allow priests to conduct legal marriages seperate from civil marriage.
We are quite far from gay marriage in Ireland here but I'll go for it.
It seems like the religion could 'marry' people without registering with the state, but that this marriage would go unrecognised by the state. The priest could just say 'you are married', god would recognise it, but the state wouldn't.
If you want the benefits of a marriage that the state provides, you'd have to be married by a registered state official, but that would mean that the official would have to perform gay marriages.
Saying 'I want a religious marriage with the benefits the state provides' seems like you're saying 'I want a a state marriage that is unregulated for my group only', which isn't how this kind of thing works.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
PhantomViper wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: thenoobbomb wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.
No, but they are forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they want to conduct marriages and accept same-sex marriage as part of one of their religious rituals.
No, they're not. Not in the Netherlands, either. Priests do the ceremony. Government officials do the paperwork that you need to sign.
The religious ceremony is not the actual marriage. It is just a ceremony to affirm the already existing marriage, which is done in a civil ceremony by a civil servant. In the Netherlands, this civil servant is called a 'trouwambtenaar' (not sure how that translates in English) and he/she is often not actually in government service. It is more of a side job, and many priests do it because it is the only way they can conduct marriages in the Netherlands. This never used to be a problem until the government introduced a law that forbid refusing to marry same-sex couples. This led to the problem of the so called 'weigerambtenaar' and the fact that priests are now forced to also marry same-sex couples (which is against their religion) if they want to conduct marriages at all (and in non-protestant denominations it is important to have it done by a priest). A good solution to this problem would be to allow priests to conduct legal marriages seperate from civil marriage.
A Civil Marriage IS the legal marriage, the Religious ceremony is just window dressing. Also, I'm going to need a bit more evidence of this "forcing" than just your word for it. And if that is indeed the law in the Netherlands, how do those priests cope with being forced to marry people that are divorced? Or not even from their religion? Seems to me that if that was true, then those priests were being forced to do things that went against their religion long before same sex marriages were an issue.
http://www.nu.nl/politiek/3792545/weigerambtenaar-definitief-verleden-tijd.html (In Dutch, use a translator) Currently, the civil marriage is indeed the legal marriage, and that is what is the problem. Making religious marriage also a legal marriage would remove the entire religious argument against same-sex marriage. Priests have no problem with marrying people who are divorced because while divorce is discouraged, it is not actually forbidden by Church teachings. Marrying religious people also does not run directly counter to religious teachings. Same-sex marriage however does run directly counter to religous teachings which state that marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman. Also, how is this now going to be in Ireland? Are civil servants now also going to be forced to conduct same-sex marriage or are they still allowed to refuse to do so? And are priests in Ireland able to conduct marriage or works it in the same way as in the Netherlands?
40392
Post by: thenoobbomb
PhantomViper wrote:
Also, I'm going to need a bit more evidence of this "forcing" than just your word for it.
The Dutch government just doesn't hire new "weigerambtenaren" anymore. The ones that already had the job aren't forced to quit.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Iron_Captain wrote:
http://www.nu.nl/politiek/3792545/weigerambtenaar-definitief-verleden-tijd.html (In Dutch, use a translator)
Currently, the civil marriage is indeed the legal marriage, and that is what is the problem. Making religious marriage also a legal marriage would remove the entire religious argument against same-sex marriage.
Priests have no problem with marrying people who are divorced because while divorce is discouraged, it is not actually forbidden by Church teachings. Marrying religious people also does not run directly counter to religious teachings. Same-sex marriage however does run directly counter to religous teachings which state that marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman.
That article talks about civil servants, not Priests.
Also which church doesn't forbid divorced people from re-marrying? Because the Roman Catholic Church surely does.
80673
Post by: Iron_Captain
Crystal-Maze wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: thenoobbomb wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.
No, but they are forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they want to conduct marriages and accept same-sex marriage as part of one of their religious rituals.
No, they're not. Not in the Netherlands, either. Priests do the ceremony. Government officials do the paperwork that you need to sign.
The religious ceremony is not the actual marriage. It is just a ceremony to affirm the already existing marriage, which is done in a civil ceremony by a civil servant. In the Netherlands, this civil servant is called a 'trouwambtenaar' (not sure how that translates in English) and he/she is often not actually in government service. It is more of a side job, and many priests do it because it is the only way they can conduct marriages in the Netherlands. This never used to be a problem until the government introduced a law that forbid refusing to marry same-sex couples. This led to the problem of the so called 'weigerambtenaar' and the fact that priests are now forced to also marry same-sex couples (which is against their religion) if they want to conduct marriages at all (and in non-protestant denominations it is important to have it done by a priest). A good solution to this problem would be to allow priests to conduct legal marriages seperate from civil marriage.
We are quite far from gay marriage in Ireland here but I'll go for it. It seems like the religion could 'marry' people without registering with the state, but that this marriage would go unrecognised by the state. The priest could just say 'you are married', god would recognise it, but the state wouldn't. If you want the benefits of a marriage that the state provides, you'd have to be married by a registered state official, but that would mean that the official would have to perform gay marriages. Saying 'I want a religious marriage with the benefits the state provides' seems like you're saying 'I want a a state marriage that is unregulated for my group only', which isn't how this kind of thing works.
Ah, but how is this different from the gay marriage issue? After all, gay people could just say 'we are married', they would recognise it, but the state wouldn't. This doesn't work because when people get married, they also want it to be recognised by everyone, and not just unoffically. And it leads to the problem that once you marry in church, you can't also have a civil marriage because you can't have two marriages or a marriage not conducted by a priest. Therefore it leads to the present situation where the 'church wedding' is just a farce. PhantomViper wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: http://www.nu.nl/politiek/3792545/weigerambtenaar-definitief-verleden-tijd.html (In Dutch, use a translator) Currently, the civil marriage is indeed the legal marriage, and that is what is the problem. Making religious marriage also a legal marriage would remove the entire religious argument against same-sex marriage. Priests have no problem with marrying people who are divorced because while divorce is discouraged, it is not actually forbidden by Church teachings. Marrying religious people also does not run directly counter to religious teachings. Same-sex marriage however does run directly counter to religous teachings which state that marriage is a sacred bond between man and woman.
That article talks about civil servants, not Priests. Also which church doesn't forbid divorced people from re-marrying? Because the Roman Catholic Church surely does.
Priests often are civil servants, as it is the only way they are allowed to conduct marriages. I am not very knowledgeable about the Roman Catholic Church, are you sure it completely forbids divorce? In any case, I am mainly talking about Orthodox and Calvinist churches, as those are the only ones I am familiar with.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
thenoobbomb wrote:PhantomViper wrote:
Also, I'm going to need a bit more evidence of this "forcing" than just your word for it.
The Dutch government just doesn't hire new "weigerambtenaren" anymore. The ones that already had the job aren't forced to quit.
I wasn't talking about them being forced to quit, I was talking about Priests in the Netherlands being forced to marry gay couples.
93489
Post by: Gordon Shumway
Yes, the Catholic Church completely forbids divorce. That is why people get annulments that retroactively claim the first marriage never existed. It's basically a loophole to allow Catholics to remarry.
53375
Post by: hotsauceman1
True. My mom was still married to my dad 21 years After they broke Up.
Kinda helped ironically. I was able to put widow on my financial aid, getting extra grants.
But her reason was she would always be married to my dad, no matter what, because she can't get a divorce. And this is a man she detested.
93489
Post by: Gordon Shumway
Churches in the Netherlands are forced to conduct same sex marriages; however, individual priests can opt out of conducting the ceremony. In that case, the local Bishop is required to find a replacement official. So no, priests are not forced to conduct same sex marriages as IC claimed.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Iron_Captain wrote:
Priests often are civil servants, as it is the only way they are allowed to conduct marriages.
Cool, then you shouldn't have any problems finding an article where a Priest that was also a Civil Servant was forced to marry a gay couple.
Iron_Captain wrote:
I am not very knowledgeable about the Roman Catholic Church, are you sure it completely forbids divorce?
In any case, I am mainly talking about Orthodox and Calvinist churches, as those are the only ones I am familiar with.
Yes, the Catholic Church forbids divorce. If you are a Catholic and you wan't to be re-married (WHY??!!?), then you'll need to get an annulment, which is magnitudes harder than just getting a divorce.
So if you are an Orthodox Christian or a Calvinist, God blesses the marriage of everyone, even people that don't believe in his teachings, but he doesn't bless the marriage of gay people... Got to love these "pick and choose" religions!
18178
Post by: Crystal-Maze
Iron_Captain wrote:Crystal-Maze wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: thenoobbomb wrote: Iron_Captain wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:Religious groups aren't being forced to enter into same-sex marriages.
No, but they are forced to conduct same-sex marriages if they want to conduct marriages and accept same-sex marriage as part of one of their religious rituals.
No, they're not.
Not in the Netherlands, either. Priests do the ceremony. Government officials do the paperwork that you need to sign.
The religious ceremony is not the actual marriage. It is just a ceremony to affirm the already existing marriage, which is done in a civil ceremony by a civil servant. In the Netherlands, this civil servant is called a 'trouwambtenaar' (not sure how that translates in English) and he/she is often not actually in government service. It is more of a side job, and many priests do it because it is the only way they can conduct marriages in the Netherlands. This never used to be a problem until the government introduced a law that forbid refusing to marry same-sex couples. This led to the problem of the so called 'weigerambtenaar' and the fact that priests are now forced to also marry same-sex couples (which is against their religion) if they want to conduct marriages at all (and in non-protestant denominations it is important to have it done by a priest).
A good solution to this problem would be to allow priests to conduct legal marriages seperate from civil marriage.
We are quite far from gay marriage in Ireland here but I'll go for it.
It seems like the religion could 'marry' people without registering with the state, but that this marriage would go unrecognised by the state. The priest could just say 'you are married', god would recognise it, but the state wouldn't.
If you want the benefits of a marriage that the state provides, you'd have to be married by a registered state official, but that would mean that the official would have to perform gay marriages.
Saying 'I want a religious marriage with the benefits the state provides' seems like you're saying 'I want a a state marriage that is unregulated for my group only', which isn't how this kind of thing works.
Ah, but how is this different from the gay marriage issue? After all, gay people could just say 'we are married', they would recognise it, but the state wouldn't.
This doesn't work because when people get married, they also want it to be recognised by everyone, and not just unoffically. And it leads to the problem that once you marry in church, you can't also have a civil marriage because you can't have two marriages or a marriage not conducted by a priest. Therefore it leads to the present situation where the 'church wedding' is just a farce.
Because, and I cannot emphasise this enough, gay people are not a cultural institution. We don't have a governing body, there are no elders of the gay community to officiate cermemonies (although I'm petitioning Ian Mckellan). There is no gay collective, and no higher gay power to appeal to in order to recognise such a wedding (although again, my vote goes to Mckellan).
The state defines marriage as being legal between two individuals of the same sex, so that's just fine. But if you want a religious wedding, then have one which is recognised by your religious community, and god. God is meant to be more powerful than pencil-pushers; I'm sure He'll understand. However, if you want one backed by the state as well, then you had sure better make sure its performed by an official who abides by the laws of the state.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Are you sure you aren't mistaking the Netherlands with Denmark? AFAIK that is the law in Denmark but not in the Netherlands.
93489
Post by: Gordon Shumway
PhantomViper wrote:
Are you sure you aren't mistaking the Netherlands with Denmark? AFAIK that is the law in Denmark but not in the Netherlands.
Ah, yes my mistake. That is the Danish law.
40392
Post by: thenoobbomb
Iron Captain, remember that thing called "separation of church and state" thing we got? Applies to marriage as well
121
Post by: Relapse
PhantomViper wrote:
Are you sure you aren't mistaking the Netherlands with Denmark? AFAIK that is the law in Denmark but not in the Netherlands.
Either way, forcing a church to conduct same sex marriages is messed up if it's against the churches doctrine.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Much like churches lobbying for legal changes and trying to force their doctrine into law is messed up.
I just checked by the way and I can't find anything that says that Denmark forces priests to carry out same sex marriages, but I did find something that said a Bishop must find alternative arrangements for a location for the couple if marriage is refused.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
 Gordon Shumway wrote:PhantomViper wrote:
Are you sure you aren't mistaking the Netherlands with Denmark? AFAIK that is the law in Denmark but not in the Netherlands.
Ah, yes my mistake. That is the Danish law.
Do either of you consider that to be troublesome? Automatically Appended Next Post: Da Boss wrote:Much like churches lobbying for legal changes and trying to force their doctrine into law is messed up.
I just checked by the way and I can't find anything that says that Denmark forces priests to carry out same sex marriages, but I did find something that said a Bishop must find alternative arrangements for a location for the couple if marriage is refused.
So the onus in on the clergyman to find the alternate accommodations?
That's awfully curious.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Relapse wrote:PhantomViper wrote: Are you sure you aren't mistaking the Netherlands with Denmark? AFAIK that is the law in Denmark but not in the Netherlands.
Either way, forcing a church to conduct same sex marriages is messed up if it's against the churches doctrine.
Normally I completely agree with you on this point, but the Church of Denmark is the property of the state and not an independent entity. And the church doctrine is defined by the Queen of Denmark and by the Danish parliament, so if they say that gay people can get married in church, then that becomes the Church's new doctrine.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
The law allows individual priests the right to refuse, and then the bishop must find an alternate location for the wedding. They're not forced, though it is inconvenient for them to refuse - just as it is inconvenient to be refused a venue for your wedding due to religious bigotry.
(Oh snap, did I use the bigot word again? I did, didn't I!)
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Da Boss wrote:
(Oh snap, did I use the bigot word again? I did, didn't I!)
Yes, you're quite deft at it.
121
Post by: Relapse
PhantomViper wrote:Relapse wrote:PhantomViper wrote:
Are you sure you aren't mistaking the Netherlands with Denmark? AFAIK that is the law in Denmark but not in the Netherlands.
Either way, forcing a church to conduct same sex marriages is messed up if it's against the churches doctrine.
Normally I completely agree with you on this point, but the Church of Denmark is the property of the state and not an independent entity. And the church doctrine is defined by the Queen of Denmark and by the Danish parliament, so if they say that gay people can get married in church, then that becomes the Church's new doctrine.
So it is church doctrine. No biggie then.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Take it in the context of the user. He has a hot nut against religion.
38860
Post by: MrDwhitey
I honestly don't know if I can go on after learning this.
22783
Post by: Soladrin
I'm bigoted against bigots. Oh damn.
4042
Post by: Da Boss
Relapse: That made me laugh!
I guess it is true though, especially religious interference into state matters. Religion can be a pretty positive force in many other contexts, but I am absolutely anti religious interference in the rule of law.
I also think it's possible to be a bigot about something and still be a nice person in lots of other ways. Like, I'm unfortunately pretty bigoted against Irish Travelers. It's something I try to watch myself for, but I don't succeed. You'd be fair to call me a bigot too, because of that.
63000
Post by: Peregrine
Iron_Captain wrote:Ah, but how is this different from the gay marriage issue? After all, gay people could just say 'we are married', they would recognise it, but the state wouldn't.
It's different because the benefits that (most) gay couples want require legal recognition. The benefits the hypothetical religious couple wants only require a religious ceremony because they don't involve the government at all.
This doesn't work because when people get married, they also want it to be recognised by everyone, and not just unoffically. And it leads to the problem that once you marry in church, you can't also have a civil marriage because you can't have two marriages or a marriage not conducted by a priest. Therefore it leads to the present situation where the 'church wedding' is just a farce.
This makes absolutely no sense. You have your church ceremony and you're married for all religious/social/etc purposes, and then you go to your local courthouse to file some paperwork establishing a legal contract. I really don't understand why any reasonable person would think that it's impossible to have a church wedding and then go sign a contract.
cincydooley wrote:So the onus in on the clergyman to find the alternate accommodations?
That's awfully curious.
What's wrong with that? Remember that this is a situation where the clergyman is acting as a representative of the secular government, not as a religious official. It's entirely reasonable for the government to tell its employees that if they want to refuse to do their job they have an obligation to arrange an alternative, just like an employer can require their employees to arrange for someone to cover their shift if they want to take a day off. In fact, the government is being fairly generous here by allowing their employees to refuse to do their job at all. A stricter employer could just say "fine, you're fired".
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Peregrine wrote:
What's wrong with that? Remember that this is a situation where the clergyman is acting as a representative of the secular government, not as a religious official. It's entirely reasonable for the government to tell its employees that if they want to refuse to do their job they have an obligation to arrange an alternative, just like an employer can require their employees to arrange for someone to cover their shift if they want to take a day off. In fact, the government is being fairly generous here by allowing their employees to refuse to do their job at all. A stricter employer could just say "fine, you're fired".
Bear in mind my comment was posted BEFORE it was established that the clergy in that specific instance are employees of the state.
I thought about it, and actually, I wish they'd adopt that here in the US: You can refuse service, but if you do, you have to help them find someone else to bake their cake....
63000
Post by: Peregrine
cincydooley wrote:Bear in mind my comment was posted BEFORE it was established that the clergy in that specific instance are employees of the state.
Ok then. Correction acknowledged.
I thought about it, and actually, I wish they'd adopt that here in the US: You can refuse service, but if you do, you have to help them find someone else to bake their cake....
In theory this would be an acceptable solution, but I suspect it would have too many issues in practice. It's very easy to quantify whether someone has provided an acceptable substitute for signing a marriage document ("has a person with the authority to sign this put their name here"), but how do you define that for something like a cake? Obviously it wouldn't be an appropriate substitute for a high-end bakery to send people to the local walmart, but where do you draw the line and how do you avoid having the whole thing become just another cash cow for the lawyers to milk?
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
Peregrine wrote: Iron_Captain wrote:Ah, but how is this different from the gay marriage issue? After all, gay people could just say 'we are married', they would recognise it, but the state wouldn't.
It's different because the benefits that (most) gay couples want require legal recognition. The benefits the hypothetical religious couple wants only require a religious ceremony because they don't involve the government at all.
This doesn't work because when people get married, they also want it to be recognised by everyone, and not just unoffically. And it leads to the problem that once you marry in church, you can't also have a civil marriage because you can't have two marriages or a marriage not conducted by a priest. Therefore it leads to the present situation where the 'church wedding' is just a farce.
This makes absolutely no sense. You have your church ceremony and you're married for all religious/social/etc purposes, and then you go to your local courthouse to file some paperwork establishing a legal contract. I really don't understand why any reasonable person would think that it's impossible to have a church wedding and then go sign a contract.
In many parts of the US, and many clergy in the US have paid their fees to be a notary public insofar as they wish to be an official signateur on marriage certificates/licenses. Other places I've heard of, the church will require the state license before conducting the actual ceremony (so in a legal sense, the couple are already legally married when they get married)
Also, it seems that IC is arguing that priests are being forced to marry same sex couples, as if there were a black friday line of fabulous people pounding on the doors of their local churches waiting and hoping for a chance to be married in a church.... Maybe European gay people are different than American gays, but the numerous gays that I personally know have absolutely no desire to be married in a church. This is due in part because they are non-believers so they are saying, "What's the point?" and in part because they know that much of the source of the bigotry aimed against them has come from those very same locations. Of my gay friends who do or have lived in states where it's been legalized have had their ceremony either right at the courthouse, or one had theirs in a local brewery/pub, and a couple have had theirs at some very nice parks outside.
So really, not legalizing it because there's a perception that clergy will have to go against their beliefs (and from what I've been reading recently, many to most European clergy aren't so idiotic as their American counterparts) to perform a ceremony, is still rooted in bigotry.
5470
Post by: sebster
It's kind of fascinating to see people put forward an argument that we should accept their opposition to homosexuality because it is religious and expect that should be the of that, with no further analysis or consideration allowed. But the very same people won't hold back for one second when it comes to discussing the nastier things believed by many Muslims.
Iron_Captain wrote:You're still over the "hate" line, because marriage is a secular legal contract that has nothing to do with your religion. Adding "because god said so" to your belief doesn't change anything.
It has everything to do with my religion, because this concept of "secular marriage" originates from it. Marriage is one of the Sacred Mysteries, there is no such thing as secular marriage, that would be like saying there is a secular baptism. Marriage, for religious people, goes far beyond being just a simple legal contract. In that we all came from religious societies, everything came from religion, if we squint hard enough. But that doesn't mean religions get to own basic parts of secular society, like marriage.
I mean, are you going to claim ownership on funerals as well? Because they're sacred to religion, and modern rituals are based on old, religious rituals. So does that mean when some atheists want to bury or cremate a dead atheist friend, you get to come in and claim they can't call it a funeral, because religion owns that word.
fething madness.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
If I understand the situation from your description, Iron_Captain, it is illegal in the Netherlands to perform religious marriage ceremonies unless the celebrant, usually a priest, is a registered marriage licensor.
Is that correct?
5534
Post by: dogma
Iron_Captain wrote:
Unless one were of the opinion that said secular institution should be replaced by a religious institution.
Which is an opinion that has virtually no traction in the West for different reasons in different places.
Iron_Captain wrote:
The problem is that law forces the Church to accept secular marriages as valid marriages. Gay marriage, which in Christian teachings is a perversion of the sacred concept of marriage therefore also has to be accept as valid marriage, which would be blasphemy and explains the strong opposition from the Church.
In most circumstances the Church does not have to accept secular marriages as valid marriages. About the only time I could see it being an issue is with respect to certain spousal rights in religiously affiliated hospitals.
Iron_Captain wrote:
The best way out as far as I can see would be to seperate religious marriage and secular marriage completely. In other words, allow religious institutions to conduct their own form of marriage that would be equally legally valid as a secular marriage.
That's pretty much how it works right now, at least in the US.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
So really, not legalizing it because there's a perception that clergy will have to go against their beliefs (and from what I've been reading recently, many to most European clergy aren't so idiotic as their American counterparts) to perform a ceremony, is still rooted in bigotry.
Moreover, clergy (and all other possible marriage officiants) presently have the right to refuse to marry heterosexual couples so there is no reason to presume they would be forced to marry homosexual ones.
15818
Post by: PhantomViper
Kilkrazy wrote:If I understand the situation from your description, Iron_Captain, it is illegal in the Netherlands to perform religious marriage ceremonies unless the celebrant, usually a priest, is a registered marriage licensor. Is that correct?
No. What happens in the Netherlands is what happens in many other places in Europe. Since the religious ceremony doesn't have any legal standing you'll end up being married twice if you wan't a religious marriage, once for the legal civil marriage and another for the religious ceremony. In some countries (like mine), the major religions will have agreements in place with the state saying that a religious official will be able to substitute the civil official when it comes the time to sign the official paperwork so that it can all be taken care of in a single ceremony. Apparently these agreements don't happen in the Netherlands so Priests need to be registered as actual civil officials as a way to link the civil and religious ceremonies. But its all voluntary, Priests don't need to be registered to perform religious marriages, only civil ones.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Much the same as in the UK, USA and Japan, then.
There is no real concern, therefore, that priests are going to be forced to perform marriage ceremonies that conflict with their religion.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
Kilkrazy wrote:Much the same as in the UK, USA and Japan, then.
There is no real concern, therefore, that priests are going to be forced to perform marriage ceremonies that conflict with their religion.
Exactly. A priest pronouncing you "husband and wife" (or whatever) doesn't actually mean anything in the US. The person who actually, officially locks in your marriage is the Clerk of the County Courthouse who signs your marriage license.
So in no way, shape or form will gay marriage require a priest or other religious representative to perform marriages against their will.
Having said that, I am an ordained minister of both the Universal Life Church and the Church of the Sub-Genius. Want to get gay-married? I'll officiate your ceremony for a case of beer and a pack of smokes, just cover my travel expenses. I'll do it for people who want to get straight-married, too, but those weddings tend to be a lot less fun.
5534
Post by: dogma
 Psienesis wrote:
Exactly. A priest pronouncing you "husband and wife" (or whatever) doesn't actually mean anything in the US. The person who actually, officially locks in your marriage is the Clerk of the County Courthouse who signs your marriage license.
Generally speaking a couple is not legally married until the officiant signs off on the marriage. Though, as with all things in the US, that likely varies by state.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
If you mean the guy doing the ceremony, no. Has no bearing on the legality of your marriage. It's all handled at the Courthouse. In fact, you're legally married the moment the Clerk stamps your papers... the ceremony is just that, a ceremony. It has no intrinsic bearing on the validity of your marriage, it's entirely for the pomp-and-circumstance.
I, for example, as an ordained minister, cannot just find two people who want to get married, pronounce them wed, and send them on their way as a married couple. Doesn't work that way. I mean, I can do that, but it has no standing in the eyes of the law, which requires the marriage to be registered in a courthouse (with some exceptions given for "common law marriages", but those are special cases). There are a few people, however, who *can* do that in certain circumstances. The captain of a ship at sea, for example, has such authority, where a preacher walking down the street doesn't.
Why is this?
Because the civil benefits of marriage (tax credits, insurance benefits, etc) are a function of the State, not a Church. These are the sorts of things that are not currently granted to gay couples in places where gay marriages are not recognized... which makes this a matter of Equal Protection and Equal Access, not religious rights.
73999
Post by: Haight
ImAGeek wrote: Haight wrote:Good on the Irish for holding the referendum, hopefully it passes, but i'm not optimistic. As 5th generation Irish-American myself (and 5 generations later, still over 60% of my ancestry is of Irish decent), I say this with great love, but the home of my ancestors is not known for being terribly progressive in matters like this ; Divorce only became legal in 1995.
However, on the same token, if they do pass this, then it really does speak volumes about how far that nation has come in just a small handful of decades time. Hopefully tradition will pay heed to reason.
Did it not already? It was a majority yes vote.
Oh i did not realize that ! I thought it just passed a referendum to come to a vote, not the vote itself!!
Wow, that's excellent, and I apologize for my misunderstanding on the topic.
5534
Post by: dogma
Psienesis wrote:If you mean the guy doing the ceremony, no. Has no bearing on the legality of your marriage. It's all handled at the Courthouse. In fact, you're legally married the moment the Clerk stamps your papers... the ceremony is just that, a ceremony. It has no intrinsic bearing on the validity of your marriage, it's entirely for the pomp-and-circumstance.
A couple is not married simply because it obtained a marriage license. This is why it is called a marriage license and not simply marriage. Most states (to my knowledge) require an officiant to sign off on the marriage in order for it to be legally binding, as I have already said.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
 dogma wrote: Psienesis wrote:If you mean the guy doing the ceremony, no. Has no bearing on the legality of your marriage. It's all handled at the Courthouse. In fact, you're legally married the moment the Clerk stamps your papers... the ceremony is just that, a ceremony. It has no intrinsic bearing on the validity of your marriage, it's entirely for the pomp-and-circumstance.
A couple is not married simply because it obtained a marriage license. This is why it is called a marriage license and not simply marriage. Most states (to my knowledge) require an officiant to sign off on the marriage in order for it to be legally binding, as I have already said.
That's how it works in Virginia.
You go to the circuit court, obtain your marriage license from the clerk (or deputy clerk), and you then have 60 days to have your ceremony, at which time it must be signed by the officiant that has been authorized by the circuit court to do so.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
There actually do have to be witnesses in nearly all states as well, I believe. This is traditionally your best man/maid of honor.
55107
Post by: ScootyPuffJunior
cincydooley wrote:There actually do have to be witnesses in nearly all states as well, I believe. This is traditionally your best man/maid of honor.
More and more are dropping that stupid arbitrary rule.
Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Vermont are all states that that eschewed that practice.
69173
Post by: Dreadclaw69
 ScootyPuffJunior wrote: cincydooley wrote:There actually do have to be witnesses in nearly all states as well, I believe. This is traditionally your best man/maid of honor.
More and more are dropping that stupid arbitrary rule.
Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Vermont are all states that that eschewed that practice.
Also Indiana;
http://www.indy.gov/eGov/County/Clerk/Marriage/Resources/Pages/FAQ.aspx
4. Do we need witnesses? No. Indiana law no longer requires additional witnesses.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Ahh! Thanks for that! I knew some had moved away from it. I didn't realize the list was so extensive.
I figure a notarized doc from the court house is plenty.
39550
Post by: Psienesis
dogma wrote: Psienesis wrote:If you mean the guy doing the ceremony, no. Has no bearing on the legality of your marriage. It's all handled at the Courthouse. In fact, you're legally married the moment the Clerk stamps your papers... the ceremony is just that, a ceremony. It has no intrinsic bearing on the validity of your marriage, it's entirely for the pomp-and-circumstance.
A couple is not married simply because it obtained a marriage license. This is why it is called a marriage license and not simply marriage. Most states (to my knowledge) require an officiant to sign off on the marriage in order for it to be legally binding, as I have already said.
It's like this....
You get your license, you wait 3 days, and then you have an officiant (whether that's a judge, a court commissioner, a minister of some kind, or other approved person) sign it, along with 2 witnesses. That's it, job's done. Now, you can have the officiant say some words, make a proclamation, yadda yadda... not required. The "ceremony" is as simple as you want it to be.
64217
Post by: greatbigtree
In Ontario, Canada, you need a marriage license, and then you need to get it signed by the officiant, [often a religious figure, but not necessarily if you want to elope] the two people getting married, and two more witnesses.
In my case, my wife and I picked up our marriage license at a town hall, brought it to our wedding. We had the pomp and ceremony [non-denominational, since I'm a non-believer and we couldn't be married in a Catholic ceremony] then our officiant signed, we signed, my brother and her sister signed.
Ta-dah!
In Canada, there's no forcing of anyone to marry anybody. You can go to a town hall, drop your $200 [or thereabouts, depends where] and get the clerk, yourself, your spouse, and two other people to sign. Bam. You're married. Or you can get a religious figure that has registered with the government to sign instead of a clerk. I suppose that government clerks are required to marry anyone that's legally allowed to do so, including homosexual people, which might conflict with their religious beliefs, but it's their job and they don't have to keep working if they don't want to.
5534
Post by: dogma
Psienesis wrote:
It's like this....
You get your license, you wait 3 days, and then you have an officiant (whether that's a judge, a court commissioner, a minister of some kind, or other approved person) sign it, along with 2 witnesses. That's it, job's done. Now, you can have the officiant say some words, make a proclamation, yadda yadda... not required. The "ceremony" is as simple as you want it to be.
So you admit that your initial claim was wrong?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
ScootyPuffJunior wrote: dogma wrote: Psienesis wrote:If you mean the guy doing the ceremony, no. Has no bearing on the legality of your marriage. It's all handled at the Courthouse. In fact, you're legally married the moment the Clerk stamps your papers... the ceremony is just that, a ceremony. It has no intrinsic bearing on the validity of your marriage, it's entirely for the pomp-and-circumstance.
A couple is not married simply because it obtained a marriage license. This is why it is called a marriage license and not simply marriage. Most states (to my knowledge) require an officiant to sign off on the marriage in order for it to be legally binding, as I have already said.
That's how it works in Virginia.
You go to the circuit court, obtain your marriage license from the clerk (or deputy clerk), and you then have 60 days to have your ceremony, at which time it must be signed by the officiant that has been authorized by the circuit court to do so.
The officiant is the "marriage licensor". He or she doesn't have to be a priest. The marriage ceremony doesn't have to be religious in nature.
42144
Post by: cincydooley
Kilkrazy wrote:
The officiant is the "marriage licensor". He or she doesn't have to be a priest. The marriage ceremony doesn't have to be religious in nature.
I'm trying to figure out where we got lost and this became the thought?
We rabbit holed from the Netherlands priests stuff, which we established do actually work for the government, so it makes sense that they'd be required to marry anyone.
But how did we get here?
80999
Post by: jasper76
Well done, Ireland.
Fintan O'Toole of the Irish Times:
Nobody has been diminished. Irish people comprehensively rejected the notion that our republic is a zero-sum game, that what is given to one must be taken from another. Everybody gains from equality — even those who didn’t think they wanted it. Over time, those who are in a minority on this issue will come to appreciate the value of living in a pluralist democracy in which minorities are respected.
61310
Post by: Rainbow Dash
Da Boss wrote:The problem is the blood test is not 100% accurate, and there is no way to make it 100% accurate. All blood is screened of course, more than once, but if a contaminated sample makes it through, then because samples are pooled, you lose a large amount of blood.
It's a risk management thing, because the population have such an elevated risk of HIV, it's not worth the risk to take blood from them, or at least, that is the judgement made in some countries. I imagine the risk is quite small and needs to just be balanced against the hurt feelings of the gay men excluded. Lesbians are not a high risk group so there is no restriction for them, it isn't a homophobia thing really.
The problem with Mad Cow is that it's a prion disorder, and there's no test for it, so no way to be sure the blood is not contaminated.
A lot think it is, in Canada we have the same sort of ban and awhile ago (not sure if it actually got solved) had a major blood shortage because of that, oh and how inept the people can be at times.
We have a lot of problems but it seems like we just either don't know how or don't feel like solving them.
It's really bizarre.
But that's Canada and I don't like my country but... there's more places I hate more (and besides, where would I go otherwise).
Good on Ireland, you join countries like Canada, some of the US, a lot of Europe and South Africa (never expected them) *golf clap*
47598
Post by: motyak
 Rainbow Dash wrote: Da Boss wrote:The problem is the blood test is not 100% accurate, and there is no way to make it 100% accurate. All blood is screened of course, more than once, but if a contaminated sample makes it through, then because samples are pooled, you lose a large amount of blood.
It's a risk management thing, because the population have such an elevated risk of HIV, it's not worth the risk to take blood from them, or at least, that is the judgement made in some countries. I imagine the risk is quite small and needs to just be balanced against the hurt feelings of the gay men excluded. Lesbians are not a high risk group so there is no restriction for them, it isn't a homophobia thing really.
The problem with Mad Cow is that it's a prion disorder, and there's no test for it, so no way to be sure the blood is not contaminated.
A lot think it is, in Canada we have the same sort of ban and awhile ago (not sure if it actually got solved) had a major blood shortage because of that, oh and how inept the people can be at times.
We have a lot of problems but it seems like we just either don't know how or don't feel like solving them.
It's really bizarre.
But that's Canada and I don't like my country but... there's more places I hate more (and besides, where would I go otherwise).
Good on Ireland, you join countries like Canada, some of the US, a lot of Europe and South Africa (never expected them) *golf clap*
I was going to say, don't go bashing Canada too much, my mate is going to marry her wife over there at the end of this year, because she can't do it here.
61310
Post by: Rainbow Dash
I've lived here my whole life, and been all around it, (and I'm not even that old) there are a lot of things I dislike about it.
The most recent is the tanking of our dollar and the fact that a lot of the provinces are pretty crappy places to live or (well I was going to say work but work is quickly vanishing).
I'm glad we have same sex marriage, I really am, I'd hate to be like the US, but that doesn't make me love this country on its own.
And to add insult to injury our hockey teams choke every year.
It's becoming pathetic.
47598
Post by: motyak
I was just meaning think of the positives mate, people look at your country as a place they can express their love in a way that they can't here. It's nice
61310
Post by: Rainbow Dash
 motyak wrote:I was just meaning think of the positives mate, people look at your country as a place they can express their love in a way that they can't here. It's nice
It's not the only one, so I don't see it as that special...
Besides you'd have more of a negative opinion on it if you experienced one of our winters lol
25208
Post by: AlmightyWalrus
Rainbow Dash wrote: motyak wrote:I was just meaning think of the positives mate, people look at your country as a place they can express their love in a way that they can't here. It's nice
It's not the only one, so I don't see it as that special...
Besides you'd have more of a negative opinion on it if you experienced one of our winters lol
What's wrong with Canadian winters? They're pretty cool!
5534
Post by: dogma
Kilkrazy wrote:
The officiant is the "marriage licensor". He or she doesn't have to be a priest. The marriage ceremony doesn't have to be religious in nature.
In the US the licensor is not necessarily the officiant, in fact he usually isn't. The licensor is the government body issuing the marriage license, the officiant only conducts the ceremony and signs that license.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I am not familiar with the legal terms in the US. The point is that both priests and non-priests can obtain legal licences to perform marriage ceremonies, but in any case it is done under the jurisdiction of the state and the happy couple have to apply to the town hall for their certificates and so on.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
dogma wrote: Kilkrazy wrote:
The officiant is the "marriage licensor". He or she doesn't have to be a priest. The marriage ceremony doesn't have to be religious in nature.
In the US the licensor is not necessarily the officiant, in fact he usually isn't. The licensor is the government body issuing the marriage license, the officiant only conducts the ceremony and signs that license.
Similar in the UK and Japan. The terminology differs, of course, but the basic principle is that the government controls the legal framework of marriage and can licence people to conduct wedding ceremonies, who may be priests or lay people.
10097
Post by: Ensis Ferrae
I don't know if this has been posting... for some reason it keeps not showing my replies, as though Im not posting....Ok... that was fething weird (took actually writing all this out for my reply to show up on my screen
|
|
