Ireland votes on gay marriage - why should I care?
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
Ireland is constitutionally based.
Any change to their constitution must come from a referendum.
They have had same sex civil ceremonies since 2009, but the were not protected in law with the same rights as marriage as the definition of marriage was man and woman, this referendum sought to change that, and has done so.
If anything major changes in Ireland, it is by the will of the people.
Not disputing the reason why, just rejecting the idea that equal rights and equal treatment should be subject to a vote. It is a recipe for poor treatment of minority interests.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
Well then no doubt you will campaign for catholic to be allowed to be Prime Minister of the UK then, something they have never voted upon, and seems to oppress the largest minority religion in the UK for several hundred years now.
I look forward to your campaign.
He's a furry if I recall. So whilst same sex couples shouldn't be seen, presumably if you want to hump a thorpe park mascot on screen that gets the thumbs up.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,386
- Location
- Darwen
Of course you fail to see because you haven't been on the other side.
People for hundreds of years, if not more, have been told they are subhuman and second class. Having a different word isn't equal, you can't have it but you can have something similar doesn't cut it.
It wasn't so long ago marriage meant one man and one woman of the same race, interracial marriage was illegal and it was changed to fit the times. I'm not sure why there is such an uproar about wanting to redefine it again to allow same sex.
Please stop comparing marriage to a ******* shepherds pie.
Last edited:
I'd support such a campaign. Not my priority for starting one when there are other rights still abused by the ballot box that impact a much greater number of people.
The word marriage has no racial origins. The origins are based on gender. I've already explained the results of this.
To my knowledge interracial marriage has never been disallowed in the UK?
Equality is not about words. It's about rights. Homosexual - Heterosexual, different words but equal in all ways.
Great news.
As said, especially for a Catholic country and referendum
I wonder how many years you'd need to go back for the result to be reversed.. Not many!
The church is in a bit of a pickle. No longer can they play the 'religion is an absolute' card. If they don't adapt support will just dwindle quickly
Even if they do, is looking like Ireland are rapidly becoming more liberal.
You'll always have a small hardcore sect. But I might not be too long before Ireland looses is Catholic country tag
As said, especially for a Catholic country and referendum
I wonder how many years you'd need to go back for the result to be reversed.. Not many!
The church is in a bit of a pickle. No longer can they play the 'religion is an absolute' card. If they don't adapt support will just dwindle quickly
Even if they do, is looking like Ireland are rapidly becoming more liberal.
You'll always have a small hardcore sect. But I might not be too long before Ireland looses is Catholic country tag
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,386
- Location
- Darwen
Interracial marriage was illegal in the US up until the late 60's then marriage was redefined to allow it. The only reason marriage is defined as one man and one woman is because there were two genders and the only way humans could procreate. Species evolve and change and it turns out that gender isn't so binary but comes in all shades of grey.
Words, laws and society evolve over time and are changed to fit the times they exist in. Gay used to mean happy now it is used to describe the sexual preference of someone. Marriage used to be one man and one woman, why can't it be changed to include same sex?
Homosexuality was an accepted part of life until Christianity got hold and messed the world up, the Dark Ages, the Crusades, etc..
Equality is not JUST about words but you can't have equality when you say one group of people can have something and then say another can't but they can have something that is very similar.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,768
- Location
- Auckland
Yes.
He's a furry if I recall. So whilst same sex couples shouldn't be seen, presumably if you want to hump a thorpe park mascot on screen that gets the thumbs up.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
So you want to distinguish marriage between same sex partners by calling it homiage? But you don't want to distinguish it as gay marriage because it doesn't need the word gay? Or do you just want to coin a new word - homiage© (Dis86 - 2015)?
I'd agree with you that it shouldn't need the word gay as a prefix, if we're using the word to describe the joining of two people who are in love then their gender should be utterly irrelevant.
Is there not a question in there about whether a persons (or group of peoples) offence should require a new word or description to be invented for something which would be described perfectly well by an existing word which notwithstanding linguistic pedantry (and I love a bit of linguistic pedantry at times) already encapsulates the meaning fine? I would imagine that in common conception marriage is the joining of two people in matrimony - usually it'll be a man and a woman but it's hardly a huge mental leap for it to be used for any two people able to consent regardless of race, gender or any other irrelevant factors.
If you're saying it's an extremely important word because of its importance to many people then why choose to limit its usage based on what a certain group of people say? Can it not be equally as important for same-sex couples to get the legitimacy of their unions recognised in law and in common parlance by using the same word. Marriage is not a religious concept in origin so why should religion get to define what it means today?
Anyway, good for Ireland and for the people who voted for this.
Why are you talking about the US?
Since the get go I explained how the word originates from middle English. Which came from...England. As we know American English is very different. As is their insane culture.
The word marriage came about at a time when Christianity was the ruling influence in many peoples lives. You can't change that fact though. Thus in a true sense the would marriage applies to the joining of a man and woman. Your point about race is utterly irrelevant.
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,386
- Location
- Darwen
I am showing that words are change to fit the times they live in, you seem to be stuck in the past as it's the only point you have that fits your argument.
Things that were previously illegal or thought of to be immoral are no longer, laws are changed to encompass the changes of an evolving society.
You can't give me one legitimate reason as to why marriage shouldn't be changed other than because "it said so in the past".
Last edited:
I don't see the problem with coining a new word. In fact, I think to give it a new name gives it the justice it deserves. As I said previously, it takes it away form just being a "tag on", an after thought. It becomes something in itself. Homiage was just a (lets face it, brilliant) suggestion to get my point across.
If you have to change the meaning of a word just to include something then as far as I'm concerned it removes the point of that word. It devalues it. When the word Marriage was formed it did specifically refer to the joining of a man and woman. The same ceremony previously may have had different names, different meanings but Marriage has a very specific meaning. Like bicycle and tricycle. They specifically refer to something.
This is my belief. As I say I'm fully supportive of the right for all people to engage in the ceremony, to have the advantages (and disadvantages) that it brings. It is one and the same thing. Which is why I think we really do need to ditch the gay or same-sex tag infront of it if it is to be called marriage.
As you say, we can see it as an expansion of the term, in which case use the term only, don't try and distinguish it. Or we can take my view where it is something in and of itself. In which case give it a new name. It's own name.
If we don't give it a new name then lets face it...someone is going to campaign to legally marry their pet fish (or something equally stupid) which I think is an insult to campaigners of both mixed race couples (as Mart has brought up), gay couples and any other couples who have had to fight to be legally recognised.
Getting pretty sick of this, it's been the top story all day on BBC, ITV and Channel 4 news. Why? A foreign country is having a referendum on possibly changing their law - whoopee doo. The subject of gay marriage is an interesting one but it's just not relevant to me unless we're talking about changing the law in this country. I guess at the moment I'm moderately in favour of gay marriage, so this isn't about sour grapes from a homophobe.
Two other stories that are more relevant to me that could have been the top story - the Bank of England's plan for a Brexit, accidentally sent to the Guardian lol. Or what about questions for Alistair Carmichael, who leaked the Nicola Sturgeon likes David Cameron paper.
Anyways,
Let's play 'spot the UKIP voter.'
OH LOOK, THERE HE IS!
Let's play 'spot the UKIP voter.'
OH LOOK, THERE HE IS!
Not exactly too difficult to spot...
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-32862824
Will they ever learn
On a serious note, I'm not sure they ever had a connection with this generation. Ireland is just another example of a nation who has found God and the chruch an increasingly judgmental irrelevance as they have grown more prosperous.
The church should stick to an ever shrinking third world if it wants to find some relevance..
Will they ever learn
On a serious note, I'm not sure they ever had a connection with this generation. Ireland is just another example of a nation who has found God and the chruch an increasingly judgmental irrelevance as they have grown more prosperous.
The church should stick to an ever shrinking third world if it wants to find some relevance..