They're not specifically banned, there was just a law in place stating that a Catholic or Jew isn't allowed to advise the sovereign on matters relating to the church and as the Prime Minister essentially makes the senior CofE appointments by advising the Queen who to appoint then this could cause a problem... In reality it shouldn't stop a Catholic from being elected party leader and/or serving as Prime Minister - thought it might mean someone else has to deal with CofE matters AFAIK.
Ireland votes on gay marriage - why should I care?
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
They're not specifically banned, there was just a law in place stating that a Catholic or Jew isn't allowed to advise the sovereign on matters relating to the church and as the Prime Minister essentially makes the senior CofE appointments by advising the Queen who to appoint then this could cause a problem... In reality it shouldn't stop a Catholic from being elected party leader and/or serving as Prime Minister - thought it might mean someone else has to deal with CofE matters AFAIK.
I think Catholicism is going to start becoming more tolerant towards gays, some priests/bishops have been - the current Pope is fairly progressive... as far as Pope's go.
The interesting one in years to come, as far as the UK is concerned, is Islam... Given the lack of central authority it is entirely possible for a future Muslim leader to also take a progressive stance towards gay marriage, though this could cause quite a lot of controversy.
Also Gay marriages being conducted in Religious places of worship is going to be controversial... CofE and the Catholic Church aren't too keen on it - some smaller Christian Churches on the other hand allow it - Quakers, Unitarians etc.. Liberal Jews do too and in future perhaps even the occasional Mosque might hold ceremonies... at least one group has started a gay friendly one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/inclusive-mosque-initiative-britain_n_3744120.html
The interesting one in years to come, as far as the UK is concerned, is Islam... Given the lack of central authority it is entirely possible for a future Muslim leader to also take a progressive stance towards gay marriage, though this could cause quite a lot of controversy.
Also Gay marriages being conducted in Religious places of worship is going to be controversial... CofE and the Catholic Church aren't too keen on it - some smaller Christian Churches on the other hand allow it - Quakers, Unitarians etc.. Liberal Jews do too and in future perhaps even the occasional Mosque might hold ceremonies... at least one group has started a gay friendly one:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/15/inclusive-mosque-initiative-britain_n_3744120.html
They aren't leading though, the Netherlands led the way 15 years ago. That's why I don't get the media hysteria over this story.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 3,653
- Location
- Dublin, Ireland
The actual reason for the Vote was was to amend the constitution. It was preventing the government from enacting legislation.
Regardless of the change required, or subject matter involved, the constitution can only changed by the electorate. This is the law of the land, and one that keeps the government in check.
There was a second constitutional amendment that was defeated on the same day, to lower the age of presidential candidates to 21 from 35, this amendment was soundly defeated. 73.1% voting No and 26.9% voting Yes.
Nate
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 2,383
- Location
- Darwen
It doesn't give it justice and the reason you don't understand is because you've never experienced the other side. I have. Being told you can't have the same as everyone else because you aren't "normal" and because "it has just been that way since the beginning" is deeply offensive. I pay the same taxes as you do, I do the same jobs as you do, the only difference is you like women and I like men.
You aren't changing the meaning of the word, you are just amending it to add a different kind of marriage between the two genders that it already applies to. Marriage is a union of two consenting adults, all they need to do is drop the gender.
It won't be down in law as gay marriage, on forms all you will tick is the married box.
Pet fish cannot legally give consent to marriage which is what annoys me when people say "omg slippery slope, next youll be able to marry a chair". The only thing that would change is the genders in marriage, I still don't see why it is such a big deal to those that are against it.
The only arguments the ignorant seem to cart out are that its always been between one man and one woman or omg think of the children!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Adoption and surrogacy are completely different topics to marriage and should be looked at on their own merits. Allowing gays to get married won't suddenly mean everyone wants to adopt. I know I don't want kids biological or otherwise.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 27 Sep 2004
- Posts
- 25,821
- Location
- Glasgow
I don't agree with your reasons but can understand them, I don't believe it devalues the word because it changes over time. There are lots of words in the English language where meanings have changed and it doesn't render them of less merit in all cases - admittedly there are some words where the meaning changes have made them arguably of less value.
Homiage (apart from being a bit too close to homage and the insinuations that would bring) is a nice portmanteau but I rather think that the distinction of having a specific word for same-sex marriages means you're highlighting that they're different and not necessarily equivalent to a marriage. It would obviously depend on how people adopted the word and used it but I think it's an unnecessary option when marriage describes the event of joining two people perfectly well for common parlance.
Leaving aside the lack of ability to consent point for the moment I'm not sure that Jim (or Janette) and their pet fish could really do a much worse job of maintaining the "sanctity" of marriage than the groups who are currently allowed to marry.
There's a few ways you could look at the issue - one it's an important word and anything that challenges it or changes it is potentially worrying, another that if the word and its meaning are really so fragile that people adopting it for uses that weren't originally conceived damages it then how much should we put into trying to protect it, if you place too much importance on a word being narrowly defined then perhaps the point is being missed.
You could extend the argument to the whole of the English language I suspect - it's strong and preeminent because it changes, adapts and ultimately absorbs new elements into it, some of the changes maybe aren't for the better as far as linguistic purists are concerned but they keep the language vibrant and relevant. There are reasons why French is no longer the lingua franca and arguably one is that they tried to limit the changes in the language so that new words were identifiably French, English didn't and continues to absorb new words regularly so it remains the common language for much of the world.
The etymology of a word cannot change but its meaning can. The English language is constantly evolving, even if it isn't always for the best.
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,468
Perhaps just a debilerate obtuseness is preventing you understanding. First country in the world to do it by popukar vote of its people, rather than a governmental decision.
It has been stated many times in the thread.
Maybe concentrate on the foreign aid thread if you don't grasp it this time.
Why does that matter? People elect people to represent them in parliament to make judgements on their behalf. As has been explained the only reason why Ireland needed a referendum is because it required a change to their constitution.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 1,056
- Location
- On the wagon
Because a referendum shows that Irish society as a whole is in favour of equal marriage. It's therefore safer to say that Ireland is a tolerant society.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
No. Gay 'marriage' is a prime example of a decadent civilization; one which has lost touch with basic morality. The idea that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships is patently absurd.
Can two gay men love one another comparably to a heterosexual couple? Perhaps. But love is not the purpose of marriage. Reproduction is the purpose of marriage. Reproduction is why the state gets involved in marriage.
Once you start diluting the purpose of one of civilizations most important institutions, you are opening the flood-gates to further dilution. It is inevitable. How long is it until we see people pushing for polygamy to be legalised? Or what about incestual marriages?
A civilization which has lost touch with the fundamentals of civilized behaviour is doomed. You can already see the structural weakness that runs through the West. Its only going to get worse in the decades that come.
As opposed to the Netherlands, which legalised gay marriage 15 years ago? I know which I would say was the more tolerant society.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 1,056
- Location
- On the wagon
By your logic only those wishing to have children should get married then? Straight couples with no intention of reproducing should also be banned from marrying. Since marriage is only there to allow reproduction in a socially acceptable way. Should we also force unmarried couples with children up the alter?
Marriage is about making a public statement of love and fidelity to another person. I fail to see how extending the right to make that public statement to all citizens is decedent. Distasteful to you perhaps, even immoral in your world view. That's ok, all you need to do to avoid such immorality is not attend a same sex marriage. It's that simple.
Absolute bigoted nonsense. Nothing decadent about gay people marrying. They are people and as people they should have the same rights as all the other people. Nothing patently absurd about gays being equal to straight people, the only patently absurd thing here is your disgusting prejudice.
There is no 'perhaps' about whether two gay men OR WOMEN can love one another. You're disgusting stance on this is sickening. Reproduction is not the sole purpose of marriage it is simply a function of marriage. Lots of heterosexual couple never have kids. Seriously, didn't you know that ?
Has to be the dumbest crap I've read in months on the internet.
What has the fall of civilisation got to do with gay couples being allowed to marry ? Simple question. Care to answer ?
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 3,653
- Location
- Dublin, Ireland
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Jan 2009
- Posts
- 1,056
- Location
- On the wagon
African Americans were given legal equality in the '60s in America, but a still subject to a huge amount of racial prejudice in some parts of the country. Homosexual sex was decriminalised in the '60s here but teachers in Scotland were still prevented from discussing homosexuality with pupils until the '90/'00s, preventing pupils on the receiving end of homophobic bullying from seeking support.
Just because a government passes a law, doesn't mean society at large sees things the same way.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
The state has no interest in couples who are not going to have children, so there is functionally no purpose in them marrying. But a married couple who do not plan to have children, might change their mind or have one by accident. A homosexual couple will never have that option.
And the state should not force people to marry, but it should make it more desirable to marry than to remain just cohabiting.
No, marriage is not about love. Love is about love. Marriage is about a religion or state recognising you forming a family unit and taking joint responsibility for that family.
And of course it effects me, since I am socially concious. When I see my nation and civilization making bad choices, it concerns me. But I remain hopeful that one day people will wake up to the madness.
Nate--IRL-- said:
I am sure in your mind you believe you've made a very insightful remark, but you haven't. I've addressed this point before. Sterile couples have a limited value to the state, but the number of couples who this would effect is small. When those couples do marry, it isn't making a parody of marriage because they'd still be mimicking the purpose of a marriage.
Last edited: