Ireland votes on gay marriage - why should I care?

Thompson_NCL said:
Its an objective fact that marriage was created for the purpose of reproduction. Specifically, to ensure the husbands wealth was passed on to legitimate heirs. This is why adultery was forbidden in most societies, because marriage was about the exclusivity of reproductive rights.

Love was barely even a consideration in marriage for thousands of years. If it occurred, fine, but its primary function was the production of legitimate children.
Click to expand...

You are aware the Abrahamic religions stole the concept of marriage from the 'pagans' who were practicing it long before
 
Why should you care OP? I do not know why you should or should not.

Here is why I care.

First of all I am from Ireland and this referendum is a huge deal here. It was not 20 years ago that the divorce referendum only won by a few thousand votes, so to say that the majority in Ireland are/were socially conservative was putting it mildly. The Roman Catholic Church had its hooks dug in deep here.

From the formation of the state right up until the 1990's, it would be fair to say that Ireland was the Alabama of Europe on social issues. Whatever the bishops said a large proportion of the country obeyed.

So in this light and with Ireland being the first country to allow same sex marriage by a vote of the people and not by just a court case or by a parliament vote, to me being a social liberal it was a great day. It was another nail in the coffin of Roman catholic moral control here.

You only want news that affects your country. Well this vote has spurred many in Northern Ireland to get the same rights there as in the rest of the UK, so another reason why you should care.

The next big battle will be the 8th Amendment which gives the foetus more rights than the mother. That will not be easy but i am hopeful

/hops of my soapbox :)
 
Last edited:
I'm happy about it because Militant gay activists can now shut the **** up because they now have all the rights a straight couple has.
 
Thompson_NCL said:
Its an objective fact that marriage was created for the purpose of reproduction. Specifically, to ensure the husbands wealth was passed on to legitimate heirs. This is why adultery was forbidden in most societies, because marriage was about the exclusivity of reproductive rights.
Click to expand...

sounds more like its about property rights if its done to avoid illegitimate heirs....
 
escape sanity said:
The solution, of course, is to ban kids from making swings out of tyres lest the institution of tyre manufacturing become diluted and people become confused and forget that it is possible to attach tyres to cars.
Click to expand...

Well if otherwise rational individuals start taking tyres off their cars to do this, then absolutely!

Obviously I was contrasting the difference purpose and function. It was not a metaphor for marriage. So as amusing as your response is, it is not quite the 'burn' other people are suggesting. Still, I did give a haughty snort for your effort.

Tefal said:
sounds more like its about property rights if its done to avoid illegitimate heirs....
Click to expand...

The two are inextricably linked. People would not have cared about property rights were they not intending to have children, since the property rights were specifically relating to inheritance.
 
Last edited:
Efour said:
You have a VERY Christian / Muslim view on marriage Thompson_NCL So i must assume you are a very religious person. That would help explain your strict viewpoint at least?

If so its worth respecting but i think you are in a minority in the 21st century


I think that is more inline with how i see marriage.

from

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/marriage/

an interesting read - i've only skimmed it, so far.
Click to expand...

No, I am not at all religious. In fact, I speak more from a Classical perspective then religious.

If you have not read Plato's The Republic, I strongly urge you doing so, because then you'll understand why Fascists usually include it in their 'Books to read' list.
 
Last edited:
atheos said:
The next big battle will be the 8th Amendment which gives the foetus more rights than the mother. That will not be easy but i am hopeful
Click to expand...

You should really read what the 8th ammendment actually says

EIGHTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION said:
The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
Click to expand...

What it does stipulate is the equal (you know it refers to this as it uses this very word) right to life of both the child and the mother. It doesn't give more rights to either. It simply affirms both of them have an equal right to life.

I thought Ireland thought it was leading the world on "equality" - has this changed already?
 
Thompson_NCL said:
If some kids take a tyre and make a tyre swing, it doesn't change the purpose of tyres.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. Application absolutely has the power to change the purpose. Take Listerine - it was originally a surgical antiseptic and then floor cleaner. Then some kids (or adults) used it as mouthwash and now that's what it's known for.

Original applications are often littered through wiki as footnotes in history rather than what it means to people today - the latter being the most important thing.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Of course it does. Application absolutely has the power to change the purpose. Take Listerine - it was originally a surgical antiseptic and then floor cleaner. Then some kids (or adults) used it as mouthwash and now that's what it's known for.

Original applications are often littered through wiki as footnotes in history rather than what it means to people today - the latter being the most important thing.
Click to expand...

Very good point :)
 
spudbynight said:
I thought Ireland thought it was leading the world on "equality" - has this changed already?
Click to expand...

There was a case recently. A young mother was forced to give birth even though doctors said that she was suicidal.

Surely when the life of the mother is at risk such as in the case of Savita Halappanavar, then her right must trump the foetus.

To say otherwise is extremely wrong in my opinion.
 
atheos said:
There was a case recently. A young mother was forced to give birth even though doctors said that she was suicidal.

Surely when the life of the mother is at risk such as in the case of Savita Halappanavar, then her right must trump the foetus.

To say otherwise is extremely wrong in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Well your opinion seems to clouded by incorrect facts here.

First of all there is no medical opinion that suggests abortion is a treatment for suicidal ideation. In fact studies have shown that women who have abortions face an increased risk of suicide.

Secondly, the case of Savita had nothing to do with abortion. Her cause of death was down to maternal sepsis. This wasn't diagnosed on time and the care she received was appalling. What she needed was an early course of antibiotics. An abortion would have no impact on her life. Treatment for sepsis was possible under the existing Irish legislation.

There is no medical condition in current medical practice for which abortion is a treatment.

On September 8th 2012, experts in maternal healthcare met in Dublin at an International Symposium on Maternal Health. A Select Panel at the Symposium issued the Dublin Declaration which reads:

"As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion - the purposeful destruction of the unborn in the termination of pregnancy - is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman.

"We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatments results in the loss of life of her unborn child.

"We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to a pregnant woman"
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Thompson_NCL said:
Its an objective fact that marriage was created for the purpose of reproduction. Specifically, to ensure the husbands wealth was passed on to legitimate heirs. This is why adultery was forbidden in most societies, because marriage was about the exclusivity of reproductive rights.

Love was barely even a consideration in marriage for thousands of years. If it occurred, fine, but its primary function was the production of legitimate children.

If some kids take a tyre and make a tyre swing, it doesn't change the purpose of tyres.
Click to expand...

That isn't the purpose of marriage today though. Like many things it has changed over time. Today marriage is more about love and companionship so there is no need to restrict it to just fertile heterosexual couples.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Of course it does. Application absolutely has the power to change the purpose. Take Listerine - it was originally a surgical antiseptic and then floor cleaner. Then some kids (or adults) used it as mouthwash and now that's what it's known for.

Original applications are often littered through wiki as footnotes in history rather than what it means to people today - the latter being the most important thing.
Click to expand...

My argument is not that marriage should remain exclusively heterosexual because its original purpose was reproductive. My argument is that it should remain exclusively heterosexual because that is the only value it has to society. Diluting it for homosexuals undermines that value and the basis for civilized society.

The discussion regarding purpose and function was in reference to the origins of marriage. The point I was making is that just because the tyre is now used in a swing, doesn't change the purpose of tyres. The purpose of Listerine in your example did not change per say, it remained an antiseptic product. It was the use that changed.

RDM said:
That isn't the purpose of marriage today though. Like many things it has changed over time. Today marriage is more about love and companionship so there is no need to restrict it to just fertile heterosexual couples.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, things do change. But they don't do so in a vacuum, nor always for the better. If the kids in my metaphor were using the tyre to beat people to death, I daresay you'd not agree this was the best use of the tyre?

Johno please? said:
I thought Thompson was one of our resident fundies? Like spuddy?

Oh well, I guess hes just a closet homosexual
Click to expand...

If you were under the impression that I was a 'fundie' based on my 2000+ posts where I never express Christian fundemantalist opinions, then your judgement is so far gone that I don't even care that you think I'm a closet homosexual. You evidently have no clue what you're talking about. I actually pity you :(
 
Last edited:
Thompson_NCL said:
Its an objective fact that marriage was created for the purpose of reproduction. Specifically, to ensure the husbands wealth was passed on to legitimate heirs. This is why adultery was forbidden in most societies, because marriage was about the exclusivity of reproductive rights.
Click to expand...

It is really the only reason the state has an interest in marriage at all.

What business does the state have involving itself in matters of love? I don't think we really want love to be regulated and controlled by the state.

I really feel the state getting involved in "love" is positively Orwellian.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom