Full rights for the LGBT community.

Godge

Marraige was originally conceived as a way to ensure stability for children and was linked to the intention to have children.

Nowadays, unlike ancient times, it is not required to have a man and a woman to have children. Single men have children, single women have children. Nothing wrong therefore in two men or two women bringing up children.

Those who talk about the protection of marraige as their opposition to gay marriage are barking up the wrong tree. If you really wanted to protect marriage, you would go back to original principles. You would make it more difficult for divorce for those with children and make it much much easier for those without children (you could even have automatic dissolution of the marriage after 10 years if there are no children with the relationship reverting to civil partnership).

A regime like that would protect the institution of marriage as originally devised to protect children but also allow any kind of couple to get married as the premise of marriage would be linked to having children, whether naturally, by way of adoption, surrogacy or whatever. LGBT couples who want children would get married. Hetero sexual couples who want children would get married. All other couples who don't want children could have civil partnerships. No discrimination, marriage would return to its original purpose of bringing stability to parenting.

oscarBravo

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

These things are not comparable. One (anti-miscegenation laws) attempts to prevent some doing something, the other is concerned with not allowing people unwilling to do something declaring that they have in fact done it.

I see that, despite having your glaring logical fallacy pointed out to you, you're doubling down and continuing to use it as the core of your argument.

So much for bringing substance to the debate.

Annasopra

aloyisious wrote: »

Looking at the map outlining Ireland with total MEP's, it show's 11 but net-search say's the Republic has 12. N/I has 3, so they're not included/mixed with the republic's total. Only seven of the republic's MEP;s are shown as having signed it.

OK, got it. A Parliament committee has decided that we are to lose one of our MEP's. With the entry of Croatia into the EU, the MEP numbers limit has been reached and we're giving one position to them.

These are the candidates who have signed.

aloyisious

I was watching the Royal Albert Hall show for President Higgins the other night and saw this lady reciting poetry, bit surprised as I only knew her from True Blood (Witch) series 4 and as Harry Potters aunt. Cork-born Fiona Shaw also made an anti-bullying video... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDEQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbU-9ZOW0lMU&ei=CzFJU8inHeSI7Ab8zIGoCA&usg=AFQjCNF0LN2-94Z34yTtjvclY_eKOWZAfQ&bvm=bv.64542518,d.ZGU

Phill Ewinn

aloyisious wrote: »

I was watching the Royal Albert Hall show for President Higgins the other night and saw this lady reciting poetry, bit surprised as I only knew her from True Blood (Witch) series 4 and as Harry Potters aunt. Cork-born Fiona Shaw also made an anti-bullying video... https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDEQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbU-9ZOW0lMU&ei=CzFJU8inHeSI7Ab8zIGoCA&usg=AFQjCNF0LN2-94Z34yTtjvclY_eKOWZAfQ&bvm=bv.64542518,d.ZGU

Lots of bullying and abuse from the gay marriage anarchists. Do you condone or condemn them?

Corkfeen

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Lots of bullying and abuse from the gay marriage anarchists. Do you condone or condemn them?

Condemning homophobia does not equal bullying. You seem to be going by the logic abhorrent views should not be called up as abhorrent. It's insulting to people who have been bullied that you classify it as bullying.

PopePalpatine

Corkfeen wrote: »

Condemning homophobia does not equal bullying. You seem to be going by the logic abhorrent views should not be called up as abhorrent. It's insulting to people who have been bullied that you classify it as bullying.

Religious conservatives really are devoid of empathy, aren't they?

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Lots of bullying and abuse from the gay marriage anarchists. Do you condone or condemn them?

Hi phill. Earlier you asked

"I often wonder what people believe inspired this change in attitude to gay marriage."

What do you believe yourself caused this change?

aloyisious

if some-one of the Anti-SSM groups can show me how exactly the extension of Civil Marriage to SSM couples can destroy Religious Marriage, I'd be in your debt ( knowledge-wise). Civil Marriage has co-existed peacefuly with it's Religious counterpart in most countries under Civil Government with the full agreement of the Religious Authorities in charge of the various religions worldwide for centuries.

It's also been acceptable to those Religious Authorities that Religious Marriages be put on record at the State Agency that performs and records the Civil Marriage ceremony. Does that act of acceptance by the various Religious Authorities mean that they too are guilty of anarchism towards marriage?

@Phill Ewinn: ref your allegation of bullying and abuse from the Gay Marriage Anarchists (sic); can you please put up examples you have of these acts and the identities of the people you believe have been victim of those acts, along with the identities of the bullies?

Phill Ewinn

aloyisious wrote: »

if some-one of the Anti-SSM groups can show me how exactly the extension of Civil Marriage to SSM couples can destroy Religious Marriage, I'd be in your debt ( knowledge-wise). Civil Marriage has co-existed peacefuly with it's Religious counterpart in most countries under Civil Government with the full agreement of the Religious Authorities in charge of the various religions worldwide for centuries.

It's also been acceptable to those Religious Authorities that Religious Marriages be put on record at the State Agency that performs and records the Civil Marriage ceremony. Does that act of acceptance by the various Religious Authorities mean that they too are guilty of anarchism towards marriage?

@Phill Ewinn: ref your allegation of bullying and abuse from the Gay Marriage Anarchists (sic); can you please put up examples you have of these acts and the identities of the people you believe have been victim of those acts, along with the identities of the bullies?

This has been done to death. The constant demonisation of any right minded person on here is outrageous and wouldn't be tolerated on any forum with exception of stormfront.


People, myself included, are pointing out to you that this issue has exactly nothing to do with homophobia or equality. As I have pointed out 100 times we're not debating marriage equality. We're not allowing the majority (polygamists) in this arrangement.


Posters on here consistently and incorrectly compare gay marriage to racism. We're not asking people to allow blacks and whites on the same bus while excluding Asians (bigamists), what we're doing is taking the wheels off the bus so no-one can use it properly.

Abusive sociopaths are ruling this debate. And are being facilitated by moderators on here.

MOD: 1-month ban.

jill_valentine

Abusive sociopaths, for jaysus sake...

That entire post is meaningless. At no point have you offered any relevant counterpoint actually seated in this conversation. You just started waffling metaphors and analogies that don't recognisably apply to any of relevant situations. All you ever do in these arguments is insist you've already answered questions you never have, and then start babbling about how persecuted you are that the meanies won't stop asking you to make sense. I'd love to know if you genuinely believe you've already made some coherent case here, or if you just think you can carry on tapdancing until everybody else gets bored of waiting for a straight answer and wanders off.

For approximately the eleventy zillionth time, could you just once explain how lifting the ban on gay passengers would equate to taking the wheels off the metaphorical marriage bus for everybody else?

Phill Ewinn

jill_valentine wrote: »

Abusive sociopaths, for jaysus sake...

That entire post is meaningless. At no point have you offered any relevant counterpoint actually seated in this conversation. You just started waffling metaphors and analogies that don't recognisably apply to any of relevant situations. All you ever do in these arguments is insist you've already answered questions you never have, and then start babbling about how persecuted you are that the meanies won't stop asking you to make sense. I'd love to know if you genuinely believe you've already made some coherent case here, or if you just think you can carry on tapdancing until everybody else gets bored of waiting for a straight answer and wanders off.

For approximately the eleventy zillionth time, could you just once explain how lifting the ban on gay passengers would equate to taking the wheels off the metaphorical marriage bus for everybody else?

Marriage is our social and cultural foundation stone. And for the millionth, time it is completely unnecessary to tamper with or change that foundation. People realise this, most of them are not so stupid or easily led.

This isn't the declaration of love between two people its the handing over of OUR future society.


"Corporations thus defend gay marriage for the same reason (and using the same tactics) they seek to undermine unions, environmental regulations, and tax policy—most obviously short-term gain, but more deeply, a society that needs to be remade in such a way that short-term gain seems the only game left in town: a thoroughly mobile society devoted to personal satisfaction, composed of individuals whose relationships are fungible and who have no strong relationship to place, history, or the generations stretching between the past and the future"


http://www.theamericanconservative.com/corporatism-and-gay-marriage-natural-bedfellows/

Brown Bomber

Pride Fighter wrote: »

Currently people in the LGBT community are second class citizens. This is because they cannot marry or adopt children. Surely it is about time we grow up as a nation and do not discriminate against people due to their sexual orientation.

Sounds to me like you have your priorities mixed up. While being given children by the state may be good for the homosexual couple surely the welfare of the child must be the state's solitary concern when it comes to providing an orphan with a home? What do you suggest we do to "grow up as a nation"? Fill out quotas to ensure that gay couples get their equal share of orphans? And if they don't then release the gay lobby to shriek "homophobia!" and "discrimination!".

Now matter how "liberal", "modern" and "progressive" it is to pretend that gender doesn't exist, it still does. While the relationship between two men or two women can be equal to any heterosexual relationship in all regards as far as I am concerned all the "love" in the world doesn't make two "mothers"or two "fathers" into a mother and a father and until comprehensive and long term studies are carried out into the possible damaging effects of rearing by homosexual adoptive parents of children, who shouldn't be used as guinea pigs in all of this, then accusations of any discrimination are premature, surely?

In short, if in the future comprehensive and long term studies showed that it was more traumatic for adopted children to be raised by gay parents than in the traditional family model would you still cry discrimination if adoption agencies as s rule tried to set the child up with a traditional family?

Would you consider it discrimination if a straight traveller couple were refused the ability to adopt? Why? Why not? Should O.A.P.s be given their equal share of orphans by the state? Shouldn't partners who are both down syndrome sufferers be given equal access to orphans from the state? If they aren't, is this discrimination?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

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

Would you consider it discrimination if a straight traveller couple were refused the ability to adopt? Why? Why not? Should O.A.P.s be given their equal share of orphans by the state? Shouldn't partners who are both down syndrome sufferers be given equal access to orphans from the state? If they aren't, is this discrimination?

Complete, obvious, nonsense. Comparing the elderly and those of somewhat reduced mental capacity to adults in their prime?

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Marriage is our social and cultural foundation stone. ...............

As has been pointed out before, marriage in its current form is only a few hundred years old. The 'sacred family unit' saw young children being sent to other families to work as domestic or farm labour up into the 20th century.

Annasopra

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Marriage is our social and cultural foundation stone. And for the millionth, time it is completely unnecessary to tamper with or change that foundation. People realise this, most of them are not so stupid or easily led.

Marriage constantly evolves and changes. Did the wheels fall off the bus in Ireland when we stopped allowing 12 year old girls to marry?

Annasopra

Brown Bomber wrote: »

until comprehensive and long term studies are carried out into the possible damaging effects of rearing by homosexual adoptive parents of children, who shouldn't be used as guinea pigs in all of this, then accusations of any discrimination are premature, surely?

Not at all. The studies have been done.

Black Swan

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Abusive sociopaths are ruling this debate. And are being facilitated by moderators on here.

MOD: 1-month ban for way below standards and highly trollish comment, as well as discussing moderation in-thread.

NuMarvel

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Would you consider it discrimination if a straight traveller couple were refused the ability to adopt? Why? Why not? Should O.A.P.s be given their equal share of orphans by the state? Shouldn't partners who are both down syndrome sufferers be given equal access to orphans from the state? If they aren't, is this discrimination?

There is no legal impediment to any of those people applying to adopt, and assuming they are married, they can apply to adopt jointly.

Gay people can also apply to adopt, but because of the bar on marriage, there is no means for them to adopt jointly if they are in a relationship. So even when a gay couple is deemed suitable to adopt by a qualified social worker after all the intensive assessments and scrutiny the adoption process brings, any child they adopt is unable to enjoy the security of a legal relationship with both parents. I challenge anyone to argue that denying a child the protections and benefits of a legally recognised relationship with both adoptive parents is somehow in the child's best interests.

Corkfeen

Brown Bomber,there's 30+ years off research done into same sex parents.There is no difference in parenting ability so it's dishonest to say we don't know the effects.

Sheldons Brain

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Marriage constantly evolves and changes. Did the wheels fall off the bus in Ireland when we stopped allowing 12 year old girls to marry?

Evolve it may, but it always involved people of different sex getting together and it was always concerned with children. Any evolution must be justified, change for the sake of change is no help and any change must bring aggregate benefits.. Adjusting the age of marriage is a mere tweak and other examples about child labour simply reflect the economic circumstances of the period, which has no particular relevance to the present debate.

aloyisious

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Marriage is our social and cultural foundation stone. And for the millionth, time it is completely unnecessary to tamper with or change that foundation. People realise this, most of them are not so stupid or easily led.

This isn't the declaration of love between two people its the handing over of OUR future society.


"Corporations thus defend gay marriage for the same reason (and using the same tactics) they seek to undermine unions, environmental regulations, and tax policy—most obviously short-term gain, but more deeply, a society that needs to be remade in such a way that short-term gain seems the only game left in town: a thoroughly mobile society devoted to personal satisfaction, composed of individuals whose relationships are fungible and who have no strong relationship to place, history, or the generations stretching between the past and the future"


http://www.theamericanconservative.com/corporatism-and-gay-marriage-natural-bedfellows/

Interesting response (non-inclusive of answers to my question) given that you include the word fungible in it. Fungible - one item of any given material equal in size, weight etc with another of the same material being given the same value as the second item. An example is given (in online dictionaries) of an ounce of gold of a given density being of the same value to another ounce of gold with the exact same density.

I'm supposing you include the finer definition within the above dictionary quote of the word "interchangable". Like you, I believe that most people are not stupid or easily led, understand some people of different stances believe that marriage is immutable and both versions are NOT interchangable, with the addition that most people understand and accept the differences. Persons agreeing to the notion of inclusion of SSM into Irish Civil Law are not anti-civilisation.

In line with that I believe that people see that allowing for SSM within Civil Law will not end with all manner of marriages being admitted into civil law in the future. People are now sceptical enough to see and do not believe the scare tactics and stories about marriage being thrown at them.

I'll also include now that most people have enough nous to understand that children are NOT fungible goods and that that practice is out of bounds, so as to stop that being presented again as a reason to block SSM.

Ta to Phill Ewinn for including the quote with fungible in it, gave me cause to "google" it, initially I thought fungible was a sarcastic reference to fungus and mushrooms.

Fungible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia..... stance -Dictionary.com refers.

oscarBravo

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Evolve it may, but it always involved people of different sex getting together...

Not true.

...and it was always concerned with children.

Not true.

Any evolution must be justified, change for the sake of change is no help and any change must bring aggregate benefits..

The justification is that it's no longer socially acceptable to deny people basic civil rights on the basis of their sexuality. The benefits to same-sex couples are obvious; the downsides to hetero couples has yet to be articulated, despite repeated requests for those opposed to equality to do so.

Annasopra

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Evolve it may, but it always involved people of different sex getting together and it was always concerned with children. Any evolution must be justified, change for the sake of change is no help and any change must bring aggregate benefits.. Adjusting the age of marriage is a mere tweak and other examples about child labour simply reflect the economic circumstances of the period, which has no particular relevance to the present debate.

Firstly
Some forms of same sex marriage existed in pre Christian times

Secondly
I don't mind if you make the argument - "Marriage shouldn't change because it has never changed" BUT its a completely absurd and untrue and frankly nonsensical argument. It has constantly changed over time. Economically it has changed, legally it has changed, socially it has changed, the dynamics of marriage have constantly changed.

Thirdly
Your argument that there is no relevance of the past may be something you wish for but when you and others try to introduce history into the debate and then dismiss other people bringing history into the debate this is simply laughable. Basically an argument like that could be rephrased as - "thats irrelevant because I said so and I don't like your argument"

NuMarvel

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Evolve it may, but it always involved people of different sex getting together and it was always concerned with children. Any evolution must be justified, change for the sake of change is no help and any change must bring aggregate benefits..

As has been pointed out by others, marriage wasn't always exclusively for heterosexual couples and it's not about raising children.

But even if you're right, your second reason is justifiable cause to change the first. Gay people can and do raise kids and they will continue to do so regardless of the ability to marry or not. If marriage is supposed to be a child centred institution, if it's supposed to be about providing a secure environment within which to raise children, why do you want to deny those benefits to children being raised by gay couples?

Corkfeen

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Evolve it may, but it always involved people of different sex getting together and it was always concerned with children. Any evolution must be justified, change for the sake of change is no help and any change must bring aggregate benefits.. Adjusting the age of marriage is a mere tweak and other examples about child labour simply reflect the economic circumstances of the period, which has no particular relevance to the present debate.

These people are so protective of the English language. :rolleyes: Will English get destroyed alongside the fabric of society,reality and physics?

aloyisious

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Evolve it may, but it always involved people of different sex getting together and it was always concerned with children. Any evolution must be justified, change for the sake of change is no help and any change must bring aggregate benefits.. Adjusting the age of marriage is a mere tweak and other examples about child labour simply reflect the economic circumstances of the period, which has no particular relevance to the present debate.

Equalizing the Civil Law in reference to what's on the statute books in regard to marriage is not merely change for the sake of change. IMO, it would be a deed done within the meanings of justify, a reasonable act to give citizens equality under civil law, another turn of the evolving wheel of justice.

An aggregate benefit would be the love and care given by Same Sex Couples to children within a Same Sex Family. There are no bars to Same Sex couples having and raising children within Same Sex relationships except those currently imposed on such couples by Civil and Other laws, plus rules approved/applied by society on Same Sex couples. Males and Females can have progeny, regardless of their sexual preferences. To assume otherwise would be to ignore the hundreds of homosexuals (male and female) who entered into heterosexual marriages here in our republic and who had children within those marriages, all due to the mores of our society at the time.

Putting the case above as defined by Sheldons Brain bluntly, some peoples view of marriage is that it's all about progeny, offspring, children. It seem's to me that marriage (as outlined liked that) does not, on the face of it, include as a necessity that the couple getting married should also love each other. I can well imagine that bringing children up in an unloving family could well be defined as the opposite to an aggregate benefit.

Nodin

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Evolve it may, but it always involved people of different sex getting together and it was always concerned with children. Any evolution must be justified, change for the sake of change is no help and any change must bring aggregate benefits.. Adjusting the age of marriage is a mere tweak and other examples about child labour simply reflect the economic circumstances of the period, which has no particular relevance to the present debate.

You have yet to articulate how "gay" marriage will be "destructive" with regards to heterosexual marriage.

ardmacha

It seem's to me that marriage (as outlined liked that) does not, on the face of it, include as a necessity that the couple getting married should also love each other.

How does marriage require people to love each other?
To marry in Ireland you must have the capacity to marry each other, freely consent to the marriage and comply with the marriage notification process. No mention of love.

aloyisious

ardmacha wrote: »

How does marriage require people to love each other?
To marry in Ireland you must have the capacity to marry each other, freely consent to the marriage and comply with the marriage notification process. No mention of love.

T'is (unromantically) true

Brown Bomber

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Not at all. The studies have been done.

I'm more than happy to be corrected on this, and if so concede that I have no argument.

Can you provide links to comprehensive and long term studies which show that children adopted by homosexuals are no worse off than children adopted in the traditional mom & pop normative family unit?

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm more than happy to be corrected on this, and if so concede that I have no argument.

Can you provide links to comprehensive and long term studies which show that children adopted by homosexuals are no worse off than children adopted in the traditional mom & pop normative family unit?

You haven't seen such studies presented in other for a, in threads similar to this?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

Complete, obvious, nonsense. Comparing the elderly and those of somewhat reduced mental capacity to adults in their prime?

Where have I made this comparison? I am asking questions if it "discrimination" tm to refuse adoptions based on logical reasons. Is it?

I'm an egalitarian, but my world views on what is "fair" go out the window when an innocent and vulnerable child's welfare is at stake. The adopted child's welfare comes before the adopted parent's every time.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Where have I made this comparison? I am asking questions if it "discrimination" tm to refuse adoptions based on logical reasons. Is it?.

What logical reason is there to discriminate against gay people? Theres none that I know of. You're comparing mentally competent adults in their prime against those who are neither. It's rather a pathetic display of illogic and grasping at straws.

Again - You haven't seen such studies (re "gay" families and outcomes) presented in other fora, in threads similar to this?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

What logical reason is there to discriminate against gay people? Theres none that I know of. You're comparing mentally competent adults in their prime against those who are neither. It's rather a pathetic display of illogic and grasping at straws.

Again - You haven't seen such studies (re "gay" families and outcomes) presented in other fora, in threads similar to this?

Again, I haven't made these comparisons. I have merely listed some examples where despite all the best intentions and love in the world the decision to refuse adoption is logical provided there are better alternatives. I am asking, and you are refusing to answer if this is discrimination.

To the best of my knowledge I have never seen such a study. Are you aware of one? If so, can you provide a link to it please?

Brown Bomber

Nodin wrote: »

What logical reason is there to discriminate against gay people?

First we need to establish if it is discrimination in setting the adopted child's welfare as paramount. I certainly don't think so. You refuse to answer.

If it is "discrimination" then this discrimination can be logical if it is in the child's best interests.

Nodin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Again, I haven't made these comparisons. I have merely listed some examples where despite all the best intentions and love in the world the decision to refuse adoption is logical provided there are better alternatives. I am asking, and you are refusing to answer if this is discrimination.?

Neither are healthy adults in their prime. Your question is predicated on the notion that being gay is an inherent disadvantage. Your choice of comparsions borders on outright bigotry

Brown Bomber wrote: »

To the best of my knowledge I have never seen such a study. Are you aware of one? If so, can you provide a link to it please?

You didn't read these three, posted in a similar thread, specifically for you ?

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88824221&postcount=998

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057136210&page=67

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=88824249&postcount=1007

aloyisious

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm more than happy to be corrected on this, and if so concede that I have no argument.

Can you provide links to comprehensive and long term studies which show that children adopted by homosexuals are no worse off than children adopted in the traditional mom & pop normative family unit?

If you are referring to the situation here in the Republic of Ireland at the moment in regards to adoption, then you should know that there will be no studies done on that here as the legal situation allowing for Homosexual Two-Parent adoption does NOT exist here, as distinct from what you describe as "the traditional mom & pop normative family unit".

If you are homosexual here in the republic, the child that the Adoption Authority here allows you to adopt is solely in your care legally. Your partner is NOT given any legal rights to the child you have adopted. I believe that that situation has been stated and explained many times on discussions here.

If you want such studies, then just key in the words adoption studies on your keyboard and make your selection from whatever pop's up on your screen. I agree with you that the Adoption Authority should put the best interests of the child for adoption before any apparent rights that a prospective adoptee-parent might have in law.

Sheldons Brain

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Firstly
Some forms of same sex marriage existed in pre Christian times

No doubt same sex relationships were recognised to a greater or lesser extent, but where these considered marriage as a direct equivalence to regular marriage. I'd say these historic forms of recognition were more similar to our modern "form" of same sex marriage., i.e. civil partnership, and even if you can find a well documented example it would be extremely rare.

NuMarvel wrote:

As has been pointed out by others, marriage wasn't always exclusively for heterosexual couples and it's not about raising children

.

There is no doubt that marriage is a privileged relationship in almost every society on earth because it relates to families and so to the future of society.

Nodin wrote:

You have yet to aticulate how "gay" marriage will be "destructive" with regards to heterosexual marriage.

Because it entirely loses any sense of connection with families and becomes about supporting the sexual lives of individuals. This means that marriage will cease to be a privileged relationship in society and the support families obtain from that will be lost.

aloyisious

@Sheldons Brain: do you actually believe that SSM, were it to be legalized here, will lead to the end of society as it exists?

Just as a matter of curiosity, I "googled" Sheldons Brain to see where the title came from and found it to be the name of a TV show character, played by Jim Parsons. I was then surprised to learn that Jim Parsons is gay, is in a Same Sex relationship and in favour of SSM.

Sheldons Brain

aloyisious wrote: »

@Sheldons Brain: do you actually believe that SSM, were it to be legalized here, will lead to the end of society as it exists?

Of course not, because something is not a positive step does not mean that it ends society.

Just as a matter of curiosity, I "googled" Sheldons Brain to see where the title came from

Not a fan, I take it.

and found it to be the name of a TV show character, played by Jim Parsons. I was then surprised to learn that Jim Parsons is gay, is in a Same Sex relationship and in favour of SSM.

I don't align my views with the political opinions of actors whose characters I adopt as a username.
Whatever about his brain, I wish I had Parsons' salary.

Nodin

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Because it entirely loses any sense of connection with families and becomes about supporting the sexual lives of individuals. This means that marriage will cease to be a privileged relationship in society and the support families obtain from that will be lost.

....that makes no sense whatsoever. You don't have to be married to have sex. Nor do a heterosexual couple have to be fertile, nor do they have to want children to get married.

gizmo555

Nodin wrote: »

....that makes no sense whatsoever. You don't have to be married to have sex.

But you do have be able to have (straight) sex to get married . . .

Nodin

gizmo555 wrote: »

But you do have be able to have (straight) sex to get married . . .

No, that's grounds for nullity, not a disqualification from getting married.

oscarBravo

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

There is no doubt that marriage is a privileged relationship in almost every society on earth because it relates to families and so to the future of society.

But families don't inherently require the ability for a couple to reproduce. Families can and do exist where the children are not the biological offspring of the married couple. It's not even particularly unusual.

Because it entirely loses any sense of connection with families and becomes about supporting the sexual lives of individuals.

But marriage isn't inherently about producing biological offspring, otherwise childless couples wouldn't be married in the sense that you are trying to force it to mean. If you follow your argument to its logical conclusion, post-menopausal women would be disbarred from marrying. Is this something you'd support? If not, why not?

aloyisious

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Not a fan, I take it.

Whatever about his brain, I wish I had Parsons' salary.

I'm just trying to avoid addictive TV shows, so's I don't end up an overweight couch potato

NuMarvel

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

There is no doubt that marriage is a privileged relationship in almost every society on earth because it relates to families and so to the future of society.

I note you ignored the substance of my post, namely that gay couples also raise children. If marriage is supposed to be about the benefits it brings to children, why do you want to discriminate against children who are raised by gay people?

Annasopra

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

No doubt same sex relationships were recognised to a greater or lesser extent, but where these considered marriage as a direct equivalence to regular marriage. I'd say these historic forms of recognition were more similar to our modern "form" of same sex marriage., i.e. civil partnership, and even if you can find a well documented example it would be extremely rare.
.

There is no doubt that marriage is a privileged relationship in almost every society on earth because it relates to families and so to the future of society.

Because it entirely loses any sense of connection with families and becomes about supporting the sexual lives of individuals. This means that marriage will cease to be a privileged relationship in society and the support families obtain from that will be lost.

John Boswell has documented it extensively.

I'm always fascinated by the definition of what exactly is a family and how there is an assumption that there is only one type of family; A nuclear family consisting of a cisgender man married to a cisgender woman with 2.4 Children. To me this just doesn't reflect reality anymore. I see Katherine Zappone and Anne Louise Gilligan as a family. I see Colm O Gorman and his partner and children as a family. I see my friend Lisa and her Daughter as a family. I see my Friend Anne and the daughter she had adopted and her other two daughters as a family. I see my friend Irene and her husband and foster children (and their children) as a family. I see my Dad and his unmarried Partner as family. Constricting the idea of a family to a Nuclear married family just does not work anymore.

Sheldons Brain

oscarBravo wrote: »

But families don't inherently require the ability for a couple to reproduce. Families can and do exist where the children are not the biological offspring of the married couple. It's not even particularly unusual. But marriage isn't inherently about producing biological offspring, otherwise childless couples wouldn't be married in the sense that you are trying to force it to mean. If you follow your argument to its logical conclusion, post-menopausal women would be disbarred from marrying. Is this something you'd support? If not, why not?

Some examples where people don't have children does not invalidate my point. Its a bit like the learnng to drive forum where people contend that because some qualified drivers drive badly, then learners should be allowed do as they wish. Driving tests improve better driving even if not every qualified driver drives well and even if people who never done a test do drive well, likewise marriage is designed to promote families even if not every married couple has one.

And I am not "forcing" a meaning on marriage, this is the meaning it has in pretty much every society of the world for last several thousand years.

Annasopra

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

And I am not "forcing" a meaning on marriage, this is the meaning it has in pretty much every society of the world for last several thousand years.

You keep saying this but its simply not true. The meaning of marriage has constantly changed and evolved over time. It is not true to say it has only ever had one meaning and one formation.