Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

shruikan2553

Vivisectus wrote: »

so no, sorry.

I still have great difficulty figuring out if conservapedia is a parody or not

Vivisectus

robindch wrote: »

So "born gay" or "lifestyle choice"? The science is coming in slowly, but surely:

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/born-way-evolutionary-view-%E2%80%98gay-genes%E2%80%99

I find this bit especially interesting:

Perhaps “male-loving” alleles in a female predispose her to mate earlier and have more children. If their sisters, mother and aunts have more kids who share some of their genes, it would make up for the fewer children of gay males.

And they do. Lots more children. An Italian group showed that the female relatives of gay men have 1.3 times as many children as the female relatives of straight men. This is a huge selective advantage that a male-loving allele confers on women, and offsets the selective disadvantage that it confers on men.

Vivisectus

Thinking about that kind of research, there is something distinctly chilling about it too:

http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2156/11/62

apparently you can breed gay mice. What is sort of worrying about that is that it leaves the door open to treating homosexuality as a sort of disorder: almost like a sexual diabetes.

aloyisious

Quote:
Originally Posted by robindch View Post
So "born gay" or "lifestyle choice"? The science is coming in slowly, but surely:

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...genes%E2%80%99
I find this bit especially interesting:

Quote:
Perhaps “male-loving” alleles in a female predispose her to mate earlier and have more children. If their sisters, mother and aunts have more kids who share some of their genes, it would make up for the fewer children of gay males.

And they do. Lots more children. An Italian group showed that the female relatives of gay men have 1.3 times as many children as the female relatives of straight men. This is a huge selective advantage that a male-loving allele confers on women, and offsets the selective disadvantage that it confers on men.

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

Or even the opposite, the gay males and females are there to offset the more re-productive males and females, even out the over-productive effects of their kin

seamus

aloyisious wrote: »

Or even the opposite, the gay males and females are there to offset the more re-productive males and females, even out the over-productive effects of their kin

Well not necessarily "balance out", but it may be a form of co-evolution, as gay males within a family of exceptionally-procreating females are more likely to remain within that family unit and assist in the traditionally-male pursuits of hunting and gathering, therefore making the super-fertile-female family model sustainable and by extension evolutionarily advantageous.

If the gay males didn't co-evolve with these females, then any males born into these families would break off to mate and procreate themselves, thus increasing competition within that community for resources, reducing their evolutionary edge. These communities would have more children than they could maintain and would lose out on selection pressures to communities which procreated at sustainable levels.

Evolution acts on communities, not on individuals, so an individual having an evolutionary disadvantage is less important than their impact on the species/community.

This is of course one of the things which the anti-brigade misunderstands, instead thinking that an individual being evolutionarily "stunted", means that they are inherently "undesirable" to the community.

iwantmydinner

Fascinating ^^

Oh lads, I love science

robindch

seamus wrote: »

Evolution acts on communities, not on individuals, so an individual having an evolutionary disadvantage is less important than their impact on the species/community.

I dare you say that to Dawkins!

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/edward-wilson-social-conquest-earth-evolutionary-errors-origin-species

robindch

Croatia, a country in which the RCC inscrutably holds much power, held a referendum last year in which gay marriage was constitutionally banned. But last week, it adopted a law allowing gay couples to register each other as "life partners":

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11294508

AP wrote:

Croatian lawmakers have adopted a long-awaited law allowing gay couples to register as life partners, enjoying the same rights as their heterosexual peers except on adopting children. Gay rights activists hailed the legislation in the largely conservative EU member state, which is strongly influenced by the powerful Roman Catholic Church.

"Croatia made a historic step forward to stand along progressive countries which have already resolved the issue," Iva Tomecic, editor-in-chief of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) news portal CroL, told AFP. "From now on same sex couples and families can finally legally regulate their unions... knowing that the country where they live, work and pay taxes is treating them as equal citizens," she said.

A total of 95 MPs in the 151-member parliament voted for the law and 10 abstained, but none voted against. In a referendum sought by a Church-backed group, Croatians voted last year to amend the constitution to include a definition of marriage as a "union between a woman and a man". However Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic's centre-left government pledged to improve gay rights and adopted a bill enabling homosexual couples to register as "life partners".

The "In the Name of the Family" group that initiated the referendum slammed the new law as being "against honesty, basic democratic rules and Croatia's constitution". "This ideological law will fail," it said in a statement. In the small nation of 4.2 million where almost 90 per cent of population is Roman Catholic, attitudes towards gay rights have gradually become more liberal even before Croatia joined the EU last July as its newest member.

During its first Gay Pride parade in Zagreb in 2002, dozens of participants were beaten up by extremists. But gay rights marches are now staged regularly, although still under heavy security. The issue is also discussed more openly in the media, while public support for the fight for equality is growing. "Since the first pride, significant improvements in almost all aspects for LGBT people are seen and we managed to bring our problems closer to the wider public," writer and activist Gordan Duhacek told AFP.

Ivo and Mladen were waiting impatiently for the law to be adopted, planning to register next year so that "everyone has time to prepare for the wedding". "This is one of the most important moves by this government for the whole of society," Ivo, a 32-year-old biochemist, told AFP. The law would help to root out homophobia in Croatia by pushing for greater acceptance of gays by society in general, he added.

"As always, it (life partnerships) will start with a few people... and people will gradually get used it," he said, declining to reveal his last name. But his 33-year-old partner Mladen warned that many gays would refrain from registering to avoid situations where they might unavoidably have to come out in the workplace.

More than half of gays in Croatia -- 53 per cent -- would like to marry while more than a third would like to have children, according to a survey published in November by the Zagreb Pride gay rights group.

Delirium

Appeals court upholds decision overturning Virginia’s same-sex marriage ban

A federal appeals court on Monday struck down Virginia’s voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, saying that withholding the fundamental right to marry from gay couples is a new form of “segregation” that the Constitution cannot abide.

The 2-to-1 decision by a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, upheld a lower court’s decision and extended an extraordinary winning streak in the federal courts for proponents of same-sex marriage.

Legal challenges to state bans filed systematically nationwide have prevailed in every test since the Supreme Court in June 2013 struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as only between a man and a woman.

Two federal appeals courts have now said the bans are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court probably will have to make the final determination and could consider the issue as soon as next year.

Links234

So apparently this has the Iona shower in a twist over "glorifying buggery"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh7W0U65gh8

PopePalpatine

Links234 wrote: »

So apparently this has the Iona shower in a twist over "glorifying buggery"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh7W0U65gh8

Are you sure that's not the Twitter parody?

freyners

Links234 wrote: »

So apparently this has the Iona shower in a twist over "glorifying buggery"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eh7W0U65gh8

Fan of the bandits normally but I think thats pure ****e, good message underneath but its no horse outside

Surprisingly I havent seen anyone actually kick off over it yet, considering other songs of theirs had the joe duffy brigade in a tizzy any link to their outrage Links?

aloyisious

Meanwhile, in Africa the age of miracles might not yet be over, though I think it'll take more that wishes and crossed-fingers to force a Ugandan Govt u-turn. It'll probably ignore an adverse ruling. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/07/31/ugandan-court-may-overturn-anti-gay-law-tomorrow/

robindch

Uganda court annuls anti-homosexuality law

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-28605400

BBC wrote:

Uganda's Constitutional Court has annulled tough anti-gay legislation signed into law in February. It ruled that the bill was passed by MPs in December without the requisite quorum and was therefore illegal. Homosexual acts were already illegal, but the new law allowed for life imprisonment for "aggravated homosexuality" and banned the "promotion of homosexuality".

Several donors have cut aid to Uganda since the law was adopted. Uganda is a deeply conservative society where many people oppose gay rights and the sentence for homosexual acts has always been life imprisonment. Earlier drafts of the anti-homosexuality act made it a crime not to report gay people - which would have made it impossible to live as openly gay - but this clause was removed.

However the legislation that was passed in parliament was "null and void", the presiding judge at the Constitutional Court said, as not enough lawmakers had been present to vote on the bill. The law, which was signed by President Yoweri Museveni in February, toughened up existing laws. Lesbians were covered for the first time and those found living in a same-sex marriage could have been sentenced to life imprisonment.

The challenge to the law was brought by 10 petitioners, including academics, journalists, both ruling and opposition MPs, human rights activists and rights groups. "The retrogressive anti-homosexuality act of Uganda has been struck down by the constitutional court - it's now dead as a door nail," the AFP news agency quotes prominent journalist Andrew Mwenda, one of the petitioners, as saying.

Kosiya Kasibayo, a lawyer for the state, said a decision had not been made on whether to appeal against the ruling in the Supreme Court, the Associate Press news agency reports. The BBC's Catherine Byaruhanga in the capital, Kampala, says supporters of the anti-gay laws have been angered by the ruling of the five judges. They wonder whether their decision has anything to do with the president's visit to Washington next week for the US-Africa Summit, she says.

In June, the US imposed sanctions on the East African nation, including travel restrictions on Ugandan officials involved in serious human rights abuses. The White House also cut funds to a number of programmes it is running with the Ugandan authorities. Several European nations - including Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands and Sweden - had earlier cut aid.

But the Ugandan authorities have defended the law in the past, saying President Museveni wanted "to demonstrate Uganda's independence in the face of Western pressure and provocation". Pastor Martin Ssempa, a vocal backer of the anti-homosexuality legislation, told the BBC his supporters would be asking parliament to investigate the impartiality of the judiciary.

B0jangles

Reading that just made me burst out crying

I was hoping so so much it would be overturned but at the same time I didn't think it would be. I remember watching footage of (I think) the first Pride parade in Uganda and thinking that the marchers were the bravest people I had ever seen in my whole life.

Cabaal

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2014/08/01/miss-panti-and-the-kindness-of-strangers/

A crowd funded documentary – directed by Conor Horgan and produced by B!inder Films – on the fabulous life and turbulent times of Miss Panti, Rory O’Neill.

B!inder write:

We have set a goal of €50,000 to make this film. This will allow us to continue filming with Rory / Panti over the next few months, as well as allowing us to edit, research, get rights to use archive, music, and everything else we need to make the film. We plan to raise matching funds, so YOUR contributions will help us make this the best film possible. You cannot underestimate the impact YOU can have on the future and the success of The Queen of Ireland.

Phill Ewinn

robindch wrote: »

Croatia, a country in which the RCC inscrutably holds much power, held a referendum last year in which gay marriage was constitutionally banned. But last week, it adopted a law allowing gay couples to register each other as "life partners":

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11294508

Oh course, I suggest that same thing and I'm branded as a "homophobe". Coincidentally by many of the people who thanked this post.

Just proved something significant to me.

lazygal

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Oh course, I suggest that same thing and I'm branded as a "homophobe". Coincidentally by many of the people who thanked this post.

Just proved something significant to me.

What was significant?

Brian Shanahan

lazygal wrote: »

What was significant?

That there are countries which would accept him for the homophobe that he is, without trying to convince him that he should be a better person.

obplayer

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Oh course, I suggest that same thing and I'm branded as a "homophobe". Coincidentally by many of the people who thanked this post.

Just proved something significant to me.

I think the main significance is that a country which had made it clear it was homophobic has just made it clear it is now less so, a step in the right direction.

Phill Ewinn

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

That there are countries which would accept him for the homophobe that he is, without trying to convince him that he should be a better person.

Reported

Phill Ewinn

obplayer wrote: »

I think the main significance is that a country which had made it clear it was homophobic has just made it clear it is now less so, a step in the right direction.

No. A society that makes it clear that two different relationships can be treated differently.

lazygal

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

No. A society that makes it clear that two different relationships can be treated differently.

What is the difference between two men, two women and a man and woman who wish to marry? It can't be children as plenty of heterosexual married people don't want or can't have children.

aloyisious

Originally Posted by robindch View Post
Croatia, a country in which the RCC inscrutably holds much power, held a referendum last year in which gay marriage was constitutionally banned. But last week, it adopted a law allowing gay couples to register each other as "life partners":

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news...ectid=11294508

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Oh course, I suggest that same thing and I'm branded as a "homophobe". Coincidentally by many of the people who thanked this post.

Just proved something significant to me.

Phil. the RC Church does have a large number of adherents in Croatia and it asked the Croat voters to block marriage rights equalization in the constitutional referendum. What's contained in Robindch's post is factual and not suggestion. I don't see how making those facts known would be homophobic if you had posted them here, rather than Robindch.

_Redzer_

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Reported

If you said "I hate black people", and showed a negative history on the subject, would you really report a post that called you out as an undeniable racist?

Yeah, doubtful.

Cabaal

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

No. A society that makes it clear that two different relationships can be treated differently.

So it's ok to treat two different things differently?

Fair enough, women are different to men, some believe inferior. So let's treat them differently.

First off we'll deny them a right to vote, then we'll make it so they must leave the job market when they marry... Because women should be at home cooking and making babies when they marry. Hell in some places we'll just make it illegal for women to receive any education or to work at all.... And if these things aren't illegal we'll just threaten or kill such women until they stop.

We'll also make it illegal for them to drive and also illegal to show their faces in public.

Next up, even though a women plays the most important role in the story of Jesus in the Catholic religion we'll look down on all women as inferior to men, incapable of being priests, bishops etc. (let's not forget, without Mary there could have been no jesus)

Finally, overall, even if a women does the same job as a man we'll pay them less.

Oh wait.... We're doing all of the above already as a species . But its OK, we can treat different things differently

Surely you think all of the above is ok, right?

bnt

The way some right-wing Americans talk, you'd think "liberty" was a dirty word, and that they're ignorant of their own country's history. The Declaration of Independence includes the following:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable Rights; that among these, are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness;

I don't see any "ifs, ands or buts" in there. If you're gay and you want to get married, I think that "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" covers that quite adequately. :cool:

aloyisious

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

No. A society that makes it clear that two different relationships can be treated differently.

Phil: Maybe I'm reading too much into what you typed above but it seem's you believe in that as a actual moral legal position for a state to take on Civil Marriage between two consenting adults (as is the situation here in our republic), is it your opinion that marriage in all it's forms (religious, civil, whatever) must be kept solely for the enjoyment of heterosexual couples in the belief that all forms of marriage are completely tied to the religious version of marriage?

I see that you used the word "CAN" in your quote, would you agree with that concept if the word "MUST" was used instead?

If it had been the decision of the Croat's to vote "YES" to Marriage Equality between heterosexual and homosexual couples and put it into the Croatian state constitution, would you have accepted that as OK as Croat Society had decided it was so with them? (I know it's a leading question)

Is it your opinion that if Civil Marriage Equality became law here, it would irrevocably weaken the Religious format of Marriage in our republic, regardless of whatever religious creed or belief the religious marriage was made under, or does your opinion only hold in reference to the main christian church in our republic?

shruikan2553

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

No. A society that makes it clear that two different relationships can be treated differently.

They can be and are, doesnt mean they should be.

Phill Ewinn

bnt wrote: »

The way some right-wing Americans talk, you'd think "liberty" was a dirty word, and that they're ignorant of their own country's history. The Declaration of Independence includes the following:
I don't see any "ifs, ands or buts" in there. If you're gay and you want to get married, I think that "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" covers that quite adequately. :cool:

As I said before marriage was legally defined in America as a union of one man and one woman with in a couple of weeks of banning slavery.

Phill Ewinn

shruikan2553 wrote: »

They can be and are, doesnt mean they should be.

I said before that the system Croatia uses now best fits this country too. I was right when I originally said this and I'm right now. Whatever happens after civil union is passed is a matter for the future.

swampgas

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I said before that the system Croatia uses now best fits this country too. I was right when I originally said this and I'm right now. Whatever happens after civil union is passed is a matter for the future.

What is your reasoning for this belief that it fits Ireland too? Most Irish people I know seem broadly in favour of same sex marriage, as it seems to fit with their ideas of fair play and of treating people the same regardless of sexual orientation.

_Redzer_

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I said before that the system Croatia uses now best fits this country too. I was right when I originally said this and I'm right now. Whatever happens after civil union is passed is a matter for the future.

No, explain the difference between straight relationships and gay ones and then we'll talk and consider if you're right or not in saying they should be kept separate.

As said before, children have SFA to do with this, because many straight people in marriage can't and choose not to have them without their marriage being voided.

shruikan2553

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I said before that the system Croatia uses now best fits this country too. I was right when I originally said this and I'm right now. Whatever happens after civil union is passed is a matter for the future.

So they can have marriage but just not call it marriage because a few people might get upset for no reason but thankfully they are too slow the realise they are actually married?

FairytaleGirl

I dont understand why who I choose to spend my life with (and wanting to do that with full legal equality) matters to anyone else.

It's like getting angry at people getting treated in hospital on medical card while you pay privately for the same thing. It's just a different version of the same thing.
Using the argument same sex couples shouldnt marry is like saying two people with ginger hair shouldnt marry ... Because eh ... Well because some people dont like red heads..

It's no ones goddam business!

Phill Ewinn

FairytaleGirl wrote: »

I dont understand why who I choose to spend my life with (and wanting to do that with full legal equality) matters to anyone else.

It's like getting angry at people getting treated in hospital on medical card while you pay privately for the same thing. It's just a different version of the same thing.
Using the argument same sex couples shouldnt marry is like saying two people with ginger hair shouldnt marry ... Because eh ... Well because some people dont like red heads..

It's no ones goddam business!

Its everyone's business. And being so arrogant about something so fundamental to society shows a level of immaturity in your statement.

Marriage matters.

marienbad

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its everyone's business. And being so arrogant about something so fundamental to society shows a level of immaturity in your statement.

Marriage matters.

do you see a difference between Christian matrimony and civil marriage ?

Delirium

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its everyone's business. And being so arrogant about something so fundamental to society shows a level of immaturity in your statement.

Marriage matters.

Given that you place such importance on marriage within society, what reason(s) do you have for barring a subset of society from it? It surely unreasonable to do so seeing as it so fundamental to society?

Corkfeen

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its everyone's business. And being so arrogant about something so fundamental to society shows a level of immaturity in your statement.

Marriage matters.

It really isn't unless you can find some tangible negative societal impact of it. Which you obviously can't, also by your own definition. Marriage has been redefined repeatedly including with the legalisation of divorce and making marital rape illegal .

swampgas

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its everyone's business. And being so arrogant about something so fundamental to society shows a level of immaturity in your statement.

Marriage matters.

I agree that marriage matters, and I agree that it's an issue for society.

However I think that society has moved ahead of your position, being gay is no longer criminalised, and we have moved towards treating gay people as just people, regardless of their sexual orientation.

You seem to be arguing against change, and you seem to be arguing against society choosing to update its values as we learn to understand each other better.

FairytaleGirl

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

Its everyone's business. And being so arrogant about something so fundamental to society shows a level of immaturity in your statement.

Marriage matters.

Yes marriage matters, and it matters to me that I'm 'not allowed' one because some people see me as a second class citizen because I'm experiencing the exact same feelings as everyone else but towards someone of the same sex. If marriage was 'so fundamental' to society, why is divorce legal? Surely allowing the disassembly of something so fundamental shouldnt be allowed and infact encouraging marriage in all its forms should be paramount?

Phill Ewinn

SW wrote: »

Given that you place such importance on marriage within society, what reason(s) do you have for barring a subset of society from it? It surely unreasonable to do so seeing as it so fundamental to society?

I guess for the same reasons it was restricted the first time, the last time etc. It doesn't work out well. This particular revolution will go the same way as the last, and the one before that.

shruikan2553

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I guess for the same reasons it was restricted the first time, the last time etc. It doesn't work out well. This particular revolution will go the same way as the last, and the one before that.

How does it not work out well? When has it ever been allowed before that went wrong?

FairytaleGirl

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I guess for the same reasons it was restricted the first time, the last time etc. It doesn't work out well. This particular revolution will go the same way as the last, and the one before that.

Evidence please? As in concrete reasons why gay marriage doesnt work out well - particularly in ways which are exclusive to same sex marriage?

Delirium

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I guess for the same reasons it was restricted the first time, the last time etc. It doesn't work out well. This particular revolution will go the same way as the last, and the one before that.

When did we vote on marriage equality before?

Would you care to actually reveal these reasons?

aloyisious

Originally Posted by bnt View Post
The way some right-wing Americans talk, you'd think "liberty" was a dirty word, and that they're ignorant of their own country's history. The Declaration of Independence includes the following:
I don't see any "ifs, ands or buts" in there. If you're gay and you want to get married, I think that "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" covers that quite adequately.

QUOTE=Phill Ewinn; As I said before marriage was legally defined in America as a union of one man and one woman with in a couple of weeks of banning slavery.

Prior posts between bnt and Phill Ewinn..................

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

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I guess for the same reasons it was restricted the first time, the last time etc. It doesn't work out well. This particular revolution will go the same way as the last, and the one before that.

I'm not sure what restriction-reasons you are referring to. You did mention something about the abolition of slavery in the U.S. circa 1860 and a restriction of marriage being brought into being there after the abolition. I some-how sense the restriction you posted about was related to the freeing of negro americans form slavery and the subsequent fear amongst some white folk that a white woman might marry a negro, hence the banning of inter-racial marriages. Perhaps you could point out any error I've made in coming to that understanding and specify ALL the prior restrictions you are referring to as well. I wouldn't want to end up being reported as racist to the Mods here, ditto as being reported as wrongly accusing some other poster here as being racist.

Cabaal

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

As I said before marriage was legally defined in America as a union of one man and one woman with in a couple of weeks of banning slavery.

Both you and I know what you've said is wrong.

Mixed race marriages weren't ok, why? Because some ignorant racist bigots decided black people shouldn't marry white people.

Just like some ignorant etc etc people now don't want a gay couple marrying,

PopePalpatine

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

As I said before marriage was legally defined in America as a union of one man and one woman with in a couple of weeks of banning slavery.

Do you have a source for this?

Delirium

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

As I said before marriage was legally defined in America as a union of one man and one woman with in a couple of weeks of banning slavery.

Then why were politicians attempting to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006?

Nodin

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I said before that the system Croatia uses now best fits this country too. I was right when I originally said this and I'm right now. Whatever happens after civil union is passed is a matter for the future.

Civil unions have already been passed.