Ireland Votes Yes To Same-Sex Marriage

BarbaraHudson writes: Reuters is reporting that the citizens of Ireland voted overwhelmingly to legalize same-sex marriages. While it's also legal in 19 other countries, Ireland was the first to decide this by putting the question to the citizens. "This has really touched a nerve in Ireland," Equality Minister Aodhan O'Riordain said at the main count center in Dublin. "It's a very strong message to every LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) young person in Ireland and every LGBT young person in the world." Observers say the loss of moral authority of the Catholic church after a series of sex scandals was a strong contributing factor, with priests limiting their appeals to the people sitting in their pews. In contrast, the "Yes" side dominated social media.

Comments

This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

There are exactly 0 valid reasons why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to get married, that's it, zero reasons, as in absolutely none. Any country or region which bans gay marriage or has to ask if it should be allowed it just a bunch of uncivilized hicks who need to grow up. Marriage is a union of two people who love each other and that is all it is, period. It's not a milestone when gay marriage get "approved" it's really just , "About time", and for anyone who doesn't think gay marriage should be legal, again go back to the 0 valid points. If you really think you can make one, go ahead, you'd be the first person in human history to do so.

Re: This isn't a question

[Tomahawk]

Well said.

To add to the story above, this vote was to enshrine this equality in our constitution. So no law can be changed to remove this right.

This truely is a fantastic day for Ireland, and for the world as a whole.

Re: This isn't a question

[Tomahawk]

Goats are not legal entities, don't have the capacity to understand marriage, don't have the capacity to comprehend the (do you take this person) question, don't have the ability to answer the question.
Marriage is a contract that is entered into willingly by both partners. A goat cannot willingly enter into a contract (lack of comprehension. etc), this cannot get married.

Maybe, one day, when goats evolve sufficiently... But certainly not today.

Re: This isn't a question

[Tomahawk]

Amazingly, there's no "gay agenda", except for the one that people like yourself appear to see...

Re:This isn't a question

[SgtAaron]

You seem to be a retard who can't think for himself. Every civilization in the history of mankind has condemned sodomy and never define marriage as anything but between a man and women.

Every civilization in the history of mankind? I don't know why you're calling someone else a retard.

So-called "sodomy" in many ancient societies hasn't always been seen as condemning someone to live eternity in hell. Ancient Greek and Roman societies, for example, were pretty loose in that regard.

You want to claim every people in history were a bunch of fools, be my guest. But, only other fools will believe you.

It was the same then as it is now; in any random group of humans, at least 1 in 10 are homosexual. And others were born with a gender but in their mind they *know* they are a different gender. I'm happy to be comfortable in my male skin, but small-minded people like you just can't grasp the concept.

It's always been this way and it always will. Get over it.

Re:This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

It's a private contract.

So long as the government is expected to arbitrate the terms of contracts, there is no such thing as a private contract. I can't privately contract myself into slavery, of for sex for hire, or a large number of things, for various reasons. Private contracts don't exist, until such time as the government abolishes all human rights, so they aren't expected to step in for unfair, coerced, or otherwise illegal contracts.

Also, in this case, the public contract has been around so long that many laws have been written assuming it. "Family" law assumes and is built around government-approved marriages. To change marriage would change thousands of laws, with unknown and untested consequences.

Re: This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

There is a Gay Agenda. Those Gays want to be able to walk the streets without being tied to the back of a pickup and dragged until dead, or left for dead, just because someone is offended by their manerisms. That's an agenda. I think that rather than "hide" the agenda, the gays should own it. "Yes we have an agenda, we want to e treated like humans."

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

Just like the bible, Because my book says so, verse one:

In the beginning was the sock and not God, God came about 2 minutes later.

So that is pretty hard evidence.

Re: This isn't a question

[MightyMartian]

Up until recently beating the shit out of your wife and forcing sexual intercourse on her against her will (spousal rape) was considered lawful and appropriate. Some traditional views just plain suck and we should welcome their demiwey.

This has nothing to do with Marxism, any more than throwing out laws banning miscegenation had anything to do with Marxism.

Re:This isn't a question

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The devil, however, is in the details. What responsibilities does marriage imply

Whatever responsibilities you agree on.

(as a minimum, there are tax issues in most places)

If this contract is treated specially, it should be treated as such based on specific, rational concepts, not a generic "X and Y are 'married'". So, give people tax breaks if they have kids; give them tax breaks if they give each other power of attorney; give them tax breaks if they take on legal liability for each other etc.

and what privileges does it grant (among others, there are medical issues most places - your spouse can make medical decisions on your behalf if you are incapable, for instance)?

Why shouldn't I be able to give anybody that right? Why should my spouse be the default or have any special status in that regard?

What are the limits on marriage (so, why limit it to two people, for instance)?

Once you decompose marriage contracts into its components, you get limits on each component, based on some rational analysis of the actual purpose of that component.

there are very few that consider the religious ceremony legally binding in and of itself

Whether it is legally binding is not for churches to decide, it is for the legal system to decide. But most churches do, in fact, perform legally binding marriages, since church officials are empowered by the state to do so.

Re:This isn't a question

[Smauler]

Until fairly recently in human history, marriage was largely a religious and private issue.

Until fairly recently in human history, religion was not a private issue. The secular state did not exist (with a few notable exceptions, like the Mongol empire).

Re:This isn't a question

[dryeo]

I think that a representative democracy needs parts that can't be simply fired so they have some independence from the mob.

This is how organized religion dies

[plover]

This is how organized religion dies -- to thunderous applause.

As they fade into irrelevance day after day, and people discover that they actually value the freedoms their churches have been suppressing, I expect people will abandon them at an even faster pace.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[epyT-R]

Great, so lets work towards abolishing affirmative action as the bigoted favoritism that it is.

Re:That's IT. I've had it with the politics on /.

[BarbaraHudson]

I guess you failed to notice the last sentence - the growing influence of social media allowed the YES side to publicly show that there was a lot of support, as opposed to the church just preaching to the choir.

If people don't know that others feel the same way they do, they're less likely to express their own views. Thanks to the Internet, those days are gone. Just another way that tech is affecting our society, so it IS news for nerds, stuff that matters.

Re:That's IT. I've had it with the politics on /.

[plover]

If 10% of people are gay, then this impacts 10% of nerds. I don't run Apache, but I don't bitch when they put an Apache story on the front page. Get over it.

Doesn't belong here

[Skarjak]

This is good news but has nothing to do with technology. Why is this here?