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

[Anonymous Coward]

What if one of them is underaged? Like, REALLY underaged?

Re: This isn't a question

[timmyf2371]

Ireland needed to ask the question via a referendum, as their constitution (which requires a referendum to modify) defines marriage as between a man and woman.

A unilateral edict by the Government of the day would not have been sufficient.

Re: This isn't a question

[Tomahawk]

The gay aspect doesn't come into it. The age limit for marriage is set in law (as is the whole legal definition of marriage). And there are 0 reasons not to let any gay person get married, in accordance with law.

Re: This isn't a question

[Tomahawk]

Actually, there was no mention of marriage being between a man and a woman in either our constitution or our laws. However, the vote was needed in order to protect the rights of same sex couples to marry, and prevent possible future reinterpretations or changes in law from denying them the right.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

There are exactly 0 valid reasons why people and goats shouldn't be allowed to get married, that's it, zero reasons, as in absolutely none. Any country or region which bans goat 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 living beings who love each other and that is all it is, period. It's not a milestone when goat marriage get "approved" it's really just , "About time", and for anyone who doesn't think goat 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

[MightyMartian]

Can a goat grant consent?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

IAMAC, but I work with Catholics, so I hear this stuff a lot.

The Church considers marriage not just "a union of two people who love each other that is all," but a union of such established for the purpose of procreation. That's why impotence and sterility are among the few grounds for annulment in the Church: if the "marriage act" can't be "performed" (i.e. if a child cannot be created), the union is null and void, because its purpose (procreation) cannot be fulfilled.

Likewise, a union of same-sex individuals will not produce legitimate offspring (at least not with current technology), so it cannot be a marriage.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going back to watching Eurovision.

Re:This isn't a question

[raque]

In the broadest scope I've never understood why there has to be laws concerning marriage. It's a private contract. There shouldn't be a question of can two people of the same sex get married - the question should be why we need to regulate this at all. If some regulation is found to be useful, what should it be? I'm not happy about "The State" getting that far into my business.

The lesson for the US in this is one that New York, a very Irish and Catholic City and State, learned. You do this by legislative authority, not juridical. The use of judicial fiat just creates anger and inhibits the building of consensus. It isn't something WE did, it's something THEY forced on us. Ireland agreed with itself on this. The way the US is doing it isn't about agreement, it's about power.

This is why I find myself supporting same sex marriage in NY but hoping the US Supreme Court rules against the suit. In the US this isn't a Federal Case - it is something the States have to deal with. The NSA has given me all the evidence I need to not trust to Federal Authority to solve subtle problems. I can't help but worry that the court case isn't about Justice, it's about finding a shortcut around the slogging of the Legislative process.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

I can think of one: Gay parents pushing their social agendas onto their (likely) straight adopted children are more likely to cause self esteem and relationship issues. This isn't much different than the stereotype of the belt wielding father who tries to beat the gay out of his son.

This also reminds me of those articles in the times about 'progressive' parents raising their boys as 'gender neutral', but really, they just force them to wear girls clothes and play with dolls.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

What does church has to do with marriage?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

That's discrimination and you're a closed minded person.

My goat loves me and wants to share the rest of her life with me. I don't care what anyone else says or thinks because they're just wrong. In a ritual recognized by my tribe, the chief married my goat and I. Things have been great; she keeps the lawn trim while I maintain the house and hunt for my own food. We can't have babies together; but that's ok because our tribe is very open about sexual relationships and I hooked up with one of our tribe's (former, wink wink) virgins last weekend.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Faggot detected.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

There are exactly 0 valid reasons why you can't have sex with a minor, that's it, zero reasons, as in absolutely none....

Re:This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

i would simply argue that id rather see the government out of marriage completely.

Why should 2 people get tax incentives simple because of "love"? How about we take the government out of all marriages as far as tax and property reasons are concerned so that single people have the same rights as those lucky enough to find love

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow. I finally know where I can go to get a good hard butt-fucking!

Re:This isn't a question

[CrimsonAvenger]

In the broadest scope I've never understood why there has to be laws concerning marriage. It's a private contract.

Note that there are laws concerning private contracts in most countries.

I agree that marriage is just a contract between two people (note that I disagree with the contention that "love" has anything to do with marriage - no, you don't have to be "in love" to marry, nor does a marriage end just because you stop being "in love").

The devil, however, is in the details. What responsibilities does marriage imply (as a minimum, there are tax issues in most places), 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)? What are the limits on marriage (so, why limit it to two people, for instance)? And on and on.

Note that while some religions consider marriage a sacrament, there are very few that consider the religious ceremony legally binding in and of itself. And yes, that applies to most Christian sects (I used to belong to a moderately conservative branch of Christianity whose attitude toward marriage was "that's a State issue, but we'll perform the ritual for you AFTER you get the sanction of the State (marriage license))....

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Another faggot.

Re:This isn't a question

[PopeRatzo]

The way the US is doing it isn't about agreement, it's about power.

Well, maybe. It could also be about the fact that money has made the US electoral system no longer an accurate reflection of the will of the people.

And it's not even about referendums, because referendums don't even make it to the ballot without big money getting behind them. And candidates? Forget about it. There's a money primary that happens before you even get to find out who's running.

Today I was reading an article about how statistically, the positions of Bernie Sanders most accurately reflect the opinions of the American people. His position on each issue going down the line are supported by more Americans than any other candidate from either party. You think he's got a chance to be elected? Not as long as the superPACs are allowed to finance the elections.

To be honest, I'm not sure any US election will ever again be a reflection of the will of the people. Elections are just more reality television now. No matter who gets elected from either party, most Americans are going to hate them because that candidate has nothing to do with the will of the people.

Re: This isn't a question

[Tomahawk]

But plenty of reasons why you _shouldn't_

Re:This isn't a question

[Barsteward]

electoral bribery is the reason

Re: This isn't a question

[BarbaraHudson]

So YOU'RE this guy, the one who the tribe force him to marry to a goat after being caught having sex with it! No wonder you post anonymously here!

Re:This isn't a question

[demonlapin]

In the broadest scope I've never understood why there has to be laws concerning marriage

Because it is one of the very few institutions found in all human cultures. Any legal system that doesn't deal with marriage in some fashion is profoundly deficient. I'd prefer that we separate the legal and spiritual aspects, but that's a separate argument.

The use of judicial fiat just creates anger and inhibits the building of consensus. It isn't something WE did, it's something THEY forced on us.

This, this, a thousand times this. Telling people "fuck you, that's the way it is, and no you have no choice" is why the US still has a huge anti-abortion lobby.

Re: This isn't a question

[Tomahawk]

The law effectively defines the terms of the contract. It's actually easier that way.

If you like, you can enter into a contract with your partner and leave the state out of it. But you'll run into issues with, for the sake of example, of your other half is incapacitated - the hospital solicitor/lawyer would need a copy of your contact to see what agreement is in place with regard to your next of kin rights, and your rights to make decisions about their treatment.
Having a state defined contract means that everyone already knows what rights you have, this speeding up access to treatment.

Re:This isn't a question

[BarbaraHudson]

Being raised gender neutral means they play with the toys the kid chooses, the clothes the kid chooses to wear, etc. Nobody is "forcing" anything except the fundies who back "reparative therapy", a profitable fraud that is now coming under bans in many places because forcing someone to be other than the gender they feel they are is abusive.

But don't let the truth ruin your story :-(

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

The Church considers marriage not just "a union of two people who love each other that is all," but a union of such established for the purpose of procreation. That's why impotence and sterility are among the few grounds for annulment in the Church: if the "marriage act" can't be "performed" (i.e. if a child cannot be created), the union is null and void, because its purpose (procreation) cannot be fulfilled.

Does the Church mandate an annulment in such cases? Has the Church ever allowed couples where the woman was over menopause, or the man was known to be impotent to marry?

Likewise, a union of same-sex individuals will not produce legitimate offspring (at least not with current technology), so it cannot be a marriage.

Does the Church have a position on adoption? Does the Church accept the legitimacy of children produced through sperm or egg donation? Does the Church have a position on surrogacy or implanted embryos? Does the Church allow the use of medical assistance technology to produce children?

Don't bother answering, it doesn't matter, the Catholic Church isn't the arbiter of my marriage, they have no jurisdiction, if any priests come around, they get the boot.

Re: This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

Which has nothing to do with gay marriage.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

Actually if you want to marry a goat and you can prove the goat loves you back an isn't forced, then go ahead, I'm not going to deny you that right.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

For religion to get involved in marriage you have to prove God exists, other wise I could ask that my invisible purple sock be allowed to interject rules.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Well if you studied up on marxist ideology, there are some compelling explanations. Up until recently, it was considered a mental illness.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

How about marriage being a religious institution from a religion that specifically bans being gay?
Are you going to force them to marry people against their will?

Re:This isn't a question

[BarbaraHudson]

So post a demand to hold a referendum on "We The People." It would pass, you know.

Re: This isn't a question

[Tomahawk]

Which church? Which religion?
One religion's rules have no binding any anyone not in that religion, especially other religions.
Of someone founds the Church of Homosexual Christians and decide to marry same sex couples, they are as within their right to do that as your church is to deny these unions.

Re: This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

so this state defined contract should be open to all, not just 1 man and 1 woman, or 1 woman and 1 woman, or 1 man and 1 man is all im getting it. if we want true equality that would be the right move

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the point was that the grafting of 'positive' masculine traits, like assertion and dominance, onto girls while stripping them from boys is becoming common practice among the ideologically charged these days. This is no better than religious parents abusing their gay son.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you have to love each other? What about people who do not love each other, but want to marry?

Re:This isn't a question

[Serge_Tomiko]

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.

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

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

They're about as smart as a typical paddy, then?

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that marriage is just a contract between two people

Why are you discriminating against polygamists?

Re: This isn't a question

[easyTree]

Let? This seems to be a big misunderstanding amongst humans - the idea that rights are given to us by some higher authority. Nuh-uh, existence grants our rights. The best our entitled humans may do is refrain from removing them by threat of force. Have a nice day =D

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

So does this mean I can immigrate to Ireland if it becomes too messed up in the "good ol" US of A?

Re:This isn't a question

[AdamHaun]

In the broadest scope I've never understood why there has to be laws concerning marriage. It's a private contract. There shouldn't be a question of can two people of the same sex get married - the question should be why we need to regulate this at all. If some regulation is found to be useful, what should it be? I'm not happy about "The State" getting that far into my business.

It's not the state getting into your "business", it's your business getting into the state. Marriage predates nation-states by millennia. And as a practical matter, I'm glad I didn't have to get a lawyer and sign a 500-page contract in order to get married, and I'm glad that other people don't need their own lawyer to go over such a contract in order to recognize my marriage.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

I'm trying to think of something to say that you'll comprehend, but the truth is that you're probably a religious follower and therefore unable to talk about right and wrong. Marriage has nothing to do with a man and woman, it has to do with two people in love, that's it. Now grow up.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

So go fight your own fight. This is about same sex marriage, not animal-human sexual relations. Take a seat, over there.

Re:This isn't a question

[Hognoxious]

I'm too tired & drunk to point out in a witty and sarcastic way how stupid your argument is, but I'm sober enough to know that it is stupid. Don't touch that dial.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is nothing wrong with being gay, why don't they encourage straight people to have gay sex?

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Every civilization in the history of mankind has condemned sodomy

Tell that to the ancient Greeks. Next time learn a bit of history before making blanket statements.

Re:This isn't a question

[easyTree]

Haven't you heard, in history the church had power of veto over everything. Want to do something? Ask the church.

These days that role has been eclipsed by governments and their corporate sponsors.

Re:This isn't a question

[sumdumass]

Years and years ago, marriage was generally a church matter. Some societies had laws or rules dedicated to strengthening the society like procreation edicts and such. The more citizens you have, the more chance of surviving raids and such. Then some European king made it a state matter in a scuffle over power with the church. This is where the "if anyone knows of a reason they shouldn't be married line came from", if either spouse was in violation of church laws or the laws of the kingdom, the church wouldn't allow the marriage and the kingdom would sometimes allow or disallow it (but you needed to get special permission) . You had a lot of people who were then just living together. This had problems with inheritance and such which lead into the entire women not owning anything and such. Eventually a perk of government involvement was tying inheritance to marriage which encouraged it even where the church didn't support it. This eventually gave way to women having rights to own land and so on. Common law systems ended up interpreting people living together for long enough times as being married for practical purposes and eased some of this.

Now, where people expect things from the government, their employer, and many other groups of people, proving you are part of a family unit is important as benefits and privileges are bestowed or limited to people based on familiar connections. This origination of government involvement became entrenched and just transferred into most systems out of historicity and ease of implementation. The only way to be added to a family is to either marry into it or be adopted. To establish proof of this, legal documentation is sometimes required. Otherwise, you and I could collaborate that the old rich widow was your wife in common law (or you were her adopted brother) so you inherit all her belongings and will split it with me upon the agree terms after she died with no known heirs.

The reason government is still involved is because people expect things from other people and from government. The government also expects things from people and the degree of expectations is all based on family connections (levels of taxation and so on). Gays want to be married because they want this same benefits that others have when they are essentially common law married. Some of it might be in it just to force others to look at them the same as anyone else, but I find that most people who do not try to appear different already do get looked at the same as everyone else.

that's a short and definitely not comprehensive reason why government is involved. It boils down to tying benefits, legal rights, and inheritance to family relations.

Re:This isn't a question

[goose-incarnated]

Marriage is a union of two people who love each other and that is all it is,

Why the arbitrary limit?

Re:This isn't a question

[easyTree]

Please post a PDF link to your sock's Big Book of Rules and we'll get to work with building some churches.

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

[Murdoch5]

Two or more, I stand corrected :-)

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

1) Don't rape children - like God said to, he's a dinky
2) Don't abuse others - like God said to, he's still a drinky
3) Use common sense and don't believe without evidence - Unlike God said.

Re:This isn't a question

[AmiMoJo]

Marriage is a standard contract that society has an interest in defining. Rather than each couple writing their own, society has set a standard that includes inheritance rights and so forth, and is supposed to be the ideal. For that reason it carries a certain weight and attraction for people.

Of you don't want to use it, there should be systems in place to facilitate that. Of course if you do want it, you should have access to it regardless of sexual orientation.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like you're quoting something from your church. The reality is: nobody really cares about religion anymore. Its a 2,000 year old dying fairy tale that a few people have already escaped from. If you want to believe some certain subset of humans are bad for whatever wacky reasons, that's up to you. If you want to ban them from performing some crazy ritual within your organization, I say go for it. But realize - that nobody really gives a shit.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

> gender they feel
Too late.
You've already bought into the gay agenda without knowing it.

Re:This isn't a question

[tompaulco]

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.

Oh, OK, well end of thread then.

Oh wait, what about all of the billions of people in the world who think the exact same thing as you except they use "should" instead of "shouldn't".

Re:This isn't a question

[ledow]

First reaction to your post: Ahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha!

Second reaction:

"never define marriage as anything but between a man and women."... or a man and several women. Or a man, several women and a "boy". Whose purpose was... buggery, basically. You really need to pick up a history book sometime.

And even if "every" civilisation in history had condemned this - THEY ARE FUCKING HISTORICAL CIVILISATIONS. Until a couple of hundred years ago (yes), people were still shitting in the corner of the room in some countries, and shirt-tails were to wipe your arse on.

Welcome to modern civilisation. Where we look at shit and don't necessarily just do it "because my ancestors did". It's not perfect either, but hopefully our kids will look at our own cock-ups and say "Fuck doing that, just because my predecessors did, it's obviously fucking moronic."

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

[Murdoch5]

Those people believe gay marriage is wrong based on religious reasons. There imaginary God's shouldn't be allowed to make laws which effect those of us who grew up and no long fear reality.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they will get a special holllywood marriage. Since it will be a hollywood marriage, they will have to pay me a huge licensing fee. Then, I retire. And laugh at you.

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

[ledow]

Marriage pre-dates religion.

And we'll force them to comply with the law. If they want to "marry" people (I know churches in the UK generally DO NOT, that's for the marriage registrar, not the church), they have to comply with the law.

In the same way that just because a religion believes it can stone adulterous women still can't do that if the law says it's not allowed.

However, as noted above, churches do NOT marry people. They perform a religious ceremony that some people call a wedding. That's very different to an actual "marriage".

Hint: Most people who disagree with religion or who do not want some religious arse telling them whether or not they can marry, they won't be going to that church or wanting that dickhead to ruin their day anyway.

However, that said, recently an Irish company was sued for failing to produce a cake promoting gay marriage. They lost. The argument was that they were a business and a business can't be religious or discriminatory - even if the owners are. That's the shape of the future for you.

Hey, did you know that Mother's Day was supposed to be to celebrate your Mother Church and nothing to do with your biological mother? Things change. And slowly religion stops being relevant.

Re:This isn't a question

[PopeRatzo]

The lesson for the US in this is one that New York, a very Irish and Catholic City and State, learned. You do this by legislative authority, not juridical. The use of judicial fiat just creates anger and inhibits the building of consensus. It isn't something WE did, it's something THEY forced on us.

As you say, New York did actually pass same sex marriage legislatively.

As did Illinois, Hawaii, Vermont, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Delaware. Maine, Maryland and Washington approved it by electoral referendum.

There might be a good reason for the Supreme Court to make this uniform over the entire US instead of doing it by election referendum. You really don't want to have people voting on who gets Constitutional rights and who doesn't, and you don't want someone having rights under the US constitution in one state but not in another. We tried that once and it led to all sorts of trouble.

Re:This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

It'll never happen. How does the ICU at the hospital keep mere acquaintances out of sensitive areas, while balancing the "right" of family to visit. If the government wasn't in marriage in any way, you could marry everyone in your town, so anyone you know would have the right to visit you in the ER, and any of the thousands of other rights and powers coded in law or policy to married people. It's not just taxes.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Years and years ago, marriage was generally a church matter.

Years and years before that, marriages had nothing to do with the churches of today, and maybe nothing to do with any church at all.

And there were several different branches of it, and even some cultures had different forms of marriage. Have you heard of conventio in manum versus sine manu?

Did you know that the Council of Trent was only in 1563 AD?

Re: This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

Because the power of the contract is so large, it is restricted, both entering and dissolving. The restrictions have usually been bigoted. Enforcing social norms through law. Banning blacks from marrying whites, gays, peasants, and other groups have been targeted as well.

Re: This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

all the more reason to remove all restrictions and let it be what it is, a contract. one that can be entered by anyone, for any reason (in the eyes of the government) there is no reason to double down when the simple solution is to remove the barriers for everyone

Re:This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

ok.... so whats the issue here? why SHOULDNT the entire town be allowed to visit you in the hospital if you are sick and they want to? why should they have to be "married" to do that? why cant I, the sick person in the hospital simply grant those rights to ANYONE???

you are making a bigger problem out of it, for what reason I dont know

Re:This isn't a question

[dwywit]

Milestone might be the wrong word, but this result stands out. The citizens stood up to the catholic church, and reminded the clergy about the principle of separation of church and state.

The church's arrogance has come back to bite it, as people now see through the hypocrisy.

Well done, my (distant) Irish relatives.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

I'm also Irish and I'm extremely happy they stood up.

Re:This isn't a question

[fustakrakich]

Naa-a-a-a-a-hh!

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

The Demicans/Republicrats never want the abortion issue to be settled definitively. Ever. It is far too convenient a distraction to ever give it up willingly. Roe v. Wade has successfully distracted the American public for 4 decades and counting. Every election year rabbelrousers raise millions and scream their heads off, and nothing major really happens. But it gets the politicians elected/re-elected without having to answer any uncomfortable questions about, say, corruption or incompetence.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Being raised gender neutral means they play with the toys the kid chooses, the clothes the kid chooses to wear, etc.

I recall reading about this experiment. Kids were left free to play with any toys they wanted... and, surprise, they still chose the traditional ones. Boys went for cars and tools, girls went for dolls and plush animals. Wow, it's almost like our nature is determined by millions of years of evolution!

Re:This isn't a question

[Ol Olsoc]

Can a goat grant consent?

No, it can't. I have no idea why gay bashers keep bringing bestiality up.

Oh wait, yes I do. They are projecting their wishes to fuck a goat. That's sick.

Fundies spend a lot more time thinking about gay sex than gay people do.

Re:This isn't a question

[easyTree]

How do I know these came from the sock ?

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

There are exactly 0 valid reasons this story should be on Slashdot...

Re:This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

And every society has also made meat a topic of control.

The primitives did so because they knew that eating pork made you sick. They didn't know what food poisoning was, so they asserted that the meats or animals were mystical.

Sodomy with an infected person is a transmission risk for almost all diseases.

There's nothing "moral" in the reasons. Other than the governments asserted so when declaring it.

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

There are many good pieces of advice in the many historical and religious books handed down. They stumbled on many things. The Bible says pi is 3, which isn't a bad estimation for someone building a well by hand 3000 years ago. But that doesn't mean that there is a math proof in the Book, or that the Book is wrong because those who wrote it down didn't understand the meaning. Someone noticed the pattern, and put it in the Book. Like the rules on crops, fabrics, and cleanliness.

They weren't fools. They were just ignorant. Now that we have germ theory, we can understand what they were seeing, and how it would look to those without a germ theory, who attributed everything unknown to God. But that doesn't mean they did what they did for intelligent and fully-informed reasons.

Re:This isn't a question

[sumdumass]

Sure I know about the roman marriage laws. I even know about Nero claiming to marry a male ex slave and a boy he castrated and roman law forbidding it at the time. But that is all sort of irrelevant as to why government is still involved in marriage. Even in Rome, the church controlled what could and couldn't count as marriage starting around the 4th century when Rome converted to Christianity. But I didn't want to write a complete history of marriage, just a short summery to why government is involved today.

Also, the church or churches was involved in marriage long before the Council of Trent. The reformation set certain things into cannon but didn't start it. Maybe I shouldn't have used the term Church and instead said a religious matter. In English law which is important here because of the connections to Ireland and the US, the laws of old Rome are somewhat removed. The Marriage Duty Acts on the late 1600s (1694 and 95) is likely where the start of government interference in Ireland and the US in modern day marriage started.

Re:This isn't a question

[Known Nutter]

Thousands of people parading through an ICU is a problem. That should be obvious. One cannot have every swinging dick running through an ICU -- unless you want those patients to contract infections and die.

Take the health concerns away... I agree.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

But marriage does grant additional rights that fall outside the scope of natural rights, as you appear to be defining them...

Re:This isn't a question

[quantaman]

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.

I happened to be in Ireland the day before the vote and asked several of the No campaigners why they thought gay marriage should be banned. They ranged from adoption scenarios that already existed, a weird insistence that equality meant two things were IDENTICAL making gay marriage a contradiction, and the innovative approach of comparing gay marriage to global warming (because even though no one has had any problems so far that doesn't mean things won't go bad in the future for unknown reasons).

In short every argument was absolutely terrible and I had an absolute blast listening to them.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

what about all of the billions of people in the world who think the exact same thing as you except they use "should" instead of "shouldn't".

They're retarded and should be executed before they reproduce.

Re: This isn't a question

[easyTree]

If some group started offering free car washes to those with blue cars, does this give them the right to dictate who may own a blue car?

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

How about marriage being a religious institution from a religion that specifically bans being gay?

quizzicaldog.jpg

But I don't go to your church. My religion doesn't ban being gay.

When I did go to a church, our pastor taught that it didn't matter who you slept with, although there was a preference for monogamous relationships, ideally involving waiting for marriage, but it didn't matter whose genitals you wanted to rub against. It was taught that adultery was rubbing your genitals against more than one person per relationship, and that to do so was a forgivable moral failing.

Are you going to force them to marry people against their will?

Of course not. I respect your church enough to not impose my beliefs on it, and as long as you're Christian enough to return the favor, we can even visit each other's churches and be friends even though we might disagree on minor doctrinal points held up by fallible people behind pulpits. Maybe your priest and my pastor are both wrong and we should just concentrate on what Jesus actually did, namely concentrate real hard on trying not to be dicks to each other.

Re:This isn't a question

[vidnet]

If you really think you can make one, go ahead,

The stated challenge is to make a reasonable argument against gay marriage, not against marriage inequality, so any arguments in favor of abolishing all marriage as a legal concept (gay, straight and others alike) would technically qualify.

I agree in spirit, but it wouldn't be slashdot without several pedantic, belaboured "well, actually" comments.

Re:This isn't a question

[easyTree]

OK. That sounds reasonable. Not at all circular =D

Where do I sign up and how much tithe do I pay?

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the marriage benefits are intended to help with child rearing. I don't think anyone begrudges them equal access, but the question of why we're extending benefits for no reason should be asked.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Consent (persons under 18 cannot legally consent in many jurisdictions)? Possible emotional damage to said minor (lack of emotional maturity)?

Re:This isn't a question

[MightyMartian]

Historically what constituted a marriage varied from place to place, and even in Medieval times there was no mandate in England requiring a church ceremony. In most jurisdictions in Europe where canon law governed marriage, all that was in fact required was for a couple to declare that they were married, and so long as they lived in that fashion, no ceremony was required at all. Marriage in ancient tienes, save where it involves the aristocracy, where marriage had political implications, wasn't that formalizeds an affair.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

His point is he supports gay marriage, and any logical arguments that contradict his personal beliefs are simply null and void.

Re:This isn't a question

[Ol Olsoc]

In the broadest scope I've never understood why there has to be laws concerning marriage. It's a private contract.

It is what undid the gayhate movement. Instead of using the ever dubious moral aspect, the fight was lost over the equal protections under the law aspect. For same sex couples to be denied the rights and obligations of heterosexuals in marriage was found to be unconstitutional.

And the seal was that marriage is quite codified in the legal system. As such it is a civil, not a religious matter. Churches perform weddings, they do not perform marriages. The marriage part of the wedding is not definable by religion, as that would mean that any marriage performed outside of a church would be considered invalid (as the catholic church does - without legal standing,

tl; dr version. Fundamentalist Christians did not invent marriage, so they cannot define it.

Re:This isn't a question

[I'm New Around Here]

Marriage pre-dates religion.

Proof?

Or do you define religion as "the Catholic Church"?

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

[drinkypoo]

OK nutter, but reduce the argument to a reasonable one — you should be able to designate someone to come see you in the hospital whether you're married or related or not — and we return to there being absolutely no valid reason to not permit you to define the small pool of people who are permitted to see you if you are in the hospital. Speaking for myself, I vehemently do not want my mother permitted into my hospital room for any reason.

Re:This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

the health concerns are gone. as it is its not "wife" or "husband" its "family" when I was in the hospital i had no less than 30 people come visit me over a few days, friends, family etc. Yes I wasnt ICU but still.

This is one of those things that when you break it down you understand the government should not be involved in whether or not someone can visit you in the hospital. Thats some serious micro management.

Let the hospitals set the rules based on the risks involved in letting visitors in to see a sick patient.

Re:This isn't a question

[drinkypoo]

I recall reading about this experiment. Kids were left free to play with any toys they wanted... and, surprise, they still chose the traditional ones.

The majority of them do, yes. That's fine for them to do. Some of them don't. It's not fine for the majority to force them to do so. It's not fine for the parents to force them to do so. They may be ignorant and out of control tiny little humans, but many adult humans are also ignorant and out of control and we still let them dress how they want and in most states and countries, even fuck who they want given consensuality.

Re: This isn't a question

[MightyMartian]

Actually in many jurisdictions thee lack of marital status means even attempting to duplicate the full powers of a spouse in regards to incapacity can be all but impossible to replicate. Even powers of attorney and living wills don't quite deliver you the power in the event of your spouse's incapacity that a marriage license does.

Re:This isn't a question

[Ol Olsoc]

Note that while some religions consider marriage a sacrament, there are very few that consider the religious ceremony legally binding in and of itself. .

And no doubt. I was excommunicated by the holy chuch of "Let's fuck Little Boys" because my fiance' wouldn't sign a freaking document declaring we would raise out children Catholic. (she was Lutheran)

Thank goodness I was forcibly excommunicated. To be voluntarily associated with that bunch of pedophiles wold be shameful to me.

Re:This isn't a question

[Ol Olsoc]

Have you heard of conventio in manum versus sine manu?

Oh yeah - that stuff's great with a little Thousand Island dressing.

Re:This isn't a question

[MightyMartian]

In most common law jurisdictions, a religious ceremony has no legal standing at all. The magic in a marriage ceremony isn't "by the power invested in me by God", it is " by the power invested in me by the State of Massachusetts."

Churches' attachments to marriage is historic and I doubt there is anywhere in English speaking North America where a religious ceremony was ever required.

Re:This isn't a question

[sumdumass]

Church was probably a wrong word to use. Religions traditionally did the marriages. When I said church, I didn't mean the catholic church or church of England or just Christianity, I mean it was generally a religious institution if it was officially recognized at all. In England, which US and Irish law derives from, the government started getting involved when it started requiring licenses in the late 1600s with the marriage duty acts. It started setting conditions of who can and cannot be married too.

Re: This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

all the more reason to simply fix that problem with the law, rather then bringing in a new protected class

Re:This isn't a question

[MightyMartian]

Sodomy with an infected person is a transmission risk for almost all diseases.

As does vaginal intercoursw. And, of course, many heterosexual coup!es have anal intercourse as well.

Re:This isn't a question

[I'm New Around Here]

How about something I will comprehend? You haven't managed to do that in your response.

I am not religious. I am not atheist. I am not agnostic. I don't care if God exists, or Zeus, or Vishnu, or Atius Tirawa, or any other deity.

So, for this non-religious person's sake, explain how religious people can't talk about "right and wrong". How do non-religious people define "right and wrong"? Is something "right" because the law says it is OK? Are all illegal activities "wrong"? I mention the law because if you don't use a church's definition of "right and wrong" do you use the government's definition instead?

As for marriage having nothing to do with a man and a woman, only with two people in love, how do you explain the marriages of royalty that ended wars between European countries not so long ago? Those marriages weren't valid in your eyes because they weren't for love?

Re: This isn't a question

[MightyMartian]

Extrensing marital rights to gay couples is no more creating a new class than overthrowing anti miscegenation laws created a new class. From my point of view, allowingf same sex marriage in fact creates fewer classes.

Re:This isn't a question

[Ol Olsoc]

i would simply argue that id rather see the government out of marriage completely. Why should 2 people get tax incentives simple because of "love"? How about we take the government out of all marriages as far as tax and property reasons are concerned so that single people have the same rights as those lucky enough to find love

Because of insurance for families, because of inheritance aspects, becvause of divorce, Next of kin, legal documents Lot's of legal reasons.

Re:This isn't a question

[Ol Olsoc]

How about marriage being a religious institution from a religion that specifically bans being gay? Are you going to force them to marry people against their will?

They don't have to marry anyone they don't want to.

Re: This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

how so?

only men and women - protected class

only single gay man and single gay man - protected class

only gay woman, and gay woman, - protected class

You are telling me that when you add 2 new classes to the equation that is it somehow fewer???

Re:This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

so the government can enforce a contract between consenting adults. why cap it with only 2? why not treat it more as an incorporation in the eyes of the law???

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

No they weren't valid marriages, they were completely staged, that's been well accepted by history.

As for right and wrong, a right action is any action regarded by society to be good or do good given the evidence and a wrong action is anything that is regarded by society to be bad or do bad given the evidence.

Re:This isn't a question

[donkwich]

Would you have objected to the Loving v. Virginia case as well?

Re: This isn't a question

[MightyMartian]

One class: consenting adults

Re: This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

Then you could marry a new person every day, and divorce them every night, right?

Re:This isn't a question

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

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.

"Allow"? Why the hell is it government's business to "allow" people to marry in the first place? Government and law should get out of people's private lives, and that includes getting out of deciding which relationships are worthy of tax breaks and immigration visas and which ones aren't. Unfortunately, while the Irish decision certainly represents progress, it doesn't address the underlying problem.

Re:This isn't a question

[I'm New Around Here]

Marriage was invented by the religious leaders, of all ancient civilizations, as a way to control their people. I say do away with all marriage as a horrible offense against humanity.

By the way, my wife doesn't (necessarily) agree with me.

Re: This isn't a question

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

But marriage does grant additional rights that fall outside the scope of natural rights, as you appear to be defining them...

Yes, and those "additional rights" should probably be abolished. I mean, what possible justification is there to extend special rights to you because you are in a sexual relationship with someone else?.Even if those "additional rights" aren't abolished, they shouldn't be tied to government scrutiny of the sexual and parenting relationships of citizens. The fact that that scrutiny is less discriminatory and arbitrary than it used to be still doesn't make it right.

Re:This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

When you are too unconscious to name the person who is authorized, and they are out (at the movies, working, whatever), and it's bad practice to keep all possible papers on you at all times, they would be unable to prove it when they got there.

So a person with a matching last name is presumed family.

I've seen no plan that is remotely practical that would allow pre-identification of those allowed, and even when someone does set the rules, they are unenforceable. Your mother has the right to be in your room if you aren't conscious and ordering her out. Even with an iron-clad living will, family has the right to be involved, just like valid wills are challenged all the time by family and others.

Re: This isn't a question

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

No need to found anything. There are plenty of Christian churches that perform gay marriages. People who say that this is against Christianity also implicitly deny that many Christian churches are actually Christian. But, hey, it's the Vatican way: only we hold the truth and people who don't submit to us will go to hell.

Re:This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

In the neo-natal unit, the rules were immediate family only, or others with written permission of the duty nurse, and even then, only breastfeeding mothers are allowed outside hospital visiting hours. In the geriatric unit, the rule was "anyone any time", even relaxing the official hospital visiting hours.

The hospitals set rules, but the rules aren't consistent across departments or duty nurses, and that will open them up to lawsuits, unless they have a simple written policy.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

The existence of a valid reason partly depends on whether or not there really is a supreme being who influences our fate and happens to object to gay marriage. It could also depend on whether or not society benefits from the existence of religions which oppose gay marriage, regardless of their accuracy, because increased social tolerance of behaviors which contradict a given religion's teachings may impact that religion's future pervasiveness.

In other words, there are unknowns.

Re:This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

Yes. And that has nothing to do with the topic. But thanks for sharing. It's raining here right now. No, that's not relevant to the discussion, but neither were your comments.

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

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Because it is one of the very few institutions found in all human cultures. Any legal system that doesn't deal with marriage in some fashion is profoundly deficient.

That's just not true. Until fairly recently in human history, marriage was largely a religious and private issue.

Re:This isn't a question

[raque]

This, this, a thousand times this. Telling people "fuck you, that's the way it is, and no you have no choice" is why the US still has a huge anti-abortion lobby.

I've always been of the impression that democracy was about who got to decide, not if the decision was right.

Re:This isn't a question

[Ol Olsoc]

so the government can enforce a contract between consenting adults. why cap it with only 2? why not treat it more as an incorporation in the eyes of the law???

Because not everyone is a Republican.

Re: This isn't a question

[C0R1D4N]

No, but you might be able to emigrate.

Re: This isn't a question

[C0R1D4N]

As an investment in our society to promote family units for the betterment of our future.

Re:This isn't a question

[Uberbah]

Well, the marriage benefits are intended to help with child rearing.

You know gay people can have biological kids as well as adopt, right? This was always a red herring from homophobes anyway, as you never had the same Concerns over post-menopausal women or elderly couples marrying.

question of why we're extending benefits for no reason should be asked.

You should be asked if you've ever heard of the word "inheritance". How about the right to make medical choices for your partner in the event of his or her incapacitation.

Re:This isn't a question

[jp_831]

It's good that society gets to define what is right and what is wrong.

Enjoy your gas chamber.

Re:This isn't a question

[C0R1D4N]

Regardless, there are churches today who perform gay marriages and their freedom to practice that faith should not be denied by the government.

Re: This isn't a question

[Intrepid imaginaut]

This is mostly a big deal for retarded foreigners who imagined Ireland to be a heavily conservative place to begin with. You know nothing about this country, nothing about the people, and pretty much nothing about this amendment to the constitution. The choir: you were preaching to it.

Re:This isn't a question

[drinkypoo]

I've seen no plan that is remotely practical that would allow pre-identification of those allowed,

If you can carry a DNR in your pocket and it's considered practicable, then you can carry a list of persons permitted to contact you in a medical emergency on the same basis.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

Assuming that's a reference to Hitler, the world decided that was wrong and fought him, so your point is void.

Re:This isn't a question

[C0R1D4N]

That isn't something gay parents specifically do though. I am a gay man, I have a pretty masculine job (zookeeper) and when I go through the surrogacy process to have kids (hopefully soon) I hope they grow up to like toy guns, action figures, dirt bikes, etc (assuming I have boys)

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing wrong with being who you are. (Unless who you are is "a jerk.") So you have sex with who YOU want, not who some jerk says you should.

Yeah, yeah. Except kids and animals. Plants are fine, though. Knock yourself out.

Re: This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

if the contract is written up in such a way, yes why not? it happens now (divorce)

Re: This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

why only 2 consenting adults though???

Re:This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

so... the simple answer is to change the law to enforce the living will above all, even the "marriage contract"

problem solved

Re:This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

so if the hospitals already set the rules.... how about we just keep it that way and let them set the rules for their business???

Re:This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

correct. Im not. but i dont see what that has anything to do with anything

Re: This isn't a question

[GrantRobertson]

I believe in The Flying Spaghetti Monster because s/he appeared to me in a pile of my dirty clothes. I could post the picture. It's really cool.

Re:This isn't a question

[CaptainDork]

This.

I have debated same-sex marriage for years and my opponent ALWAYS always, when backed into a logical corner, appeals to a religious document.

Always.

Then I nail them because religious documents do not lend themselves to logic.

Re: This isn't a question

[jp_831]

Being against so-called "spousal rape" was but one in a long line of attacks on Christian marriage (being that consent is given once and forever), and therefore, Western Civilization as a whole. If you support action against "spousal rape", then you support divorce on a woman's whim, and if you support divorce on a woman's whim, then you support her ruining the lives of her husband and children on nothing more than her whim.

And you don't need to "beat the shit out of your wife" for it to be considered "spousal rape". Go look at what happened to Henry Rayhons.

Re:This isn't a question

[Uberbah]

Why the arbitrary limit?

Lots of reasons. Because polygamy generally involves powerful men taking lots of wives, and sometimes forcing young men out of the community so they have their pick of women. And no, it's not going to even out of a few Marisa Mayers take on a few "brother husbands."

Because it creates an inherent power imbalance in the relationship - if you call your wife Sue a fat bitch she can stop speaking to you until you've done a few weeks of groveling. But if you're a polygamist, you can tell Sue that if she doesn't get over it, you'll just be fucking your second wife, Molly.

Because it takes issues that are otherwise straightforward and turns them into a mess if there is no will. If you get in a car accident and end up in a coma, your wife can make medical decisions for you. If you die, she inherits everything and has custody of the kids. But if you're a polygamist who adopted, who gets the kids...Sue or Molly? Who gets the house? Which one makes the call to keep you on a feeding tube while you're in the coma?

Re:This isn't a question

[BarbaraHudson]

Except that's not what "raising a child gender-neutral" is.

Re: This isn't a question

[MightyMartian]

Why indeed. I have no issue with multiple spouses, though I wouldn't want to be part of such a group.

But one step at a time.

Re:This isn't a question

[BarbaraHudson]

> gender they feel Too late. You've already bought into the gay agenda without knowing it.

If you were logged in and could see my sig you'd know how funny/inappropriate what your saying is.

Re: This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

:-) I belong to the FSM also

Re:This isn't a question

[BarbaraHudson]

When there's an outbreak of c. difficile or any other highly infectious disease, it's one visitor at a time, wash hands, cap, gown, gloves, do not bring anything else in the room. This isn't to protect the visitor, but rather to prevent the patient from picking up another infection when they're already compromised.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

Exactly, because religion is the opposite of logic and reason.

Re:This isn't a question

[ClickOnThis]

I have no idea why gay bashers keep bringing bestiality up.

Oh wait, yes I do. They are projecting their wishes to fuck a goat.

No, they're just making a non sequitur argument that expresses their distaste for gay sex.

I'm tempted to say that gay-bashers can go fuck a goat. But I think that would violate animal-cruelty laws.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Fucking fags

Re:This isn't a question

[penguinoid]

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.

Zero, except for the few.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Once u suck cock. You're a cocksucker for life.

Re:This isn't a question

[jp_831]

So all that's necessary for some people to be disposed of is that enough people agree to dispose of them?

Re: This isn't a question

[MightyMartian]

Civilization will survive husbands not being able to rape their wives. And yes I support a spouse's right to leave a marriage. Women are not chattel, which was the underlying argument for spousal assault.

Re:This isn't a question

[Livius]

It really isn't that simple. If marriage is about having children, then there is a good argument that it makes a difference whether the parties are same-sex or not.

Free speech means people can make that argument.

In many places, however, marriage law is completely separate from child custody and support law, so the argument actually isn't very good.

Re: This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

the thing is though MY solution would cover everyone now, and offend no one. it literally is a win win for all. instead of chipping away at it one step at a time, lets make it crumble, and make it equal for all

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

Name any of them.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

Marriage has nothing to do with having children, marriage is about two people who love each other becoming a union.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm convinced. Praise to the sock. Thy purpleness knows no bounds.

Re:This isn't a question

[Stan92057]

Its all about money. It all about insurance, love has nothing to do with it. But put the tag of marriage on it then, then it becomes a tax loophole, a tax deduction, or the ability to add the same sex non family member to your insurance. this whole thing has nothing to do with love its all about the all mighty $$$$ and what tax break they can get from it.

Re: This isn't a question

[jp_831]

Western civilization was built and maintained because men had incentives to invest in posterity, having had children, and knowing those children were theirs. Hence, they had to control the sexuality of women.

Re: This isn't a question

[MightyMartian]

Well, now women have full civil liberties, and that is that.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree this is great, but it's just a start. Polygamous unions are still illegal in most if not all western societies. That's not right either. I'd sure like to see the LGBT community stand up for those people's rights too.

Re:This isn't a question

[mapkinase]

Are you as enthusiastic about polygamy?

Re: This isn't a question

[JonBot212]

+1

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

If you want to marry 20 people and you all consent go for it.

Re: This isn't a question

[jp_831]

We'll see what civil liberties both women AND men enjoy once Western civilization is gone.

Re: This isn't a question

[MightyMartian]

You seriously think that an entire civilization was built on sexual slavery, and the emancipation of it women will bring it down?

Boy this place sure does attract the dark underbelly.

Re:This isn't a question

[mapkinase]

That was not the question I asked. Are you _as_ enthusiastic?

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

No. You emigrate FROM the USA. Immigrate to Ireland is correct.

Idiot.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

I'm not enthusiastic or non enthusiastic about it, it doesn't bother me, it shouldn't be stopped and it shouldn't be shunned.

Re:This isn't a question

[BlueCoder]

Actually there is an unfair practical reason. Marriage in most countries allows transferring property/money without taxation. What would a heterosexual man do to save a few million in taxes? There are already people that get married for immigration purposes.

I'm sure this already happens in a man-woman, woman-man marriage with divorce judges paid off but it takes longer and is a bit riskier, enough so that it isn't rampant.

Marriage is a legal institution not a religious, mortal, or romantic one.

In the United States you have some tax deductions and you can share job related benefits. Should it become legal here how long before it just becomes practical for best friends to "marry" just for financial convenience.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure I know about the roman marriage laws.

So when did they first exist?

But that is all sort of irrelevant as to why government is still involved in marriage.

The bit about Nero is, sure, but the history of marriage? No, it is entirely relevant to present it accurately.

But I didn't want to write a complete history of marriage, just a short summery to why government is involved today.

But your summary was based on flawed premises. You should have tried harder to be more accurate.

Also, the church or churches was involved in marriage long before the Council of Trent.

And so were various other entities.

The reformation set certain things into cannon but didn't start it.

But it did try to change things to suit its needs. Why does the Church get to dictate what it wants?

Maybe I shouldn't have used the term Church and instead said a religious matter.

Almost, but not quite, no. It'd still be wrong in many cases. You should have refrained from your summary at all.

In English law which is important here because of the connections to Ireland and the US, the laws of old Rome are somewhat removed.

You didn't limit your comments specifically to Ireland, the UK or the US, you should have started with that caveat, but no, you'd still be wrong in your summary if you didn't note how the Church attempted to subsume existing marriage practices.

Æthelraed for example, had laws in 1000 or so.

The Marriage Duty Acts on the late 1600s (1694 and 95) is likely where the start of government interference in Ireland and the US in modern day marriage started.

You mean right after Ireland was forcibly conquered by English forces?

As role models go, I'd pass on that.

Re: This isn't a question

[Wain13001]

only because cock is AMAZING!!

Re:This isn't a question

[Ol Olsoc]

No, they're just making a non sequitur argument that expresses their distaste for gay sex.

And yet here is why I tend to suspect projection:

http://www.ranker.com/list/top...

I also had a few friends in high school who were pretty brutal to gay guys. Now? Both openly gay, and one is a transgender. You can call my experince anecdotal, but it's a smoke/fire situation as far as I'm concerned.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they should stop killing transgenders when they out them, if they want equality.

Re:This isn't a question

[hambone142]

You have a point there.

I have straight and gay friends. I can't decide why people want to get married anymore. It just gives our blessed "government" more control over one's life when the marriage fails (and it fails a lot). The government reduces the failed relationship to an issue of money. That wasn't the original intent of marriage from the multiple religious perspectives.

I was married once and got raped in a divorce. I am now happily with my partner with no legal joining. We are together because we simply wish to be together (6 years so far). I have other friends that have been in similar relationships for over 20 years.

A marriage can be ended with a walk to a courthouse (and paying attorneys, in some cases, tens of thousands).

If these folks want marriages, well fine. Along with that comes divorces and all of the crap that goes with it.

Re:This isn't a question

[demonlapin]

Thus the parable of Solomon, the baby, and the two claimant mothers. Family law is among the oldest parts of the law.

Re:This isn't a question

[demonlapin]

I'm not a fan of democracy in general, but assuming you accept it as legitimate - on what planet is a decision by seven unelected judges "democracy"?

Re: This isn't a question

[hambone142]

I disagree.

My former employer (the second largest computer company) only granted domestic partner medical insurance to *same sex* couples. Opposite sex medical insurance wasn't permitted.

They bowed to a politically-organized group that was able to get privileges beyond equality.

At the same time, they advertised that they didn't discriminate on the basis of gender or gender identity.

Re:This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

exactly. being married has nothing to do with the argument the other poster is trying to make

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Its all about money. It all about insurance, love has nothing to do with it. But put the tag of marriage on it then, then it becomes a tax loophole, a tax deduction, or the ability to add the same sex non family member to your insurance. this whole thing has nothing to do with love its all about the all mighty $$$$ and what tax break they can get from it.

There's a lot of legal protection in it too, and that's needed when people live in a co-dependant state, raise children together, share debt, etc.

Re:This isn't a question

[sumdumass]

So when did they first exist?

It's irrelevant to any point I made. Most of the rest of your comment is irrelevant too.

But your summary was based on flawed premises. You should have tried harder to be more accurate.

There is no flawed premise. Ireland gets it's laws from English law not roman laws. Nothing it flawed, as I already said, what I gave was not a comprehensive history of marriage. It's even in the first post. You gain nothing by trying to inject what I left out as I left it out on purpose. BTW, what is it you think you are going to gain by arguing what was never said?

But it did try to change things to suit its needs. Why does the Church get to dictate what it wants?

Because at one point in time, the church had the power to do so. It's fucking history, you can find books about it. I suggest you pick on up.

You didn't limit your comments specifically to Ireland, the UK or the US, you should have started with that caveat, but no, you'd still be wrong in your summary if you didn't note how the Church attempted to subsume existing marriage practices.

You do not need to limit anything as long as it is within the context of the article and GP post. FFS are you that daft that you cannot take that into consideration?

You mean right after Ireland was forcibly conquered by English forces?

Yep, and that would make it the history that is important because it actually happened and is what is influencing modern day Ireland. Wow, for a minute there I though you were a complete imbecile but evidently, you do get it. You just don't want anyone to know it.

As role models go, I'd pass on that.

I'm not sure anyone asked you to make it a role model. If you think I did, I'm sorry your English is so screwed that you got that impression. The history is the history, it is just what is. You do not need to worship it, look up to it, just know about it and decide if you want to repeat it or not.

Re: This isn't a question

[Smauler]

Let? This seems to be a big misunderstanding amongst humans - the idea that rights are given to us by some higher authority. Nuh-uh, existence grants our rights. The best our entitled humans may do is refrain from removing them by threat of force. Have a nice day =D

The right to marry has lots of legal implications which are controlled by the state, and marriage is controlled by the state, and has been for millennia. If you think it's not, you're deluded. Common law marriage does not really exist, legally.

Now, should it be controlled by the state and have lots of legal implications? That's a different question. I personally don't think it should, but trying to remove marriage from the legislature would be quite difficult.

The point is that for quite a while now homosexuals have had the right to live as couples, but they've not been allowed to be recognised under the law that gives tax breaks and other things to married couples. I'd personally do away with these tax breaks and make marriage a purely personal thing, not something legal (but as I said before, this will be difficult).

Until that time, I'm perfectly happy with homosexuals marrying on the same basis heterosexuals do.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it pornographic. The act of one man sticking his penis in another mans anus is pornographic in nature. This is wrong.

Re: This isn't a question

[Smauler]

Those laws promoting family units have not worked. At all.

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]

Most of us live in Constitutional Representative Democracies with constitutions that override most laws and take a super-majority to change. Assuming you're American the people through their States and Federal govbernments can democratically change your Constitution to outlaw anything. Until that happens their are certain rights enshrined in the Constitution that can not be changed by a simple majority.
Americans do have the problem of the Judiciary ignoring very simple and clear rights such as the First Amendment. And often laws are not so clear cut so the Judiciary has to do some interpretation such as "What exactly does equal mean".
In my country the rights aren't so clear cut so the government can limit speech if it is considered in societies interest as a democratic and just society, so banning things like child porn is simpler but once again judges often make the final decision.

Re:This isn't a question

[Smauler]

It's canon, not cannon.

Re:This isn't a question

[mike2006]

The people here so hell bent on same sex marriage do not even realize they are advocating government involvement in our personal lives. There are zero reasons for government to be involved in marriage but the yes folks rather than demanding the government get out of our lives take it a step further and demand government involvement in marriage. They are part of the problem. .

Re:This isn't a question

[penguinoid]

Name any of them.

1) Like the rest of us, they'll probably come to regret it.

2) It'll wound the poor, sensitive egos of religious people.

3) Mumble mumble definition of "marriage". Note that there are some restrictions on who can get married, either by definition or some other reason. For example, close relatives aren't allowed to get married, "fake" marriages for reasons such as citizenship might be rejected, cannot marry more than one person at the same time, cannot marry self, animal, object, or various other things. Why change the law to allow same sex marriage, but not any of these? (social inertia requires a good reason for change rather than a reason for not changing)

4) Mumble mumble "family unit". In much of the developed world, native population is dropping (made up for by immigration, but there's some value in a stable native population). Statistically, marriage encourages childbearing (also, childbearing encourages marriage). Heterosexual couples are more likely to have children (and the only ones who can have children accidentally). Note that allowing couples who can't or don't want to have children to get married isn't a complete counterargument to this, because forbidding such might indirectly mess with other marriages (eg it would be awkward during dating to ask if one is fertile and willing to have children, people might change their minds, and an age limit might encourage divorce just before menopause to find a different partner and old geezers competing with everyone else for younger women)

Conversely, homosexual couples tend to only have children intentionally (and much less often), and are more likely to adopt children. Overall, this may be a more valuable service to society, but it might not be. Also, odds are homosexual couples in the future will have or adopt more children as acceptance increases, and also due to the imminent technological advances that will allow them to have their own genetic children.

5) Out of wedlock children are often a huge social problem, and tend to result from heterosexual sex. Therefore, there's extra value in encouraging heterosexuals specifically to get married.

6) For #4 and #5 above, note that marriage isn't free for the government, due to the cost of government meddling where it probably shouldn't but does. Thus, even if homosexual marriage is more valuable than not, it is still a question of relative worth compared to heterosexual marriage.

---

In case you're wondering, I took issue with your "zero" reasons. Even if the preponderance of reasons are for one side, it doesn't invalidate the reasons for the opposite side. Overall, I think that
A) The government probably shouldn't be meddling with marriage in the first place, at least not to the extent it is with the various tax breaks and rights.
B) Homosexuals should be not just allowed but encouraged to marry, for psychological and health reasons. (The psychological reasons being primarily that the aforementioned religious people who's egos are threatened by other people being happy, tend to wage psychological warfare on said people).

Re:This isn't a question

[dryeo]

When the Judges are appointed by a democratic process such as the elected legislature appointing them.
In common law based societies (most countries descended from England) the judiciary has always had the power to make law in the absence of legislation. The legislature and/or crown/people can always override the judiciary as well, though sometimes it is hard. eg, in America if enough people agree it is possible to even get rid of free speech.
Someones got to decide what things like "equal" mean. And there are always edge cases.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

Except that currently the government is involved and until we step in and demand everything is equal is wont' be.

Re: This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

Not quite so trivially, and the current legal implications are quite large. The process around it couldn't handle it. Maybe if the whole thing was changed, but as-is, it would be quite a problem.

Re:This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

Yes, once you change the millions of laws that assume the current definition of marriage, then it's trivial to change the laws around marriage itself. Arguing about changing marriage first is putting the cart before the horse.

Re:This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

Rules like "No Blacks"?

Re:This isn't a question

[demonlapin]

You think appointed judges are a legit part of democracy if the person who nominates them is elected, even if they can't be fired by their successor in office?

Christ on a crutch, that's a stupid answer.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony here is that you think you're not one of those people. Your comment shows that you are.

Re: This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

Who is killing the transgenders?

Re:This isn't a question

[cavreader]

As long as the same divorce rules apply then more power to them. Alimony, child support, and division of marital assets may have some wondering about this whole same sex marriage initiative.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

2) It'll wound the poor, sensitive egos of religious people.

We should not respect religion, it's not a state of mind that is acceptable int 2015, God is dead, grow up and move on. It doesn't hurt the poor in anyway

3) If you want to marry your cousin and you want to fight for it, I'll back you.

4) What? Marriage has nothing to due with the family dynamic. Of course heterosexual couples are more likely to have children, that is biology, not marriage. Of course homosexual couples are more likely to adopt, gain that has nothing to due with marriage, so your three points in this section don't have anything to due with marriage.

5) Being a slut and fucking like crazy, giving birth and having a child, has nothing to due with marriage. Single parents are equality capable of raising a child, the two parent, man and women model, has been dead for more then a decade in every study that has been undertaken.

6. The government point is about fairness and you can't tell one group it's cool to marry and not another. Like I said, if you want to marry your cousin, I'll fight for you to have that right. If you want to marry a goat I'll fight for that right to. It comes down to fairness and if you one group gets a break, another must be awarded that same privilege.

A) I agree, but it's the system we have now, so until it changes we have to support all forms of marriage.

B) They shouldn't be encouraged any more then heterosexual couples. We shouldn't try and force marriage on anyone, that would be wrong. If you want to get married, get married, if not, don't.

So I still settle back to 0 valid points against.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

If you give one group the rights, you must give the other.

Re: This isn't a question

[dryeo]

The Canadian Supreme Court considered this and decided the negatives of allowing polygamy outweighed the benefits.
Having lived close to Bountiful BC where the polygamists who brought the suite are based, I have to agree at least in that case.
The negatives included that the standard practice was to force 13yr old girls into marriage with 50+ yr old men and what it did to the other single males in their society, eg kicked out so they didn't compete for the young girls. Quite a few of the witnesses in the case were victims of the Mormon breakaway sect.
If the case had been about equals agreeing to a multiple marriage the result likely would have been different.
As for the tax breaks part you brought up up the page, traditionally it was based on dependents. Is it fair that I pay the same taxes as you if I'm supporting two other people and you're only supporting yourself? I do agree that basing it purely on marriage isn't optimal though and if you had to support a younger sibling as an example should allow you to have tax benefits as well.

Re:This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

smh

Re:This isn't a question

[ganjadude]

what is there to change? You are making things to complicated

The law could very simply state (all laws regarding marriage are null and void. from this day forward the laws are as follows....

things are only hard because people like you seem to keep them that way

Re:This isn't a question

[dryeo]

When the mother of my child was in hospital giving birth, I was allowed to visit at anytime. Others were limited to certain times. In that case marriage didn't matter but would have made it simpler for my claim as the father.
If my now wife was in hospital, I'd probably be allowed to visit at most any time and the marriage would make it easier but if only common law I'd expect it to be similar though the marriage documents make it easier to prove that you're extra close family.
Really it was the hospital that decided with the government only formalizing the relationship. For a gay couple the marriage document would probably help more to prove that they had more of a right to visit at inconvenient times. Your visitors were probably visiting during visiting hours.

Re:This isn't a question

[ShanghaiBill]

Because it is one of the very few institutions found in all human cultures.

Not all. The Mosuo people of Yunnan do not have marriage. As far as I know, they are the only exception to this otherwise cultural universal.

Re:This isn't a question

[dryeo]

However, as noted above, churches do NOT marry people. They perform a religious ceremony that some people call a wedding. That's very different to an actual "marriage".

Probably depends on country but here in Canada a priest etc can be legally certified to perform marriages and further when our Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage has to be allowed, they specifically said that priests etc can't be forced to perform a gay marriage while government employees such as marriage commissioners (how I got married) can be forced (actually fired for refusing).

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Er....are you referring to online dating sites in any civilized region of the world?

Re:This isn't a question

[dbIII]

You don't even have to go back as far as Rome. In the 1200s in England rich people were sometimes getting married in Churches because the Church had a nice big hall, then things went on from there. It was seen as a secular thing with a blessing on top if you could get it. It's still very much a secular thing in terms of property etc.
One problem we have, especially in the USA, is "fundamentalists" who see religion at the core of EVERYTHING. Anything connected with a Church in any way back when they turned up a century ago is especially a religious issue to them. I think we need a modern Luther to nail stuff on their doors to tell them to be as tolerant as the mainstream that let them exist in the first place.

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.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

It's irrelevant to any point I made. Most of the rest of your comment is irrelevant too.

Your first sentence was:

Years and years ago, marriage was generally a church matter.

My rebuttal was that years and years before that, marriages had nothing to do with the churches of today, and maybe nothing to do with any church at all.

So your opening sentence was flawed on that basis.

Nothing it flawed, as I already said, what I gave was not a comprehensive history of marriage.

Exactly, what you gave was not a comprehensive history of marriage. My point exactly. Thanks for noticing.

Ireland gets it's laws from English law not roman laws.

You didn't limit your comments to Ireland. You didn't even say an "English King" but rather a European one. If you weren't talking about Europe in general, why branch out of your own accord?

Furthermore, you also said elsewhere in the thread:

When I said church, I didn't mean the catholic church or church of England or just Christianity, I mean it was generally a religious institution if it was officially recognized at all.

That seems to indicate me you think there are non-Christian religious institutions you want to consider, and that would take you outside of Ireland, or into its ancient history if you want to discuss Celtic marriage.

Well, there are a few lingering traditions anyway.

BTW, what is it you think you are going to gain by arguing what was never said?

My hope is you never again say:

Years and years ago, marriage was generally a church matter.

That is what you said. Please refrain from saying that in the future. It would be most appreciated.

If you want to specifically limit yourself to certain periods or countries, where it is accurate, that would be much improved.

Because at one point in time, the church had the power to do so. It's fucking history, you can find books about it. I suggest you pick on up.

Does. Not Did. Do you need a grammar text to differentiate between past and present tenses?

You do not need to limit anything as long as it is within the context of the article and GP post. FFS are you that daft that you cannot take that into consideration?

No, I don't see the discussion as necessarily limited to Ireland, so no, I don't concur with your representation of the discussion as it has been presented. I don't even concur that you have limited yourself in that way, considering your other statements.

If you want to do so in the future, however, you can.

I'm not sure anyone asked you to make it a role model.

Anyone? Yes, they have, history has been asserted as the role model to follow, especially with marriage, which is treated as a "sacred" and "unchanging" and "eternal" tradition that is exclusively and solely the province of the "church" or other "religious institution" so yes, they have done so.

Do you want me to paste some of the filings made in regards Proposition 8, or Obergefell v. Hodges, or the advertising regarding this vote in Ireland? Or will you accept it as generally true without me doing so?

If you think I did, I'm sorry your English is so screwed that you got that impression.

Then I'll take this as implying a disavowal of those arguments, is that ok with you?

The history is the history, it is just what is. You do not need to worship it, look up to it, just know about it and decide if you want to repeat it or not.

Sadly many don't know this. But no, even with the history being recognized as discretionary, you do need to get it right. Because sometimes it isn't what others, including yourself, say it is.

PS, the Magna Carta, mentions marriages and sets conditions thereby, including the King's involvement. I kinda consider it part of the English legal system, and I wouldn't consider it entirely religious either.

Re:This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

Why? That's the logical conclusion of rule elimination. Just because you live in a fantasy land doesn't mean the practical people are all wrong.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Marriage predates your gov't. There are many forms of the ancient tradition going back many thousands of years, all of which require at least 1 male and 1 female, until very recently. So, same-sex marriage is a redefinition of the tradition of marriage at the expense of "traditionalist" for the benefit of those who want to redefine as they see fit. A legally defined domestic partnership could have addressed all legal privilege inequalities between married and domestic-partnered, but this is really a cultural imperialism effort whereby the word and tradition of marriage is redefined to suit the brave new world.

Re: This isn't a question

[Mal-2]

They do it themselves when repeatedly told they don't exist.

Re:This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

I'm not keeping anything, or doing anything, or complicating anything. I'm stating that the rules are hard-coded into laws. Laws on property, inheritance, privacy, and everything else.

With your "marry anyone and divorce them anytime you want" rule, just marry everyone you do an illegal deal with. You can't be compelled to testify against your spouse. Divorce them after the deal, and the illegal acts are still under priveledged communication rules.

Abandon all that, and telling your wife that you hate the boss at work, can be used against you when they find that the boss was run over at work. So you either have to change millions of laws, or break the idea of "marriage" completely.

Which do you find preferable? Why?

Most people find it easy that they can have a single contract with no modifications or negotiations allowed (though separate property contacts, commonly called pre-nups, are allowed, though in practice, rare). The millions of laws written around marriage work together to define it in a contractual, legal, financial, and societal context. It may not be perfect, but it's better than abolishing a legal recognition of any relationships.

The law could very simply state (all laws regarding marriage are null and void. from this day forward the laws are as follows....

Yeah, and so the one law passed to do that is in what jurisdiction? Federal? They don't define "marriage" now, but put rules on it based on what the 50 states decide. So at a minimum, you'd have to have 51 states (DC is a "state" for most purposes), plus the feds, and get that 52 law bundle passed at the exact same instant for that to work. Plus, the "laws" in many places aren't laws, but regulations and administrative rules. Your "simple" law would have to change the IRS code, and hundreds or thousands of other federal regulations with weight of law. And the countless local rules on marriage. State law in Texas allows a minor to drink, under the supervision of an adult. So a 21 year old married to a 19 year old, can buy drinks for, and hand drinks to the "under-age" drinker. But that's not the same everywhere. Thousands of little things like that would make a massive change to the legal burden of formerly married people, once you abolish marriage, in the way you state.

You obviously don't even understand that, let alone have an opinion how it would work after. How does your one simple law fix under-age drinking law in Texas (a state matter) and the IRS code (not coded into law), at the same time?

"One simple law" change for multiple independent jurisdictions. With no understanding of law, or reality.

Re:This isn't a question

[dryeo]

Quebec? OK not English speaking or common law. And in Canada a priest etc can be certified to do legal marriages and can't be forced to do a marriage against their religious beliefs unlike a government employee.

Re:This isn't a question

[sumdumass]

My rebuttal was that years and years before that, marriages had nothing to do with the churches of today, and maybe nothing to do with any church at all.

So your opening sentence was flawed on that basis.

lol.. there is no flaw at all. What is so hard for you to understand here? I DID NOT give a complete accounting and did not intend to. For fucks sake, how many times does this need to be said? I do not care about before or anything. It is completely irrelevant.

Exactly, what you gave was not a comprehensive history of marriage. My point exactly. Thanks for noticing.

Is it your point to echo my own point? If so, you win the internet. I said this in the original post.

That is what you said. Please refrain from saying that in the future. It would be most appreciated.

If you want to specifically limit yourself to certain periods or countries, where it is accurate, that would be much improved.

lol.. Stop, just stop pretending to be a moron. Sorry for going for the insults but you seem to be insisting things that never were said were. I never said in the beginning, or always or on this specific date, I never even said it was absolute, that is all inventions of your own minds. What I said is correct, in the past churches and religions generally controlled marriage. You know this to be true and admitted it but are stuck on some bullshit about periods when it wasn't.
Just drop it, you are not adding anything to the conversation and doing little more then pedantic trolling.

That seems to indicate me you think there are non-Christian religious institutions you want to consider, and that would take you outside of Ireland, or into its ancient history if you want to discuss Celtic marriage. I guess the jews weren't invented until well after the Christians. Is that what you are trying to say? And yes, pagan religions had marriage ceremonies too.

Anyone? Yes, they have, history has been asserted as the role model to follow, especially with marriage, which is treated as a "sacred" and "unchanging" and "eternal" tradition that is exclusively and solely the province of the "church" or other "religious institution" so yes, they have done so.

So that's why you are acting like an imbecile. You are pissed that people don't like gay marriage and banned it forever and somehow thing going after me will vindicate it or something. No, I nor anyone in this thread asserted history is any role model. For fucks sake, all I did was explain how modern government became entangled in something that they shouldn't even be involved with in the first place.

Go piss up a rope or something. You will be more productive doing that then you have demonstrated yourself to be here.

Do you want me to paste some of the filings made in regards Proposition 8, or Obergefell v. Hodges, or the advertising regarding this vote in Ireland? Or will you accept it as generally true without me doing so?

I can paste some crap too. Here is your problem, I simply do not care. I did not come here and say marriage should be a certain way or another way or whatever. I really do not care if you can marry your boyfriend, dog, sister, mother or whatever your fetish is. It doesn't matter to me one but at all.

Then I'll take this as implying a disavowal of those arguments, is that ok with you?

It doesn't matter, you took everything else and twisted it just so you can troll against it. I don't find having any opinion on how you twist and misaligned contexts will have any meaning other then further your trolling.

Sadly many don't know this. But no, even with the history being recognized as discretionary, you do need to get it right. Because sometimes it isn't what others, including yourself, say it is.

No I got it right.

Re: This isn't a question

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

And how is that "investment in our society to promote family units" working out? Oh, right, it isn't. The more government gets involved in the family unit, the more it deteriorates.

See, regardless of whether you think it's government's job to "promote the family unit" (or "raise people out of poverty" or "end drug use" or whatever), fact is that government is piss poor at that kind of social engineering and makes things worse rather than better.

(It's ironic, however, that progressives and conservatives both advocate this kind of interference, and yet criticize each other for doing it.)

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

shut the fuck up, retard

Re:This isn't a question

[AthanasiusKircher]

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.

This is all true, except we've been tinkering with these "thousands of laws" without dealing sufficiently with "unknown and untested consequences" for decades. Probably the strongest example of this is "no-fault" divorce, which came about for many noble reasons (not requiring people to PROVE abuse to get out of an abusive relationship, etc.), but which has had untold consequences requiring whole new mechanisms to deal with distribution of assets, support duties for dependents, etc. And the "patching up" of marriage law to deal with the increased rate of divorce following no-fault statutes is ongoing.... decades later.

I'm not arguing that no-fault divorce was bad, or that gay marriage is bad, or anything else. I'm happy to see people receiving equal rights: I couldn't figure out what the anti-gay justifications were 20 years ago when even the liberals in the U.S. were championing DOMA and "Don't ask, don't tell," so I'm glad people have in some ways realized where injustice existed.

On the other hand, decisions like this sadden me, because they serve as one more way to "punt" more essential problems and decisions down the road a couple more decades. Marriage laws as the parent noted came into formation to deal with a particular social construct. That social construct is now being altered in all sorts of ways, but yet we still award elements of the legal marriage contract (including a number of significant legal and financial benefits) that were originally granted to support marriage patterns that no longer are universal or in some cases aren't common at all anymore.

Eventually (a century from now?) we may start to finally address some of these problems head-on, but for the foreseeable future we're going to be stuck in various stupid legal conundrums because of changing ideas of what marriage is vs. why and how government regulates it. We'll see the polyamorist woman with three husbands arguing for rights (or the female threesome or whatever). We'll see the two brothers who want to do away with incest laws -- whether they want sexual relationships as consenting adults or not -- because they love each other and want the inheritance and other benefits that come from being spouses. We'll see all sorts of challenges in ways we just refuse to talk about now because everyone is just pretending that the "definition and purpose of marriage" is kind of irrelevant as long as we've given equal rights to the current minority group of concern.

At least 20 years ago people were all still talking about these real definitional issues and how shifting social perspectives are interacting with legal problems. While this is a great victory for equality, it is also yet another "patch" to a broken set of marriage laws that we are continuing to tinker with without considering the long-term consequences.... and why we even have these bundles of laws in the first place.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

You sir, are an idiot. You -cannot- have a law that violates the equal protection clause and laws that make gay marriage impossible/illegal violate that. It is -exactly- the courts you would go through to fix that issue. Learn something about the constitution before you spout off a John Roberts-esque load of repgunant social regressive BS.

Re:This isn't a question

[raque]

That is the way I remember it being reported 10 or so years ago. The attitude among business changed when they discovered them amount of expendable income gay couples had. It does sound cynical though.

Re:This isn't a question

[raque]

It's not - that is my point.

Re:This isn't a question

[raque]

I don't. I expect it to see legal polygamy in the US in my lifetime. There are already reality TV show showing Polygamous marriages. Sister Wives I think it's called.

Re: This isn't a question

[johnsnails]

Haven't you heard? Goat sex leads to sex with kids its just one slippery slide.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh, not quite. When they knew adults were watching, they tended to play with toys traditionally associated with their assigned gender. When they didn't perceive any adults watching, they tended to play with anything. Almost as if evolution doesn't mean squat in regards to behaviour, at least in comparison to socialization.

Kids, especially little ones, will adjust their behaviour based on cues from the adults around them. Sometimes pretty subtle ones. And there's nothing most adults like better than seeing their own biases reinforced.

Honestly, if you really want to frustrate the hell out of an adult, refuse to tell them whether a child is a boy or a girl. They get pissy really quickly. If you ask why, and actually get a cogent answer out of them, it boils down to being uncomfortable that they don't know how to behave with/talk about the kid.

Re:This isn't a question

[FranTaylor]

Religions traditionally did the marriages.

Tradition is not any sort of justification for anything. If you try to use it to justify slavery or polygamy or or human sacrifice, people will laugh at you, even though all of those things have long traditions.

Re:This isn't a question

[FranTaylor]

why government is still involved in marriage.

because marriage is a contract, you can't have a contract without a government to enforce it.

Even in Rome, the church controlled what could and couldn't count as marriage starting around the 4th century when Rome converted to Christianity.

Yeah you can talk about traditions all day long, they are NO JUSTIFICATION FOR ANYTHING. Does tradition justify slavery?

Re:This isn't a question

[FlyHelicopters]

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

Why just two people? That seems like it discriminates against people who want three people in a marriage...

Re:This isn't a question

[raque]

A lot of my thinking on this grows out of the point that the US, and the West in general, is becoming less homogenous all the time. It's not just immigration. With the breakdown of Christianity as the underlying metaphysics of Western society all sorts of other ideologies are coming into play. Secularism is growing but still undefined in many ways. What is the secularist view on marriage? I don't think there is one. Eastern religions are gaining ground, Buddhism doesn't offer any rules on marriage. It just says if you are married you should be good about it. How vague is that?

A second line of thought for me has been, it is necessary for all 50 States in the US to agree? They don't now on all sorts of things. In New Jersey you cannot have self service gas stations. They are common in New York. Marraiges aren't gas stations, but where is the line?

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Common law marriage does exist in Canadian law.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

There are exactly 0 valid reasons why gay couples shouldn't be allowed to get married,

I could hypothesize one, but we still need evidence one way or the other to know whether it's true or not.

Claim 1: Stable, two-parent households are the best environment to raise children.

Claim 2: Non-monogamy threatens stability.

Accordingly, non-monogamy threatens the best environment to raise children.

Claim 3 (here's where we need research but can't get it until gay marriage becomes legal enough places to gather data): Homosexual marriages are commonly openly non-monogamous.

Claim 4: homosexual marriage norms will influence heterosexual marriage norms.

Accordingly, homosexual marriages being openly non-monogamous will result in more openly non-monogamous heterosexual marriages.

Accordingly, homosexual marriages threaten the best environment to raise children.

Now, I personally have no problem with gay marriage (as it were, I was recently the best man in a gay marriage). But I am intellectually interested in this particular argument and have been for some time. It's just unfortunate that the evidence for Claim 3 (which is, in my opinion, the only weak link in the reasoning) can't be gathered before legalizing it, so we're wading into muddy waters (this is, incidentally, a benefit of a federal system like in the US where some states could legalize and others could wait to see if there's any bad effects decades later).

Anyhoo, take from this what you will.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a private contract.

No, it's not. In the US, there are tons of rights that are unrelated to contract law because they affect the rights of third parties, and contracts cannot do that. For example, not only can a man not be forced to testify against his wife, but even if he wants to, his wife can prevent him from doing so. This is something that cannot be created by contract as it affects the rights of The People acting in their capacity as prosecutor.

The same thing for tax (married, filing jointly). Etc.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who doesn't agree with you is $insult_of_the_day, because you repeat your argument in the same sentence? Fuck you.

The campaign was really about forcing everyone, religious and otherwise, to use the word marriage.

T here are already campaigns to make dissolving "marriage" easier or quicker. Any of the rights granted to "married couples" do not need to exist, and people instead could have been made free to name partners of any sex on e.g. appropriate insurance documents and pensions. The state should have stopped recording marriage at all.

Instead I suppose we can look forward to Sunday newspapers exposing gay celebs/politicans as "cheating" on their married partner when frankly we no longer give a shit.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Your definition allows children and sibling to marry. Are you okay with that?
2. Why only two people? Are you a bigot?

Re:This isn't a question

[Cederic]

So remove the tax breaks, remove the financial incentives to marry.

Equality doesn't mean giving them all lots of cash, it can mean removing the cash incentive from those that get it unfairly. That would resolve your issue.

I'd prefer that approach anyway; married couples (of any gender) have a lower cost of living when they cohabit. Why are single people that can't share those expenses having to then subsidise a further tax break? Makes no fucking sense.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be nice to be that naive.

I think you'll find that dismantling the value of actual families is more a part of their agenda. The politically active ones I'm talking about here, who start viral social networking campaigns.

Think about it for a minute - what actual, tangible, benefit do gays achieve by being able to call their relationships a marriage?

Taking the human right approach is an easy way to garner sympathy of course, but of course most have little interest in real human rights - just ask around here about people's views on abortion for example.

Re: This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

There is no parsing of the OP that indicates he's talking about suicide.

Re: This isn't a question

[Cederic]

Thank you for sharing this curious and questionable opinion. Perhaps you could further help us understand just what the fuck this has to do with a conversation on the subject of marriage?

Re:This isn't a question

[FatLittleMonkey]

Because it takes issues that are otherwise straightforward and turns them into a mess if there is no will. If you get in a car accident and end up in a coma, your wife can make medical decisions for you. If you die, she inherits everything and has custody of the kids. But if you're a polygamist who adopted, who gets the kids...Sue or Molly? Who gets the house? Which one makes the call to keep you on a feeding tube while you're in the coma?

How is that any different to the situation for a sick/comatose/senile/end-of-life parent without a living spouse, when the issue of medical power-of-attorney falls to their children, who may be any number? Or which family member (of which there can be any number) take on the children of a deceased sibling. Or any number of similar issues that real societies have dealt with.

The answer is, we develop rules and conventions to work around it. For polyamorists, if they want to avoid that kind of mess, they would need to better formalise powers of attorney, living wills, etc, than a binary couple.

Re:This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

I'm old enough to remember 20 years ago when the defenses of marriage were being erected, the arguments then were that marriage was an idea whose time has ended. The people came together to support marriage. More than one movement has talked about ending marriage, and all that did that failed. Quickly and miserably. So they moved on to working within the system.

Re:This isn't a question

[ultranova]

Because it is one of the very few institutions found in all human cultures. Any legal system that doesn't deal with marriage in some fashion is profoundly deficient.

That's just not true. Until fairly recently in human history, marriage was largely a religious and private issue.

Until fairly recently in human history, religion was the law, and no issue could be both religious and private.

Re: This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

Think about it for a minute - what actual, tangible, benefit do gays achieve by being able to call their relationships a marriage?

Do you want a list of the thousands of rights that come with marriage? The rights of survivorship are ignored by almost all, at least until their spouse dies suddenly, and they have to take over the life. When my dad died, I could have sued his partner for her house. They weren't "married", but had lived together for 10+ years, and lived as man and wife. As he made tangible improvements to the property, and as I'm his son, I have a right to whatever holding he had in that property. Since he wasn't married, I could claim against that as his heir. If they had been married, then I'd have had no claim. It would have passed to his wife without claim or ability for incident.

That's one of the thousands of rights that married people take for granted. In most cases, even a written living will is trumped by the "marriage" card. Though, that's changing. But a non-married partner will be ignored by all. And that's not changing.

of course most have little interest in real human rights - just ask around here about people's views on abortion for example.

Since someone doesn't agree with your fascist declaration of when life begins, you assert that their value of life is different. Nah, you are just a fascist aggressor who hates people.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be too harsh on them - they were probably edumacated in the US of A, after all!

Re: This isn't a question

[euroq]

Disclaimer: I'm a gay man married to another man.

When you say "special rights" I think of inequality and favoritism. In reality, gay marriage isn't that (or at least I don't expect it to be that). The main things I want from the law/government regarding my marriage is: medical decisions when the other cannot make them, inheritance decisions without me explicitly writing down that my husband co-owns my assets, the ability to make decisions for our children, and... well I think that's it. I don't consider these natural rights, I really just consider them a government recognition of companionship. This has nothing to do with fucking.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

What is there to agree on? The state (or the church) has no right to interfere such matters. Pumping gas - that's completely different, though fact that New Jersey doesn't *allow* self service pumps helps to push the USA and New Jersey even higher in the stupidity rankings...

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

In the broadest scope I've never understood why there has to be laws concerning marriage. It's a private contract.

No, it is not. You are confusing marriage with a relationship. Marriage is an administrative construct created, defined and administered by the state. It can only be enacted by the state and only the state treats two people who have a relationship but are not married differently from two people who are.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

But most churches do, in fact, perform legally binding marriages, since church officials are empowered by the state to do so.

That sounds like violation of the seperation between church and state. In which country is that?

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Marriage is not a religious institution.

Re:This isn't a question

[euroq]

It's not the state getting into your "business", it's your business getting into the state. Marriage predates nation-states by millennia. And as a practical matter, I'm glad I didn't have to get a lawyer and sign a 500-page contract in order to get married, and I'm glad that other people don't need their own lawyer to go over such a contract in order to recognize my marriage.

I understand your opinion, but the modern question of same-sex marriage is not about your business getting into the state. Modern marriage laws focus on mundane but important laws such as making medical decisions for your spouse, special protections (in the U.S. there is a constitutional provision that the government cannot coerce spouses to testify in court against each other), automatic inheritance of the estate, and lots and lots of tax implications. I'm sure there's more, but in any case I'm certain that there's no laws forcing procreation.

With these laws, it really is a contract that shouldn't be easily broken by one of the participants. I'm not saying you need a lawyer, but I do believe that with laws that have such significant on a person's life (and beyond), there should be government protection and a bit more than a handshake to establish these special protections.

Re:This isn't a question

[FatLittleMonkey]

I oppose same sex marriage because:

A) It reinforces heteronormative conventions in a way which is harmful to the broader queer/trans community, and even to the acceptance of alternative hetero lifestyles. Instead of helping us move away from insistence on (and assumption of) conventions like marriage, nuclear families, and the cookie-cutter heteronormative lifestyle, gay-marriage reinforces it. It reinforces the idea that pre-marriage relationships are judged by whether they are moving towards marriage. Marriage by whether its moving towards having a family. Career, marriage, family, church, little-league... Look at how most gays are represented on TV shows, they are always excessively heteronormal suburban couples. Their lifestyle is otherwise identical to hetero couples (probably even more vanilla that the central family), their issues are always mundane hetero issues (like trying to adopt kids, or buy a home), with only a token issue of "gaining acceptance" thrown in for flavour.

(Indeed, in my opinion, the religious nutters should be on the front-lines of supporting gay-marriage. It reinforces their narrow views on acceptable lifestyle.)

B) When legislators and institutions had to deal with the issue of gay couples without marriage, they tended to also look a multiple potential alternative forms of relationships, and across a whole array of social/legal institutions. And that helps people who aren't just simple gay couples, but who deal with the same issues in employment/taxation/pension/inheritance/custody/medical/etc. But when legislators can just say, "Okay, this subsection of non-heteros will be made honorary heteros for legal purposes", suddenly that allows them to ignore the same issues that affect other types of relationships (including couples who don't marry. "My partner and I have a lot of trouble with the way laws/regs are written" can be dismissed with "Well, you have the choice to get married. If you refused to do that, you only have yourselves to blame if it causes problems.") Gay marriage hides a lot of these bigger issues under the rug.

[Note, this includes issues that affect mundane heteros. Issues like estrangement (where your legal partner isn't the person you currently live with), single parents, serial relationships, mixed families, surrogacy rights, non-parent custody rights, etc etc etc. Gay marriage allows legislators, employers, institutions, to go back to pretending that people get married early and once, have identical family structures, and live together until one of them dies.]

C) It peels away the largest and most hetero-acceptable portion of the GLBTTI community: gay couples. Therefore vastly reduce the visibility and power of the queer community, reducing any future progress on issues that matter to non-heteros and alternative lifestyle heteros. The mundane heteros could identify with simple gay couples, with jobs and homes and otherwise identical lives to their own. That served as a "ice-breaker" to gain broad support for social reforms. Without that common element, and with gay couples encouraged to adopt more and more heteronormative lifestyles, it reduces the ability to the rest of the community to pursue social reforms and address social repression.

Re:This isn't a question

[euroq]

This is where the "if anyone knows of a reason they shouldn't be married line came from", if either spouse was in violation of church laws or the laws of the kingdom, the church wouldn't allow the marriage and the kingdom would sometimes allow or disallow it (but you needed to get special permission) .

Eh, no. Well you're a little correct, because sometimes there could be cases such as not getting married during lent... but think about what you're saying. The priest marrying them would already know if they were violating church laws.

The main reason they were asking was if they were related and didn't know it. People used to live in small villages and they didn't have email. They also married young and didn't have a long courtship; young people would typically be chosen to marry by their families. Weddings were the rare instances of people leaving their ~5-mile radius where they lived. So the line "if anyone knows of a reason they shouldn't be married" was not "does anyone here have beef with these people and want to make a politically motivated attack against one of these people", it was an authentic question of "do these people who don't know each other have a reason not to get married such as they are too closely related, or this guy who nobody on the girl's side of the family was a murderer in another village and the bride's family from this village doesn't know?"

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Peter Troung and Mark Newton

Peter Troung and Mark Newton

Peter Troung and Mark Newton

Peter Troung and Mark Newton

Does that tell you why you shouldn't allow 'gays' to 'marry'? How many thousands more victims of these monsters will be enough for paedophiles like you?

Yes, and the same goes for brothers who want to marry their sisters, or two men who want to marry the same woman, or a daughter marrying her father, right?

And gays are 'born that way', so therefore paedophiles are 'born that way' too, as well as people with a rubber fetish, etc.

And childhood experiences have no effect at all on children, of course, so a child who is sexually abused in no way suffers, it's 'all in their genes', right?

You idiot.

Homosexuals are depraved and sick freaks who eat each other's excrement, and put their tongues into each other's anuses.
Why do gays try to replicate heterosexual sex by using each other's anuses as fake vaginas, if homosexuality is 'normal'?

Gays are also FAR more likely to be paedophiles than heterosexuals, otherwise, how do you explain the fact that more around a third of the victims of paedophiles are boys? Yet gays are only ONE PERCENT of the population. Do the math.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:This isn't a question

[euroq]

"Family" law assumes and is built around government-approved marriages. To change marriage would change thousands of laws, with unknown and untested consequences.

Can you give an example of a negative outcome? There has already been many changes to marriage in recent history, such as the affirmation of women's rights, the ease of divorce, legalization of same-sex marriages, etc. I don't see any negative outcomes via "family" law; for example, the protection of children. (Note that I'm not saying there are not unintended consequences of such changes; I am speculating that you think there are negative consequences to laws such as family law due to same-sex marriage)

Re:This isn't a question

[euroq]

Gay parents pushing their social agendas onto their (likely) straight adopted children are more likely to cause self esteem and relationship issues.

Straight parents also push their social agendas onto their (likely) straight children. The Duggar family comes to mind. Poor kids are so sexually and intellectually repressed.

Re:This isn't a question

[ultranova]

Abandon all that, and telling your wife that you hate the boss at work, can be used against you when they find that the boss was run over at work.

If this is indeed true, then you have bigger problems than marriage. Freedom of speech - or chilling effects on it - is not a minor matter.

Re: This isn't a question

[euroq]

Being against so-called "spousal rape" was but one in a long line of attacks on Christian marriage (being that consent is given once and forever), and therefore, Western Civilization as a whole.

Very bad logic there bud. Being against Christian marriage is not being against Western Civilization as a whole.

Re:This isn't a question

[euroq]

Why should 2 people get tax incentives simple because of "love"? How about we take the government out of all marriages as far as tax and property reasons are concerned so that single people have the same rights as those lucky enough to find love

As a gay married man, who has libertarian leanings, let me enumerate a few answers your question.

1. Property: Medical visitation rights, medical decision making
2. Tax, property: On death, inheritance rights
3. Tax: Dependents. Raising children who don't provide income or taxes.

I'm sure I could think of more. There are a whole lot of shitty laws out there and I'm not defending them all. I also think of marriage as a contract. But familial dependencies do require more out of tax and property laws/rights than singles do, and I don't think there is a significant problem with having them, as long as they are equally open to everyone without discrimination.

Re: This isn't a question

[euroq]

Yes, you could and should be able to. However, with a contract, I would expect there to be negative consequences to divorce/breaking the contract, as there is now. If there are lots of benefits but no consequences to breaking the contract, then it's a pretty uneven contract. Imagine the free market: the benefits and consequences of enabling and breaking the contract would naturally come to an equilibrium that works well, preventing such abuses.

Re: This isn't a question

[euroq]

Agreed! A contract should be a contract divided evenly among the participants.

Re:This isn't a question

[Beck_Neard]

It's precisely because it's a contract that it needs laws around it. You can't just put anything you want in a contract, have all parties sign it, and expect everyone to go along with it. If you think you can, you have an extremely childish viewpoint on how these things work and you're probably a libertarian.

Re:This isn't a question

[euroq]

Not really a valid argument; if you have 50 siblings, they all can't enter the ICU at once. Not really a "right" that's more of a logistic issue that the hospital says only X amount of people in here at a time.

Re:This isn't a question

[euroq]

Because if you let them set the rules, they could fuck you over. For example, they could let straight people in but not gay people.

Re:This isn't a question

[fpoling]

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'".

In Norway if a couple lives together for 2 years, it automatically gets the same rights as if they were married. So the notion of marriage from the state point of view is just a shortcut to gain those rights without 2 year delay.

Re:This isn't a question

[euroq]

Marriage has nothing to do with a man and woman, it has to do with two people in love, that's it.

Not true. I'm a gay man married to another man, so I'm totally on your side. However, I can safely say that marriage being a thing about two people in love is a pretty naive point of view, both in the historical, intellectual, and practical view of marriage.

Re:This isn't a question

[euroq]

No it's not. The "world" didn't like interracial marriage for a real long time (even beyond the U.S.). Just because it recently became acceptable doesn't mean the point isn't valid. And yes, marriages without "love" have been very common and completely valid throughout history.

Re:This isn't a question

[dotancohen]

I can think of one: Gay parents pushing their social agendas onto their (likely) straight adopted children are more likely to cause self esteem and relationship issues. This isn't much different than the stereotype of the belt wielding father who tries to beat the gay out of his son.

This also reminds me of those articles in the times about 'progressive' parents raising their boys as 'gender neutral', but really, they just force them to wear girls clothes and play with dolls.

Like you I'll get modded Troll for defending you, but I won't do it anonymously. You are about half right: there _are_ people who teach gay behaviour, and it is right now not politically correct to say so because the whole issue is very sensitive to people on both sides.

I have no more problem with gays than I have with Muslims, Jews, blacks, Beiber fans, or pot smokers. Each one wants to live his life as his morals, upbringing, and internal inclination direct him. Some feel the need to preach their way of life to others, some feel the need to coerce others to live as they live, and some say "live and let live". I'm really only comfortable with that last category, the first two are sometimes problematic.

So I have no problem that my haircutter is gay, nor that two of my childhood friends were gay, nor that I have gay neighbours. I do have a problem with assuming that everyone is gay until proven otherwise, and raising children "gender neutral" through deliberately gender-confusing means. I don't buy my daughters toys, dolls or airplanes, until they _ask_ for them. They get both, dolls and airplanes, when _they_ express interest. If my baby to be born next month is a boy, he'll be _allowed_ to play with both dolls and airplanes, but he'll decide what to ask for. Just as if he were a girl. He'll _probably_ learn to prefer airplanes over dolls if he sees other boys playing with airplanes, and that's fine. He might prefer to play with girls, and he'll have two older sisters to learn from, so he'll probably express an interest in dolls as well. But none of that will come from parents' agendas.

Some people have a problem recognizing that outliers are just that: outliners. They exists, and we should treat them as we treat anybody else. But don't confuse the existence of a few outliers with the fact that the bell curve is heavily weighted towards the norm. Like it or hate it, the norm is that boys want to play with airplanes and grow up wanting to fuck women. Likewise, the norm is that girls want to play with dolls and grow up wanting to fuck men. If 0.1% or 1% or 10% of the population is gay, there is still an extreme bias towards straightness. That doesn't mean that gays are any worse than tall or short people, smart or stupid people, fat or skinny people. I wouldn't even consider then "not normal" at 0.01% of the population. But children, adopted or birthed, should not be deliberately pushed off the edges of the bell curves of normal behaivour in any of the above cases. I'm sure quite a few /.ers will tell of how pushing children to be 'smarter' has hurt them, the same is true for pushing them to be dumber, fatter, skinnier, straighter, or gayer.

Re:This isn't a question

[itzly]

Why the hell is it government's business to "allow" people to marry in the first place?

Because at some point in time, the majority of the people thought it was a good idea. Probably because they had first hand experience of what it was like without that.

Re:This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

Can you give an example of a negative outcome?

A step-parent relationship is legally the same as an adoption here. The only reason to perform a step-parent adoption is to block birth-parent visitation. So step parent adoptions are rare. But, marriage to the parent of a child is the equivalent. One is the legal guardian of the children in the relationship, regardless of blood. So, if the birth parent in the married couple dies, the child's care is uninterrupted. The surviving parent is sole guardian, and legally the parent, unless the other birth parent had some formal custody, or wishes to pursue it.

But living together without marriage? The child of a sole-custody arangement is an orphan the same as if both parents died, and the non-married non-birth parent is treated as if a neighbor walked up after a car crash that killed both parents, and offers to look after the new orphans.

I am speculating that you think there are negative consequences to laws such as family law due to same-sex marriage

You should not rush to judgement.

Re:This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

Do you not know the definition of privileged communications? Or the few areas where it's applied?

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

lol.. there is no flaw at all. What is so hard for you to understand here? I DID NOT give a complete accounting and did not intend to.

Yes, you keep saying that was not your intention. Perhaps that is why your words were flawed when you said:

Years and years ago, marriage was generally a church matter.

You shouldn't have said such a deeply flawed statement. I suggest that you endeavor to refrain from doing so in the future. If you must say something similar, try restricting and limiting it to a particular locale or situation.

Is it your point to echo my own point?

No, my point was to try to get you to refrain from making flawed statements in the future.

I guess the jews weren't invented until well after the Christians. Is that what you are trying to say?

Do you wish to claim that the Jewish religion or its religious laws originated in Ireland? Is that what you were trying to say?

And yes, pagan religions had marriage ceremonies too.

I also suggest avoiding use of the term "pagan" as well, it's empty rhetorical term rather than any useful classification system.

That's why I said "Celtic" as that is a specific group to identify, with a specific and recognized connection to Ireland.

So that's why you are acting like an imbecile. You are pissed that people don't like gay marriage and banned it forever and somehow thing going after me will vindicate it or something. No, I nor anyone in this thread asserted history is any role model.

You didn't limit your query to "anyone in this thread" either, you said anyone, with no qualification or limitation. Thus that question applies to "anyone" at all, rather than just yourself or anyone in this particular thread of discussion.

If you want to limit something, please try using qualifiers in advance. As I've already suggested you do.

For fucks sake, all I did was explain how modern government became entangled in something that they shouldn't even be involved with in the first place.

Actually, I thought your explanation on that was flawed too. But I only wanted to cover the first sentence, rather than digress further.

So I only quoted and replied to the initial line, because that was flawed enough on its own.

But the rest of what you have had to say has been full of errors as well.

I can paste some crap too. Here is your problem, I simply do not care. I did not come here and say marriage should be a certain way or another way or whatever.

Then I'll take that as agreement, because you are not offering any particular argument or disagreement to what I said regarding how flawed representations of marriage are used to attempt to rebut same-sex marriage.

Thanks! Now you agree there is someone doing it, so your anyone was established.

No I got it right. You are just hopelessly looking for an argument to win even if you have to create one that never happened.

You made a statement, that I contend is flawed, and at best, only true within limited circumstances and qualifications that you did not make.

You contend that it's not flawed.

That's our disagreement. Has been from the start.

Actually, the magna carta gives the catholic church power over marital matters.

It acknowledges the Church and that it has rights, but no, that particular power is not specifically enumerated in the Magna Carta as far as I know. Can you cite where?

It only mentions heirs in ward (not of age) and a widows inheritance and the abilities of spouses to appeal for the life of their condemned spouse. Not the shell shocker you think it is and truthfully, it starts off strengthening my claims.

Well, no, I wouldn't quite agree with that represent

Re: This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

There are no negative consequences to breaking a contract, outside the contract. If I call up and cancel my mortgage contract, there are set penalties, written into the contract, same with phone service, for those under contract. But the State doesn't punish you for entering into a contract lightly. For your scenario to work, the State would have to be involved in every contract, and punishing people that enter/break lightly.

That would result in the system we have now, with state sanctioned marriages, and controls on them.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

The historical view is wrong. You could of said in the 50's and 60's that the only place for an African American to sit in a bus was at the back due to popular view point, that still doesn't make it correct.

Re:This isn't a question

[AthanasiusKircher]

More than one movement has talked about ending marriage, and all that did that failed.

My post wasn't about "ending marriage" per se. There are lots of ways to deal with the issues I brought up. But if we keep just "patching" broken laws without a real redefinition or re-examination of what we are trying to accomplish with these laws, we're just going to keep running into these sorts of legal and ethical conundrums. Perhaps the solution is to end marriage, but more likely we may need to create a number of different bundled legal contracts that are more appropriate for the various types of relationships. Or, at a minimum, we need to reconfigure legal "dependency" relationships created by marriage and redefine them based on actual financial dependency, for example.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Peter Troung and Mark Newton.

There are TWO reasons why 'gay' couples shouldn't be allowed to get married, for a start.

Re: This isn't a question

[Teun]

I mean, what possible justification is there to extend special rights to you because you are in a sexual relationship with someone else?

I thought this discussion was about marriage, why do you bring up sexual relationships?

Re: This isn't a question

[O('_')O_Bush]

"A goat cannot willingly enter into a contract (lack of comprehension. etc)"

It could be argued that is true of 50%+ of couples that got divorced as well.

And marriages happen all the time between unwilling parties if the culture standards dictate that marriages are to be arranged.

Re: This isn't a question

[kevingolding2001]

One religion's rules have no binding any anyone not in that religion, especially other religions.

Try telling that to a Muslim.

Re:This isn't a question

[ultranova]

But if you're a polygamist who adopted, who gets the kids...Sue or Molly? Who gets the house? Which one makes the call to keep you on a feeding tube while you're in the coma?

Wouldn't these issues be solved by what this post argued for: incorporated marriage? So the answer to all these would be "the legal entity created through the marriage contract", which is controlled by its members.

Re:This isn't a question

[ultranova]

Why just two people? That seems like it discriminates against people who want three people in a marriage...

It does, but removing gender requirements from marriage law is much simpler - and thus less likely to have unintended negative consequences - than allowing 3- or n-way marriages. The law doesn't have proper encapsulation or interfaces, thus every change could interact with anything else - but other laws are already supposed to be gender-neutral, so it shouldn't.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

government is piss poor

Bullshit. Every politician I know of is full of it.

Re: This isn't a question

[ultranova]

There is no parsing of the OP that indicates he's talking about suicide.

If you drive someone to suicide, is it really a suicide or a homicide?

Sure, they're dead because they were too weak to deal with your shit, but then again, the guy I shot is dead because he was too weak/slow/unobservant to shoot me first.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be a start to restore the Fairness Doctrine in broadcasting, and ban paid political ads, with stations being required to pick how much community affairs programming time to devote. They wouldn't be forced to provide any time, but those who serve the public poorly should be at a disadvantage at license renewal time.

We should also bring back ownership caps and local ownership. Currently there is plenty of dark-money ownership. Don't expect much fair discussion of the issue on commercial media though. The net has even more contract shills, but that's harder to fix.
It seems like all of the sorts of shadow manipulation that would be used to shape a foreign government have been used domestically.

Maybe the VP pathway could get Bernie in??
Hillary suffers from some guilt by association with the devastation caused by FCC deregulation if broadcasting and trade deals

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on how you measure "largest". Could be Apple, could be Google, could be Microsoft.

I do not believe you. That claim sounds ridiculous. Please provide evidence.

Re: This isn't a question

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The main things I want from the law/government regarding my marriage is: medical decisions when the other cannot make them,

What does that have to do with who you marry? It shouldn't be necessary to marry someone to give someone that power, nor does everybody who marries someone else want their partner to have that power.

inheritance decisions without me explicitly writing down that my husband co-owns my assets

If you have any significant assets, you better think about inheritance decisions and make a will, because otherwise you are going to leave everybody with a mess. Marriage and the inheritance laws that go along with it actually greatly complicate that, arising out of historical assumptions about stay-at-home moms.

the ability to make decisions for our children,

And why should that require getting married? Why should that come in a bundle with all the other responsibilities?

and... well I think that's it.

No, that's not actually it. You also need to get married in order to bring your partner into the country as an immigrant. And there are lots of other consequences.

Disclaimer: I'm a gay man married to another man.

I'm a gay man too, and sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Marriage as an institution isn't working for half of straight people either. The problem isn't that all the components of marriage may be useful on their own, it's that it's an all-or-nothing approach. It isn't working for many people, gay or straight, which is why many do not intend to get married. And the root problem is that you accept that government can intrude into your life in this way.

Re:This isn't a question

[demonlapin]

If part of your government needs independence from "the mob", and it's the part of your government that's hardest to overrule, perhaps you live in less of a representative democracy than you think.

Re:This isn't a question

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

In Norway if a couple lives together for 2 years, it automatically gets the same rights as if they were married.

Well, how nice that Norway discovered the equivalent of common law marriage.

So the notion of marriage from the state point of view is just a shortcut to gain those rights without 2 year delay.

That actually makes things a lot worse. Marriage isn't just rights, it's also a shitload of legal and financial obligations. And now government is in the business of determining whether your roommate of two years was actually your partner and you should be considered married. That should be an interesting court case when he demands support from you after your "separation".

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing wrong with being who you are. (Unless who you are is "a jerk.")

Translation: There is nothing wrong with being who you are unless I deem it to be wrong.

GJ, hypocrite.

Re:This isn't a question

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Oh, dearest, you are so naive. Like the middle ages and early modern period was run by progressive social scientists and plebiscite.

In addition, at some point in time, the majority of people in many places did think that slavery and genocide were good ideas too; that doesn't mean we still need to govern ourselves like that.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

You know nothing about this country, nothing about the people, and pretty much nothing about this amendment to the constitution.

And that's how I'd like to keep it. I've no time to waste on shitholes like Ireland.

Now don't you have some leprechauns to go catch, Paddy?

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

They do get to pick what color they define as blue, or how much of a car has to be blue before they will wash it.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

A second line of thought for me has been, it is necessary for all 50 States in the US to agree?

The Full Faith and Credit clause means they already have. One state's marriages should be recognized by others, even if the marriage isn't legal under a given state's laws, absent some pressing public interest.

And the federal government can set terms, which was why DOMA could be passed, though it failed scruntiny to meet constitutional burdens, it was still within the Federal domain. Something like the Mann Act is another story.

Re:This isn't a question

[BarbaraHudson]

And unlike god, we can prove the sock exists :-)

Re: This isn't a question

[blackest_k]

Cock sucker ued to refer to a good woman and now its a bad man !
--
George Carlin

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

you sick fuck

Re: This isn't a question

[BarbaraHudson]

Er....are you referring to online dating sites in any civilized region of the world?

The poster is referring to the grindr app - the place where all those fundie chrisian pastors who denounce anything having to do with LBGT are looking for hookups.

Re:This isn't a question

[cold fjord]

It was the same then as it is now; in any random group of humans, at least 1 in 10 are homosexual.

The actual percentage, as has been shown repeatedly in research, is around 1.5% (one point five percent), not 10%. So called ""transgender" adds a fraction onto that. The 10% figure is a misunderstanding of poorly conducted research that has been taken up for propaganda purposes by advocates.

Ancient Greece and Rome also commonly practiced pederasty. Do you think that enobles it for us today?

Re: This isn't a question

[BarbaraHudson]

I mean, what possible justification is there to extend special rights to you because you are in a sexual relationship with someone else?

I thought this discussion was about marriage, why do you bring up sexual relationships?

Possibly because one the fun is out of it, the only things keeping some couples together are money and mutual hatred.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

because your a sick fuck

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as gay marriage. Never will be.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Once a cocksucker. Always a cocksucker.

Re:This isn't a question

[BarbaraHudson]

Spouses testify against each other all the time - divorce, domestic violence, abuse, etc.

Re:This isn't a question

[craigminah]

I agree though I could see religious people having issues with it being a religious event versus a civil union. The bottom line is rights should be given to those willing to commit to each other because of love. It's good for them, their families and friends, and our country.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Not surprising. People who are homophobic tend to be the biggest closet gays around. That's exactly why they are homophobic.

Re:This isn't a question

[dryeo]

I know that my government is not that representative, as an example the ruling party won with 38% of the vote, not including those who didn't vote. So 62% of voters voted for others. This government has consistently tried to override basic rights and keeps getting smacked down by the courts.
An example is that they are talking about prosecuting people who call for boycotting Israel due to the Israelis targeting civilians. In a democratic society I believe that people should be able to peacefully organize a boycott and probably the courts will agree.
In countries such as America, due to the influence of money in the election process, choices are limited to the ones that big industry wants rather then the choices that are most in agreement with the people.
Democracy is flawed, just seems better then the other choices as long as there are some checks and balances.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

In the United States the ability to perform a legal marriage isn't conferred because one is a religious figure, it's merely a matter of having the proper paperwork. Anyone can do it.

I am an atheist and have nothing to do with any church, yet I could legally perform a marriage if I wanted to.

Re:This isn't a question

[BarbaraHudson]

Claim 1 is false. There's a (much) lower level of child abuse in homes with two same-sex parents.

Claim 2 is false. Most hetero marriages have at least 1 spouse who cheats. Also, you presume that gay marriages can't be monogamous.

Claim 3 is false. The majority of hetero marriages are not monogamous. Also, in countries where same-sex marriage has been legal of years, this is not an issue.

Claim 4 is a good thing. Heterosexual marriages need better role models when it comes to raising children and domestic violence.

So, why not just take a look at any country that has already legalized same sex marriages. Society hasn't fallen apart because of it. To the contrary, giving equal right to all makes for a more cohesive society, not one where one group has privileges and recognition that the other one doesn't.

Re:This isn't a question

[BarbaraHudson]

In reality pedophiles are mostly heterosexual.

Just look at the latest family of the hour - the Duggars. Heterosexual son molested 5 children. The family friend (the sheriff) who gave him a "stern talking to" is now doing 56 years in club fed for child pornography. How much of this was caused by people being repressed by their religion and finding inappropriate outlets? There's a reason so many pedophiles are catholic priests. The cure for that is to allow priests to marry - either same-sex or hetero. Celibacy is not normal.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Once you go cock, you never go bach. -Arnold Schwarzenegger

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

We could come up with am objective definition of jerk.

Let's see, One criteria would be always contradicting people.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me a motherfucking break, asshole. There may have been one or two cases of some drunken bigots doing something like this, but it sure as fuck isn't some kind of epidemic. God I hate you liberal sensationalist scumbags, fuck off back to San Francisco.

Re:This isn't a question

[Uberbah]

How is that any different to the situation for a sick/comatose/senile/end-of-life parent without a living spouse

Having a spouse is the difference. If you die unmarried and without relatives, the state can auction off your possessions, but that's obviously not going to happen if you're married.

Re:This isn't a question

[Uberbah]

Wouldn't these issues be solved by what this post argued for: incorporated marriage?

I don't see how it would solve any of those problems, but I do see one it would create. Sue and Molly could vote to split the kids and assets between them, and leave Rachael out on the street.

Re: This isn't a question

[sjames]

>p>Hospital visitation, making sure their SO's medical wishes are honored, inheritance, 5th amendment protection for spouse, retirement benefits, and on and on.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

That seems like it discriminates against people who want three people in a marriage...

It does. This does not make it unlawful anymore than saying a person underage cannot be in a marriage, or a person who is in a coma, or even an out-of-state person, or a non-citizen.

Some discrimination is acceptable. Some is not.

The issues in having three or more people in a marriage are complex enough to survive scrutiny, and there is no particular bias to them, unlike say, race, or gender.

Re: This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

Based on Slashdot comments, the Texas mother that targeted a minor with a known mental issue, committed fraud to gain her confidence, then pushed her to suicide, anyone who would commit suicide is unfit to live, and the murdering mother did the world a service.

Re: This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

Isn't that the Republican motto? The official party of the self-loathing closeted gay.

Re: This isn't a question

[Godwin O'Hitler]

He's no idiot. Emigrating means going to live permanently in another country.
You're not an immigrant until you get there.
http://www.oxforddictionaries....
http://www.oxforddictionaries....

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the motto of Lincoln Log Republicans.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

We should not tolerate religious belief, it's a cancer to logic and maturity. If anyone wants to use a religious argument against me, they MUST prove God exists, other wise I won't listen.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Once a cocksucker. Always a cocksucker.

...which supports one of the key tenets of the gay rights movement - that homosexuality isn't a matter of choice. Glad you decided to join the rainbow!

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

You weren't excommunicated. You are lying.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

First, the US isn't technically a democracy, it is a republic. There are, by design, layers of abstraction between the will of the people and the actions of government. Every part of the government can override the other parts, but those things happen at a different pace. The House and Senate can enact any damn law they want, and the president can choose to sign it or not. If the veto is overridden, the president still holds all the executive power and can choose to not enforce the law. The Supreme Court can make any judgement they want, but can be overridden by a constitutional amendment.
 
If "the mob" could be relied upon to make the right choices, we wouldn't even need a government. Think of how dumb the average person is. Then remember that half of all the people are even dumber.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

I think UK law requires a boat to be involved.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

my fiance

You married a dude?

Faggot.

Re: This isn't a question

[easyTree]

But not determine who may own a blue (however defined) car.

Re:This isn't a question

[baker_tony]

I think you mean "Closet homosexual bible bashes" rather than "Every civilization in the history of mankind has condemned sodomy and never define marriage as anything but between a man and women."

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

That's discrimination and you're a closed minded person.

My goat loves me and wants to share the rest of her life with me. I don't care what anyone else says or thinks because they're just wrong. In a ritual recognized by my tribe, the chief married my goat and I. Things have been great; she keeps the lawn trim while I maintain the house and hunt for my own food. We can't have babies together; but that's ok because our tribe is very open about sexual relationships and I hooked up with one of our tribe's (former, wink wink) virgins last weekend.

Thank God your goat is a female. Homosexual bestiality is against the word of God and the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church

Re:This isn't a question

[Dog-Cow]

There's absolutely nothing wrong with polygamy. You look like an intolerant shit-face when you group it together with slavery or human sacrifice.

Re: This isn't a question

[Dog-Cow]

Sounds like the case had more to do with (statutory) rape and less to do with the evils of polygamy.

Re:This isn't a question

[Dog-Cow]

It's impossible to prove, but even Judaism admits that before Judaism there was marriage. It's hard to know exactly when organized religion came into existence, but I don't know of any evidence of it going back that far (dawn of modern man).

Re:This isn't a question

[Dog-Cow]

What the fuck does love have to do with marriage? I would wager that greater than 80% of marriages happen between people who do not love each other. Historically, in many societies, the couple would meet briefly, if at all, before being married. Love certainly had nothing to do with it then.

You are an ignorant shit. Go flush yourself.

Re:This isn't a question

[Dog-Cow]

You are an illogical fuck-wit. Go fuck yourself with a pitchfork.

Re:This isn't a question

[Dog-Cow]

Your poor grammar is really grating. Perhaps your debating skills would increase if you took that ESL course you've been putting off.

Of course, given your other posts, it's quite possible that you are completely beyond hope as a literate and logical human being. Sucks to be you. And the poor shit-head who birthed you.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for sharing your worthless opinion.

Re:This isn't a question

[Dog-Cow]

You are a fucked-up piece of shit. Your parents should never have been allowed in the same geographic region, never mind joined at the groin. Perhaps it's not too late. Kill yourself and your offspring before humanity suffers any longer.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did he say they were married? He just said they get the *same rights*.

Learn to read, you dumb little shit.

Re:This isn't a question

[Dog-Cow]

You are an idiot.

Claim 1: Is that in absolute or relative terms?

Claim 2: Really? How the fuck could you prove that? And for that matter, whose ass did you pull that "fact" from?

Claim 3: See 2. In short, you're full of it. Except for the little bit you pulled out and called a "fact".

Re: This isn't a question

[euroq]

For your scenario to work, the State would have to be involved in every contract, and punishing people that enter/break lightly.

Although the State doesn't necessarily have to get into every contract, as I consider a contract, it's an agreement that the State will help enforce and it WILL get into every contract that is contested. Otherwise, it's just people talking. When we talk about contracts in this conversation as it pertains to marriage (and many other things), we're not talking about two kids making an agreement to give the other kid five dollars if he kisses this girl on the playground, we're talking about a contract that is recognized by the State that will help you enforce ramifications of breaking contracts.

Anyways, I understand the idea no negative consequences to breaking a contract, outside the contract, what I'm saying is that I believe that marriage contracts would (given enough time) become fair via consequences of breaking them, if their consequences are enforceable. Say, marriage contracts become a commodity for $10 from 1-800-lawyers.com.

Re:This isn't a question

[euroq]

Why? Evidence? Love marriages are considered a modern Western invention.

Re: This isn't a question

[euroq]

Listen, I agree with your assessment of how it should be, but the fact of the matter is the discussion of marriage within the State. If we removed marriage as a facet of the State, we're on the same page. But while there exists laws of the State based on marriage, my view is that recognition of same-sex marriage grants me (and my husband) all of these rights that I wouldn't otherwise have.

Should it not be a government or religious definition? Yes. We agree. But I sure as fuck don't want some dipshit in the hospital denying me the ability to visit my husband, and recognition of same-sex marriage is an achievement for me to deal with the fucking laws that exist. I'll take recognition of same-sex marriage by the State as a temporary path to fixing the fucked up shit that exists about marriage and the State and the Church.

In any case, I want what you want as well.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

Someone needs nap time and a bottle, it's sad that it's an adult, although with your attitude, more like a 3 year old in the body of an adult.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

Actually. I have no grammatical error in my reply, so either I struck a nerve because I hurt your sky daddies feelings, or you don't know how to read.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

If you actually believe that fine but that still doesn't mean marriage is between a man and woman and it still doesn't mean marriage has anything to do with your religion, which given your hostility, it would seem I've offended.

Re:This isn't a question

[MoarSauce123]

While it is a private agreement, it does have impact on other parties including the governments. So some sort of legal framework might be needed. As far as decision making in the US is concerned, the two party system is entirely inept and hopelessly outdated to make any political decisions. Decisions are made by judges in courts and once a verdict stands the political bodies might pass a law. The only fix is to stop the black and white (or better to say, red and blue) think in the US. Sadly, no other parties are established enough to compete with Republicans and Democrats.

Re:This isn't a question

[MoarSauce123]

As long as the US writes "In god we trust" on its coins and bills and pledges allegiance to a "nation under god" I am not concerned that the strict religious (as in christian) impact on US affairs is going away. There are way too many backwards pseudo-religious conservative nutbags in politics for that to happen any time soon.

Re:This isn't a question

[MoarSauce123]

And that takes place in a state where polygamy is illegal...says a lot about law enforcement over there.

Re: This isn't a question

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

Listen, I agree with your assessment of how it should be, but the fact of the matter is the discussion of marriage within the State. If we removed marriage as a facet of the State, we're on the same page.

That's why I have pointed out: "Unfortunately, while the Irish decision certainly represents progress, it doesn't address the underlying problem."

But I sure as fuck don't want some dipshit in the hospital denying me the ability to visit my husband, and recognition of same-sex marriage is an achievement for me to deal with the fucking laws that exist

"Marriage" isn't required for that, only equivalent legal recognition, as in many other places. Don't kid yourself, but insisting on the name "marriage" is not just a practical matter, it's a question of wanting validation by the majority and the state, and you should ask yourself why you care.

I'll take recognition of same-sex marriage by the State as a temporary path to fixing the fucked up shit that exists about marriage and the State and the Church.

But it isn't a "path to". Quite the opposite. Now that the constitution unnecessarily enshrined the word "marriage", religious, private, and legal issues are going to be mixed up in perpetuity. A better choice would have been to take this opportunity and consistently switch over to the term "civil union" in the law, for everybody.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sock", "hard", and "came" in the same post. Nice!

Re:This isn't a question

[I'm New Around Here]

It's impossible to prove, but even Judaism admits that before Judaism there was marriage.

And before Judaism started, people believed in gods.

I'm finding it hard to believe that there was a legal structure developed 5,000 years ago that included marriage, yet that was completely separate from any religious or spiritual basis. Not just separate, but not even evolved from a religious or spiritual basis.

If any such legal system existed in the time before Judaism, or in any of the surrounding concurrent cultures, I'm sure there are academic sources outlining them.

Let me point out, I think that government should be out of marriage completely, since it is a personal issue. Two people don't declare their undying love because the government allows it. But declaring their undying love shouldn't change any legal status they have. What does a declaration of undying love have to do with anything in secular law?

Re: This isn't a question

[TimboJones]

Or a Dominican 500 years ago. Or an evangelical Christian today. Or any authoritarian of any religion. It's not about the religion, it's about the authoritarianism.

Re:This isn't a question

[phorm]

I can't privately contract myself into slavery, of for sex for hire

Well for the latter, it appears it's not legal if it's on the street or a brothel, but it's fine in many places if you're hired for the making of an "adult movie". I've never really figured out why one is allowed but the other is not.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

If the vote was mainly reactive, then the clergy has a lot of power on people, it just need to apply it in the opposite direction.

Re:This isn't a question

[BarbaraHudson]

1. Where do you think all those kids up for adoption come from? It's not same-sex marriages that failed. Many of these adoptive kids have experienced domestic violence, and foster homes are rife with child abuse and child sexual abuse. Pedophilia is a heterosexual guy's thing - just ask the Duggars.

Additionally, adopted kids are wanted kids. 50% of children born to heterosexuals are "accidents."

2, 3 Here

Recent studies reveal that 45-55% of married women and 50-60% of married men engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their relationship (Atwood & Schwartz, 2002 - Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy)

About 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an affair at some point in some marriage "Monogamy Myth", Therapist Peggy Vaugn

Conservative infidelity statistics estimate that “60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an extramarital affair. These figures are even more significant when we consider the total number of marriages involved, since it's unlikely that all the men and women having affairs happen to be married to each other. If even half of the women having affairs (or 20 percent) are married to men not included in the 60 percent having affairs, then at least one partner will have an affair in approximately 80 percent of all marriages. With this many marriages affected, it's unreasonable to think affairs are due only to the failures and shortcomings of individual husbands or wives.

Note that the above adultry statistics of the prevalence of affairs were made more than a decade ago; so based on changes in society during the intervening years, the current percentage of the population who have had affairs is probably somewhat HIGHER. For instance, the continuing increase of women in the workplace and the increase of women having affairs on the Internet means that the numbers for women having affairs is probably similar to those for men—about 60%.

Re:This isn't a question

[craigminah]

Prove He doesn't exist.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm finding it hard to believe that there was a legal structure developed 5,000 years ago that included marriage, yet that was completely separate from any religious or spiritual basis. Not just separate, but not even evolved from a religious or spiritual basis.

Church and state were tightly coupled in early human history (and many parts later too). That you don't find a legal framework completely detached from spirituality isn't evidence that there is causation between marriage and spiritual (Correlation does not imply causation). It's just evidence that church and state were tightly coupled.

If by marriage we're talking about behaviors and actions, such as monogamy, then there is actually little doubt that marriage does not require spirituality. The evidence: other species that practice those behaviors without the need for developing spirituality (or law, for that matter). Birds and bees just do what birds and bees do without church or state telling them what the "proper" way it is to mate.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Stictly speaking you are correct, however, the devil is literally in the details.

I'm pretty sure I would not want a 54 year old man marrying a 9 year old girl child, and without regulation, this would be perfectly within the law. That's why we regulate marriage, to ensure that situations like the above are not legal.

I'm also pretty sure that I would not want polygamy either, so again, regulation has a purpose.

And, sadly, until recently, this would also include a regulation stipulating that marriage must be between a man and a woman. This is the regulation in question, and frankly, I see no reason why this particular regulation should not be removed. I have no problems with consenting adults marrying each other, regardless of the sex of the two people. I can easily however, see the possibility of abuse when its with a minor (someone not of the age of consent) or when its with more than 2 people (polygamy).

So yes, regulation has a purpose. It's up to society however to decide which regulations are necessary and which are no longer required.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

God contradicts its existence because something would of had to create God, it's a infinite regression paradox. For God to exist he had to be created and for that to exist, it would had to of been created and etc... God answers nothing, it's an answer of a lazy, irrational, immature adult.

Re: This isn't a question

[shilly]

Oh, I think it's clear what benefits gay folks get from being able to marry someone of the same gender: it's a two-fer: not only do they get to marry the person they love, just like their straight friends, family and neighbours, they also get to drive narrow minded bigots like your good self to apoplexy. Hopefully a few of you will get sufficiently outraged to keel over, which will be great for the gene pool as well!

Re: This isn't a question

[NoOneInParticular]

Because that's uncharted territory for law. Suppose there are three people in a marriage relationship, and one gets mortally sick, say in a coma. Who of the two others will represent the spouse, particularly when they are in disagreement. How would divorce be handled? Do the two left need to remarry, or does the contract allow to be continued? How does the estate get split up? How does alimony work? How would inheritance work? How would pensions work? What if there are 4 people, 10, 50? How would all this be structured legally?

Even in contract law, it's a big shift to go from two parties to more than two. Too much needs to be sorted out with too many institutions. That's why 2 consenting adults is the best we can do at this point.

Re:This isn't a question

[I'm New Around Here]

I'm finding it hard to believe that there was a legal structure developed 5,000 years ago that included marriage, yet that was completely separate from any religious or spiritual basis. Not just separate, but not even evolved from a religious or spiritual basis.

Church and state were tightly coupled in early human history (and many parts later too). That you don't find a legal framework completely detached from spirituality isn't evidence that there is causation between marriage and spiritual (Correlation does not imply causation). It's just evidence that church and state were tightly coupled.

That wasn't ledow's argument though. He stated "Marriage pre-dates religion."

For that to be true, it would require a legal framework (since marriage has to come from some authority higher than the couple getting married) that came into existence among a group of people, before that same group started to have religious or spiritual beliefs. And since it seems all groups developed religious or spiritual beliefs very early, his argument would require the date of creation of a purely civil government to be pushed back thousands of years.

Maybe ledow interprets 'marriage' as two people mating, or even forming a life-long bond, without any authority sanctioning it. But that isn't marriage, by any definition in common use.

Re: This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

I'm still not understanding. A Power of Attorney is a form of contract. I can make and break one freely with no penalties at all. It just takes a notary (optional) for it to be valid.

So I could make and break 1000 PoAs in a day, and there'd be no cost. No barrier to doing it. The only inconvenience is if I chose to get them all notarized, and that's not a high barrier.

There is deliberate government interference in forming hurdles to form and dissolve a marriage contract. Eliminating those hurdles without consideration of the results would be folly.

Re: This isn't a question

[dryeo]

Yea, my memory and posting when drinking. it was actually 14yr old so old enough for consent (at the time), the case was in the BC Supreme court and was more of a reference case on the Constitutionality of Canada's polygamy laws.
The real problem is/was getting enough evidence to prosecute for sexual abuse. To quote the special prosecutor,

On August 1, 2007, Richard Peck concluded that there isn't enough evidence to charge the group with sexual abuse or exploitation charges as it has been extraordinarily difficult to find victims willing to testify and the defendants are likely to claim "religious freedom" as a defence.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Where did he say they were married? He just said they get the *same rights*.

Yes, that's what "the same rights" means: a shitload of legal and financial obligations towards each other, because one partners legal right is the other partner's legal obligation.

Re:This isn't a question

[dave420]

A republic is a country without a dynastic leader. That is it. It has nothing to do with being a democracy or a dictatorship. I think you are confusing "republic" with "representative democracy".

Re:This isn't a question

[azhitsky]

Congratulations with your emotional victory, but please explain to me how should we award those couples who see their marriage as the way to form unions for upbringing the next generation of human beings on this planet. And if I am to put on scale LOVE vs KIDS, then I have so much more respect to those who spend good 20 years of their lives doing this hard job day-in day-out -- raising kids. And if you are prepared to do that, I'll respect you too. If not, then you are a fluke of evolution as far as it is concerned.

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

First of all, comma's are an important aspect of English grammar, try using them next time. Secondly, mirage has noting to do with kids, so I don't understand your point. You could be common law and raise kids for 20 years, that doesn't make you any better then a married couple who raises kids for 20 years.

Re:This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

For that to be true, it would require a legal framework (since marriage has to come from some authority higher than the couple getting married) that came into existence among a group of people, before that same group started to have religious or spiritual beliefs.

I disagree. For there to be laws on marriage, marriage or marriage-like contracts would have to be already existing. A law on seat belts implies that seat belts or at least the concept of seat belts already existed before the law was written (::check off obligatory car analogy::)

Maybe ledow interprets 'marriage' as two people mating, or even forming a life-long bond, without any authority sanctioning it. But that isn't marriage, by any definition in common use.

Except we're not talking about marriage in "common use". We're talking about which came first. To do that, we have to examine what came before marriage, that is to say those mating and life long bond behaviors that had all the aspects of marriage save state recognition. Such behaviors can be seen in biology (i.e in other animals) which almost certainly existed before the development spirituality (i.e again, other animals don't have spirituality)

Or put it in a humorous way, think History of the World Part 1, with the first marriage being a cave man clubbing another woman (or a man for the first gay marriage!) then dragging them into their cave.

Re:This isn't a question

[azhitsky]

All I am saying is that raising kids is the hard bit. The institution of marriage is one of attempts by society to support those involved in raising kids. Now we are diluting the definition, which makes you feel satisfied, I suppose. Well, to me, and I am just one opinion here, it sounds like you are taking away a bit of pride of those who have chosen to spend a vast portion of their lives on fostering the next generation and thereby keeping the society going. My question is what you are going to offer in return.

Re:This isn't a question

[dave420]

Then I take it you are in favour of stopping infertile people getting married, and are forgetting that plenty of same-sex couples have kids. Clear those two up and you might have an argument!

Re:This isn't a question

[I'm New Around Here]

Again, you are describing 'mating rituals' and 'life-long pairing of mates'. Neither of those is a marriage. Animals that mate and pair for life don't go through a ceremony first, wherein other animals acknowledge and accept that pairing, with a justice-of-the-flock giving its blessing.

Re:This isn't a question

[azhitsky]

That's exactly what I am saying: the fertility rates in the Western society are trending downwards and the same-sex marriages are not helping the trend. Or do they? I have not seen statistics on that. Anyone can tell what percentage of same-sex couples have kids adopted or biological?

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

The discussion is about marriage, not about having kids. We don't need more people on earth, we need less.

Re:This isn't a question

[jarlsberg71]

While I'm glad you're supportive of SS marriage in NY, I want this done Federally. So if I travel to PA for some reason I don't get "downgraded" as a person when I cross the state line. I don't want to put it to a vote, No one should vote if I get to sit at the lunch counter or not.

Re:This isn't a question

[NoOneInParticular]

So what do you suggest we do if a person is incapacitated, and doctors need someone's direction to perform life threatening surgery or not? Ask a random person in the hallway, or ask the person that is legally designated as the spokesperson?

I much prefer an elected government to decide upon these kind of issues than a religious tradition based on the necessities of living in the desert.

Re:This isn't a question

[coinreturn]

Can a goat grant consent?

I think it's obvious why you're asking.

Re:This isn't a question

[raque]

While I'm glad you're supportive of SS marriage in NY, I want this done Federally. So if I travel to PA for some reason I don't get "downgraded" as a person when I cross the state line. I don't want to put it to a vote, No one should vote if I get to sit at the lunch counter or not.

Your point of view is the one I specifically oppose the most. First and foremost I find it a huge arrogant overreach to compare your being able to change how a marriage contract is regulated with the horrors of Slavery and Segrigation. Your problems are trivial compared to what African Americans go through. Just think, all of the killings we hare hearing about now is the absolute best they have ever had it in America. You should take great comfort in, after 50 years of the Civil Rights Act and 150 after the Civil War, how well Washington has done integrating Blacks into America. It not like how those Catholics and Jews who worked with their fellow Americans are marginalized in Ghettos. You should rethink how you phrase your point.

I think your point is wrong in fact and it values the illusion of efficiency made by tyranny over the responsibilities and freedoms of Democracy. I take it you oppose what happened in Ireland. The people should not have decided but instead some "Authority" should have done it. Your point assumes that there is some Authority that supersedes "The People".

You won't escape a vote, you just shift who votes. It will be the judges who are unaccountable rather then your fellow citizens. As poster after poster on this tread has pointed out The States have the responsibility to regulate contracts. Marriages are one of the contracts that The States regulate. You seem to be saying that your contract is so special that it doesn't get to be regulated the same as mine did. If you don't think the regulations are right and fair you don't have to go through the legislative process. If you want me to go with you to PA and campaign for change from our fellow Americans then I will. I will, also, oppose you trying to go around us, "The People."

If you feel downgraded as a person because the regulations shift as you pass from State to State you should realize that is how the Founding Fathers wanted it. It is the trick they used to keep the maximal freedoms for as many different groups as possible. We The People don't have to choose between legalizing Same Sex Marriage. We can have both. So there is no need to choose. We just can't have both everywhere.

As an example of how badly that sort of thinking can go wrong that is how the Assads in Syria have kept power, playing a game of giving a number of different minority groups power over the majority Sunni Muslims. As long as they keep their coalition together and are willing to use any violence necessary they will stay in power. This way they avoid have to make an agreement with the various parities, and once they start the cycle of violence they can keep it going for generations.

Re:This isn't a question

[jarlsberg71]

Perhaps There was a blurred line with the equation. I equate equal rights for all people, which I liken to civil rights of african americans. That is not a gross understatement. Are they they same? Of course not. Are they similar? I believe so. I don't believe it's Arrogance to point out similarities between the two. Are/Were the groups being discriminated against both in society and the legal system? No. They're not equal. But they sure are similar. There are still 32 states in the US where I can lose my job for who I have in my bedroom. Hell, Homosexuality wasn't entirely removed from the DSM until 1986! Oh and talk to me about the killings cause there's never been anyone killed in the US for being gay. There was that couple who got beat over the head with a chair in NYC just a couple weeks ago. So no. sorry. people have had their time to adjust, When I say No one should vote on it. I mean No one. It should just be. Don't want to support rights of someone else? don't be like them. Don't get married, or get married, do whatever you want. but my rights are RIGHTS and you don't get to vote on them. As for Ireland. I'm happy that equality passed. I wouldn't call it a "By any means necessary" but I'd say "whatever legally gets the law passed". Maybe the supreme court ruling isn't the best way to get it accomplished here. But if it sticks, even for a few years and then came to a popular vote federally I'd be fore that. As for letting the states decide? show me a state that doesn't honor EVERYONE ELSE'S driver's license and marriage certs. No, they all do. It doesn't need to be federally mandated for a universal marriage or drivers license. because that would be stupid. Well until we have people who aren't willing to say that some people are more equal than others, I'd want a federal law protecting my ass if I got in a car accident in Virginia.

Re: This isn't a question

[jarlsberg71]

As someone who just had his husband in the hospital for a month. That shit does matter. (We also filed healthcare proxies just in case...) But let me tell you. I've done Domestic Partnership, Which was cute. I even thought about just going to a more legally recognizable LLC before we wed in 2013. ( would be better if we got hurt south of D.C. than a marriage cert) Wills and estates are fine. But without even a marriage certificate, my husband's ex wife would have entitlement to parts of our collected stuff. I always felt I shouldn't have to hire lawyers and pay for all these documents just because we both have a Y Chromosome. Granted we have to do the wills and estate stuff for the little we do have since I have a religious sometimes vindictive family should something happen to me I could see them trying to kick him our of our house and give my stuff to a church. The ability to make decisions for children are easier for married couples, simply based on adopted kids where the birth mother/parents are still around. That's how I read it. Thankfully I have my dog. Way better than children. While I agree that marriage isn't working, to have them give us something else that is not entirely equal would set off balances one way or the other. I never did intend to get married, we were together for almost 12 years when we did. Why? Work's insurance wouldn't cover a domestic partner in a state that allowed marriage. (I get their point, if we require straight people to be married to put them on insurance, why not make it equal) so I planned, invited, and had my wedding in 4 days.

Re:This isn't a question

[azhitsky]

Oh, do we really? While the Western World enjoys its recreational sex, more conservative civilizations take their heritages seriously. They know that it will be their children and children of their children who will rule the future.

The Ireland referendum has won the day, but does it help the Western World to protect its values in the long run? Who will be left to protect it anyway several generations down the road? Just trying to think beyond my bedroom for once.

Re: This isn't a question

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

As someone who just had his husband in the hospital for a month. That shit does matter.

Of course it matters! Did I say otherwise anywhere?

But let me tell you. I've done Domestic Partnership, ... But without even a marriage certificate,

And why should you have to get a marriage certificate in order to get these legal rights? Why shouldn't everybody (straight or gay) be able to make these arrangements for their partnerships without labeling it "marriage" or get them as part of a "take-it-or-leave-it" package?

Re: This isn't a question

[jarlsberg71]

I think a legal license is needed because you can't create something new like you suggest without first destroying the former (IMHO, YMMV) otherwise you'll have 2 classes of citizens the "old-timey marriage" and the "new legally recognized union thingy"

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

Okay then go have like 200 kids and feel good.

Re: This isn't a question

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The simplest change would be (as I said) simply to strike the term "marriage" from the laws and replace it by "civil union"; that wouldn't change anybody's rights, but it would get rid of the stupid discussions around the state redefining religious marriage.

Converting marriage into a private contractual arrangement and unbundling it is harder. Nevertheless, what you are worried about isn't a big problem: old marriages would simply be deemed equivalent to a specific modern contract.

Finally, your reasoning about "two classes of citizens" is so bizarre and scary that I'm not sure I want to live on this planet anymore.

Re:This isn't a question

[craigminah]

I get that, but that too is a lazy argument taken from a Philosophy 101 course (i.e. "if God is all-mighty could he create a stone even He cannot lift?"). My rebuttal is, "what created the universe, it's here so how did it come into being, the Big Bang is generally accepted to be the start but what was before the Big Bang..." etc.) Yet we are in fact here (or we think we are). An accepted way to prove the existence of something is to prove it's effect on the things around it without directly observing the thing or phenomena in question. We see it all the time when studying astronomy. Numerous studies have shown that people who regularly attend church (of any denomination) are generally happier than those who do not. I'm talking populations, not individuals so please don't state how noble and happy you are because there's plenty of folks like that in every camp. Population-wise, believers lead happier lives...what's the root cause? Most likely it's belonging to a group of like-minded people who support each other and go good acts within their communities but could it be that God is acting somehow on their lives? Even if it's a placebo effect, it is a good thing.

Re: This isn't a question

[jarlsberg71]

Hrm. I wonder if the Mars colonists will be allowed to marry someone of their own gender... ;)

Re:This isn't a question

[Murdoch5]

As far as psychology can tell, we're happy when we're around people who share our beliefs, this is why attending church will make you happy in the same way that eating lunch will. Groups who support each other, make people happy. If religion did my people happier, then if each person took a different belief, they should each be happier then those no belief.

As for what created the universe, it's a very complex question but one that doesn't get answer by "God". I think the current accepted idea is that dark matter and matter got into a state of perfect summitry and that caused some balance shift to cause matter to over take dark matter and the big bang happened. Now that's not the final answer as we need to figure out what but the dark matter there in the first place, but it's still a better answer then God.

Re: This isn't a question

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder why anybody thinks that one should need permission to marry anybody.

Re:This isn't a question

[craigminah]

Neither argument (e.g. God or Big Bang) explains the universe...religious people are generally good so let them be...stop attacking them because it's the cool thing to do nowadays.

Re: This isn't a question

[euroq]

I actually mean that the negative consequences built into the contract. If someone creates a contract that says "we're married" and that's it, you don't even need a contract. If it says "then we split assets 50/50 if broken", then you have negative consequences of breaking it, and if you don't want to honor the agreement, then the State can help enforce it.

Re: This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

The current barrier to divorce is that you must sue the government for permission. Why would people make a self-harming contract?

Re: This isn't a question

[euroq]

People have been doing this for thousands of years, to protect the interests of both involved. For example, dowries which must be repaid to the woman if there is a divorce, husband has to pay wife half of salary for half as long as they have been married, etc. I wouldn't say it's self-harming; I'd say it's generally to a certain penalty that both parties have an interest in not breaking the contract.

Re: This isn't a question

[AK Marc]

For example, dowries which must be repaid to the woman if there is a divorce, husband has to pay wife half of salary for half as long as they have been married, etc. I wouldn't say it's self-harming; I'd say it's generally to a certain penalty that both parties have an interest in not breaking the contract.

Odd that in both your examples, it's the man that has to pay. Sounds like remnants of a patriarchal society.

Ireland

[Anonymous Coward]

FP

Finally

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally Patrick Fitzgerald and Gerald Fitzpatrick a can get married.

Re:Finally

[garyisabusyguy]

And give legitimacy to their adopted son, little Patrick Gerald (Fitz) Fitzgerald-Fitzpatrick

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

[BarbaraHudson]

Civil rights aren't rights if they're denied to some groups. Then they're just "privileges".

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[Whiteox]

Begone you spawn of the Devil!
Sinner! You WILL rot in Hell.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

Come on - why would you deny gays and lesbians all the joys of separation and divorce that straight couples have? Oops - I mean SHARE THE PAIN! :-)

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[Anonymous Coward]

Unmarried people do not have the same rights as married people. Why are so many people against single rights? Shouldn't everyone have equal rights?

Re: This is how organized religion dies

[Tomahawk]

Single people have the right to marry...
Now, in Ireland, so do gay people.

Once married, these additional legal rights and protections are also theirs.

Some people choose not to marry, but they still have the right - nothing is stopping them.

(Expect, maybe, lack of a partner...)

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[Whiteox]

That brings to mind if any church will condone and marry gay couples?
That way you can get religious and civil registrations for marriages and deaths. I really don't know how important that is though. Maybe for some people.

Re: This is how organized religion dies

[ganjadude]

its not about if they can marry, its about the rights one has being single vs the rights one have being married.

the "gay people can get married to any woman he wants" has also been true for a very long time and that didnt cut it,

the way I see it now there are 2 protected classes, instead of stripping one protected class, we are simply granting special rights to more groups.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[antiperimetaparalogo]

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.

I don't like LBGT (and "t" - i like /. sigs!) - by the way, i am a Greek (Orthodox - which is almost like Catholics) Christian (note: my religion teaches, and my church believes, that LBGTt behavior is very bad, but we should love LBGTt persons). And i don't like the kind of discussion where people will accuse the Catholic church as the reason some civil matters are problematic because it teaches THE TRUTH (that is what i believe!) about LBGTt behavior, EVEN TO LBGTt persons - now that this civil matter is resolved, people still attack the Catholic church: "loss of moral authority of the Catholic church after a series of sex scandals was a strong contributing factor" (from /. summary) - Really? Do you know that the vast majority of those "sex scandals" was caused by homosexuals (and actually not priests but teachers in church funded schools)?

I believe in civil unions between LBGTt people, and i always thought it was the right thing. But i also believe that LBGTt people should repent for their behavior - church can help them. Why you think "organized religion dies" when people like me support the civil rights of LBGTt people? Or you think that the church should stop teaching (or "modify") the truth, to make it compatible with what people believe about civil issues? In a democracy, the citizens who decide about such civil matters may still believe the truth of the church but know the difference between "earth and sky". Most people i know are influenced by religion (that is the case in Greece) like me, but, again like me, support the rights of LBGTt people - what they don't support is having some "fagget pride" inside my church! Because there are people who believe that LBGTt people must be married inside a church, with an Orthodox/Catholic priest giving them blessings, and us, people of religion, giving a "thunderous applause".

The best thing to do is let church be a church, and have civil issues outside it - like what happened in this case. YOU (and everyone else) should not try to connect this with religion because I AM religious: if my religion is threatened i would prefer to stop supporting LBGTt people - my religion is more important for humans (even LBGTt people) than some civil rights (that most LBGTt people will never even practice actually - less than 10% of LBGTt people plans to "marry").

As a person of religion that has civil rights to decide about such issues i want to advise LBGTt people to stop being so irresponsible when demand their rights: civil unions is your civil right, I support it - having sex with Jesus is not! Please stop suppressing my right to religion.... everyone will benefit from that.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[excursive]

Huh? Some churches already do, and have for decades. Many more will perform blessings instead of marriages.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

Re: This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

(Except, maybe, lack of a partner...)

This is Slashdot. What is this "except maybe" you are talking about? :-)

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[Anonymous Coward]

You cannot help LGBT people, as there is nothing wrong with LGBT people, you stupid asshole.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[epyT-R]

Only to be replaced by what? Yet another dogmatic ideology that usurps freedom? As an atheist, I don't see this as much improvement.

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:This is how organized religion dies

[loonycyborg]

I disagree that freedom is involved here. I'd agree if it was about removing penalties for sodomy, but homosexual marriage is something different. It could be argued that recognizing it would map it better to actually existing relationships, but having multiple lovers is even more widespread than homosexuality yet nobody is in any hurry to generalize marriage to support both polyandry and polygyny. So I don't see what's the point even.

Re: This is how organized religion dies

[sumdumass]

That's a silly argument. You should have just let the GP die in shame rather than put the "same right as everyone else" argument up. You see, the same thing was said about gays. Hell, I even made the same argument. All gays can get married anywhere and have the same rights as everyone else, all they have to do is marry someone of the opposite sex. Now to say the singles have the same rights and married, all they need to do is conform to whatever dictates are out there is the exact same argument. Either civil rights are rights and belong to everyone or they are special rights to a certain few who act in certain ways.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[serviscope_minor]

civil unions is your civil right, I support it - having sex with Jesus is not!

Well, *I* want to get down on my knees and please Jesus.

And since civil rights seem to include freedom of religion, I'll thank you to not tell me that I can't feel his salvation all over my face.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[Whiteox]

The best thing to do is let church be a church, and have civil issues outside it - like what happened in this case

Well written. I agree with you. Let it be. Many people find comfort in church and as a Roman Catholic (the Western Rite), I have more respect towards the Eastern Rite religions like orthodoxy because they are much more community oriented, they allow their priests to marry and generally are more traditional, closer to apostolic faith.
As far as I'm concerned, we should all accept (therefore not deny) everyone's choice to follow and act with any belief system they wish, as long as it doesn't interfere with the choice of others.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[serviscope_minor]

but having multiple lovers is even more widespread than homosexuality

Multiple lovers maybe, but multiple primary partners? I doubt that, personally. I don't think mere lovers need to be recognised in law. I don't see the case for it.

yet nobody is in any hurry to generalize marriage to support both polyandry and polygyny

That's because it's far, far too complicated. Marriage between a couple is simple: one dies, the other gets all the stuff with no tax (actually it's complicated enough if the dying partner leaves a bad will). Having the same thing in the case with multiple primary partners is more or less impossible to resolve in a sane manner.

But if you have an idea of how to fix that, I'm all ears.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[loonycyborg]

But where's the exact border between "lover" and "primary partner"? Also, homosexual marriage creates a lot of extra problems of its own. Marriage in many contexts is viewed as father, mother and their children yet it's a lot more complicated in case of homosexual marriage. Married homosexuals can still can have children, just not from each other.. If one homosexual will have a child from another homosexual of opposite gender and both of them have their own homosexual marriages then to whose family will the child belong? :P

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[antiperimetaparalogo]

civil unions is your civil right, I support it - having sex with Jesus is not!

Well, *I* want to get down on my knees and please Jesus.

And since civil rights seem to include freedom of religion, I'll thank you to not tell me that I can't feel his salvation all over my face.

No problem dude, do what ever you like (if you realy like that - please excuse me if i just advise you against it), but (even from this small part of my -modded down!- comment) try to understand what my point is.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[AK Marc]

George W got in Yale as a legacy because his grades weren't good enough. He was handed benefits based on who his daddy was. That's affirmative action. If AA was abolished, it would still exist, but would be rich white-person only AA, as it was before AA was started. That's the reason it exists today, because the racism that exists benefits whites, so AA tries to balance the opportunities, to achieve some semblance of equality in our biased society.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[AK Marc]

Considering how the Lutheran church allows openly gay pastors, I assume they would be ones on the list that would. And you don't need a church for a marriage.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[vlueboy]

Hi, antiperimetaparalogo

I am sorry for the bad responses you are getting here. It is the symptom of a larger problem you're not going to see resolved. Many outspoken Slashdotters treasure worldly freedom and intelligence. Remember the warning that "We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one" (1 john 5:19).

On this forum you always hear celebration about "choice" and multiple distros and "voting with your wallet," and making "informed decisions" and so on. The latter point naturally leads away from God for the wrong reasons, because it takes the right kind of willing heart, a lot of time and scriptural instruction given the spiritually-lacking state of willing separation from God starting with the first human marriage of Adam and Eve. Most people will label the choice to follow God here as barbaric and ignorant. The scripture from earlier confirms to those of us who trust in the promise of God's kingdom --and who see dozens of bible promises already fulfilled-- that few things will be clear of Satan's hand until He does away with Satan in the coming judgement.

Now, some more common traits here are hubris (slashdotters won't disagree on that) and lack of abundance of worldly"wisdom" that will lead many to a life without God. Just as the belief in this thread that lack of religion is a freedom (because so many religions were corrupted to disobey God and have shown great horrors that rightfully separate many otherwise God-curious candidates) they feel is a discovery that will free them. They'll encourage others to adopt that same atheist 'freedom'. The trap is that after successes against the practice of racism in recent history, all efforts to promote "equality" feel "right" in man's eyes even if the practice is condemned in God's. Leviticus 18:22 and 23 condemn homosexuality and bestiality and many other reminders are peppered in hebrew scriptures (old testament) and greek scriptures (new testament). Most people here celebrate as the world adopts Satan's thinking more and more as the end the bible promises arrives to wipe this current order.

Genesis 2 verse 18 onwards reminds us that the man being alone without a complement is something that God had a plan for. It shows the creation of the first woman from man and uses the word "marriage" in the original sense. It also says that the first man, Adam, replied that man would leave father and mother to become one with his wife. Man had not sinned yet and things quickly became worse. Man's law and God's law are not the same, and we must know which to obey. We can't dictate law, but be trained by the bible and be in the right decisions as all of God's will becomes unpopular between now and the coming new world.

Make efforts to keep obeying God's word without letting the growing obfuscation of man's law and counterfeitreligion, and know that there is a lot of spiritually bad company here, despite these same people holding dear "tech" values that we learned to cherish.
You don't need to try to convince opposers in online arguments or be moderated high, because that is a lot of nonsense when it comes to God's promises for those to prove to be his faithful followers when the end comes. Cheers.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[antiperimetaparalogo]

The best thing to do is let church be a church, and have civil issues outside it - like what happened in this case

Well written. I agree with you. Let it be. Many people find comfort in church and as a Roman Catholic (the Western Rite), I have more respect towards the Eastern Rite religions like orthodoxy because they are much more community oriented, they allow their priests to marry and generally are more traditional, closer to apostolic faith. As far as I'm concerned, we should all accept (therefore not deny) everyone's choice to follow and act with any belief system they wish, as long as it doesn't interfere with the choice of others.

I am really glad my brother in Christ that you agree with me, and i agree with your extra addition to my point - but as a fellow Slashdoter (about a month's old) i must confess to you that i am disappointed from Slashdot because the comment from which the part you agree with is from has been modded down as "flamebait"... what is the point of discussing this story if a religious person like me can't honestly express himself? Don't answer, it was a rhetoric question... i already understand what "Slashdot" likes...

While in some theological matters i find my (Greek) Orthodox Church more correct, we are almost the same church, hopefully we will unite some day - but i have a deep respect for the Roman Catholic Church because does more than us Orthodox in the good mission of speading the TRUTH... this is something that obligates me to defend it from the dis-honest attacks that are so usual.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[AK Marc]

Do you know that the vast majority of those "sex scandals" was caused by homosexuals (and actually not priests but teachers in church funded schools)?

In the US, the scandals were almost exclusively ordained priests, not teachers or such. Also, the teachers i church funded schools are required to be members of the church. At least for the schools I know the details of. Thus they were all 100% church funded, ordained, certified, and all that. At least in the US, 100% of the scandal was the church's members abusing children, and the church refusing to expose and correct the behavior, but instead covering up and actually encouraging it.

civil unions is your civil right, I support it - having sex with Jesus is not! Please stop suppressing my right to religion.... everyone will benefit from that.

Jesus hung out with 12 guys. He preached "love" all the time. You honestly think that Hippie Jesus wasn't having sex with John? There's a reason neither married a woman. The wording of nuns, married to Jesus or God, is very similar to what John did, married to Jesus.

Nobody is having sex with Jesus, except John, and Mary in a 3-way. In heaven.

How in any way is anyone suppressing your right to religion?

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

As far as I'm concerned, we should all accept (therefore not deny) everyone's choice to follow and act with any belief system they wish, as long as it doesn't interfere with the choice of others.

I am really glad my brother in Christ that you agree with me, and i agree with your extra addition to my point

What a LIAR! Or did you forget that you posted that 3 hours ago in this same discussion? You know, the comment where you state this model of intolerance for others, their rights, and their beliefs:

my religion is more important for humans (even LBGTt people) than some civil rights

and

i want to advise LBGTt people to stop being so irresponsible when demand their rights

So, please answer the 15 questions I posed underneath your comment wrt your beliefs vis transsexuals. I've got my baloney detector on high :-)

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

Multiple lovers maybe, but multiple primary partners?

Sure. It's called divorce and remarriage. Or widow / widower remarrying.

And then there are some Mormons, Muslims, etc. who believe in multiple simultaneous wives.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Hello from Greece, my brother in Christ - this is more important for me than that you are also a fellow Slashdoter, even if being both a Christian and Slashdoter IS important for me... i just wrote this comment to some other fellow.

I agree with all the theological points you write about (most probably -since you know the Bible so well!- you are a Protestant! I am an Orthodox). Unfortunately, i also agree with what you write about Slashdot... and here is the problem for me: i am Greek! I came here for good discussions - or at least honest. I may be unable to contribute in good discussions, but i am disappointed from the dis-honesty of many Slashdoters: when it is o.k. to accuse Christianity for almost everything (even for systemd? i would not be suprised if i ever read such a thing here!), but it is not o.k. to counter-argument... then this is not a discussion any more. In Greek "discussion" is called "sizitisi" - it means "together asking [for the truth]".

In any case, i appreciate your message because some cultural differences that surely exist between a Greek like me and most of other Slashdoters (i understand that this is mostly a USA forum) make me think sometimes that it is something wrong with me: i strugle with my English, i make fun of non-Greeks by calling them barbarians, etc - i know understand that it is mostly what i already understood....

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[antiperimetaparalogo]

As far as I'm concerned, we should all accept (therefore not deny) everyone's choice to follow and act with any belief system they wish, as long as it doesn't interfere with the choice of others.

I am really glad my brother in Christ that you agree with me, and i agree with your extra addition to my point

What a LIAR! Or did you forget that you posted that 3 hours ago in this same discussion? You know, the comment where you state this model of intolerance for others, their rights, and their beliefs:

my religion is more important for humans (even LBGTt people) than some civil rights

and

i want to advise LBGTt people to stop being so irresponsible when demand their rights

So, please answer the 15 questions I posed underneath your comment wrt your beliefs vis transsexuals. I've got my baloney detector on high :-)

I don't think i am a "liar", i started my comment, as honestly as i could, with this: "I don't like LBGT (and "t" - i like /. sigs!)" - and i am sure you recognized the sig. Unfortunately it has been modded down as "flamebait" (i don't understand why), so people may just read the parts you quoted in your reply and miss the "spirit" of the comment, but fortunately you provided a link so... thanks!

I just read the other reply with the GOOD questions you made, so i will try to answer them.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[Uberbah]

I am sorry for the bad responses you are getting here.

Why. He's a bigot. Would you be excusing him if he was championing miscegenation laws or insisting that Jews repent for killing Jesus?

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[dala1]

No one is suppressing or threatening your religion. Religious people are driving people who aren't bigoted out.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[Anonymous Coward]

So this would be the same God that told his supporters to commit genocide, kidnapping, and rape (Numbers 31) then? The same one who thinks bats are birds, bugs have 4 legs, and that you can make true-breeding white goats have spotted kids by making them stare at a stripey stick while they fuck?

The same guy who insists on concubinage, polygamy, and slavery? The same one who has three commandments about kissing his ass but not a single one against rape (and no, "thou shalt not commut adultery" doesn't count).

The same one who insisted that "there be some standing here who shall not taste death" before the End of the World, Seriously, I Mean It, I'll BRB Yew Gaiz? And has been, by the most generous possible measure, more than 1850 years late and counting?

The same one who thought a 10-story tall mud-brick tower could reach up to heaven and threw a hissy fit over it?

The same one who decided to kill off all but 8 members of the human race, then repopulate with more of the same, and is surprised things haven't changed? ("...for the imagination of man is wicked from his youth.").

The same one who decided to sacrifice his son, who is also himself, TO himself, to stop himself from throwing his own creations, whom he knew would sin before he created them, using the free will he chose to give them, into the Hell he didn't have to create but chose to (and never mentioned to the Jews; no, he let the pagan Persians and Greeks do it...)? And the sacrifice mostly didn't work?

That God?

Yeah. You and he can both go to the Hell you love so much. If Yahweh is real at all he's some kind of demon or evil alien, and if you think YOU'LL be safe for all eternity in the presence of a sadistic megalomaniac like that, you are in for a rude shock.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[DutchUncle]

polyandry and polygyny ... far too complicated

Why should it be more complicated than any other multiple partnership? Like, say, a law firm, or a medical practice? In some cases, the partners avoid the issue by setting up a company - nominally a new entity separate from all of them - and split the ownership. In others there is a set of agreements between all of the people. Of course, "marriage" is the one partnership arrangement that is given special treatment ALL ACROSS the legal spectrum, which is one of the reasons that "civil union" wasn't good enough for the gay marriage issue - equal treatment has to be the equal name or it might appear that all of those other connections don't apply. It still seems to me that the corollary is stronger than the differences.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[Kjella]

The scripture from earlier confirms to those of us who trust in the promise of God's kingdom --and who see dozens of bible promises already fulfilled-

Pardon me, I might be one of those godless heathens but I suffered through quite a few years of Christian teachings - what exactly has the Bible promised us apart from forgiveness from our sins and heavenly bliss in the afterlife? The old testament was as I remember it mostly punishments. Punishment for eating the apple, building Babel's tower, Sodom and Gomorrah and of course the flood to wipe out everything. We're all sinners from the original sin and if we don't repent it's hell.

The new testament was pretty much all allegories on how we should live, there were a few "one-off" miracles while Jesus lived but all those who saw him raise the dead, turn water to wine or walk on water has been dead for 2000 years. So there's good and evil in the world, but that's pretty indistinguishable from good and bad people with free will without God or Satan pulling anyone's strings.

So I'm curious, what is it you feel God has promised? And what do see that makes you feel he's delivered? Because I can't find a lick of difference, the devout believers get injured, sick and die like the rest of us and terrible sins go by without being struck down from the heavens. It's of course possible that all of this gets tallied up and justice is served in the afterlife, but here and now in this life I can't find any sign of God. Maybe I should ask this in the opposite direction, if you were to envision a world without God what exactly would be different?

Re: This is how organized religion dies

[dryeo]

Single people have the right not to have to support other people just because they married or parented someone. As a married father, I have to ask, why do single people have more rights? Too much of my meager income goes to supporting others and I get supreme shit if I go out partying or even if I work late without reporting in.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[dryeo]

So true. Just because someone was booted into the ground does not mean that they should be helped up. It's their fault that they got booted, should have picked better parents.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[FranTaylor]

hubris

Yeah, you've got that going on IN SPADES when you tell other people how to behave themselves based on badly translated gibberish

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, polygamy is perfectly legal in a significant number of countries within some limits. It's also about as "traditional" as things can get seeing that it's been common practice in many cultures for thousands of years. In addition to the obvious Muslim-majority countries which have laws entirely based on Sharia law, India allows polygamy under the right circumstances (marriage law in India is tied to religious law, so a Muslim man can have multiple wives but a Hindu or Christian man can't legally). I heard about a big scandal a few years ago where a politician got caught having multiple wives and converted to Islam so that it would be legal. When I asked someone from India about it, I was told that wasn't the first time this had happened. I've been told marriage laws in Egypt are similar (in that it depends on your legally registered religion what is allowed).

Even the laws of the USA can recognize a polygamous marriage in certain obscure cases. Immigration law specifically defines spouses in terms of the laws of the originating country, so someone in a legally-recognized polygamous marriage from their origin country could sponsor all of their spouses for visas in any case where a spouse is allowed a visa. The odd thing is that for most everyday things they wouldn't be considered married due to the way most of the law defines marriage. I'm sure it would cause lots of issues, but I gather it doesn't come up much.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is really funny when you consider that the churches that have abandoned tradition are the ones that are dying, and the ones that are growing are the ones that have held the line.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[FranTaylor]

Marriage in many contexts is viewed as father, mother and their children yet it's a lot more complicated in case of homosexual marriage.

How about those Mormon marriages with multiple wives?

I would guess that in your world view, widows and widowers should be punished for the crime of attempting to raise a child without two parents?

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[serviscope_minor]

Then I don't understand your post. No one's suppressing your religion, unless there's a part of your religion which insists that you must impose your religious law on others not of your religion. In which case, why should you get priority?

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[serviscope_minor]

Sure. It's called divorce and remarriage

Nice pedantry :)

I meant multiple simultaneous. The case you describe works because the split is performed before another join, so the marriage happens from an effectively blank slate in that regard.

And then there are some Mormons, Muslims, etc. who believe in multiple simultaneous wives.

So? Just because some people believe in it doesn't mean there's a good solution in our legal system.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[serviscope_minor]

But where's the exact border between "lover" and "primary partner"?

Well, quite. That's why things work quite well when a pair of people get state recognition in some form.

Also, homosexual marriage creates a lot of extra problems of its own.

I disagree:

Marriage in many contexts is viewed as father, mother and their children yet it's a lot more complicated in case of homosexual marriage. Married homosexuals can still can have children, just not from each other..

So? The law around adoption is very well established. Straight couples have been adopting and divorcing since before gay marriage was a thing.

If one homosexual will have a child from another homosexual of opposite gender and both of them have their own homosexual marriages then to whose family will the child belong? :P

Same as if a two people in a married couple screwed around and managed to get knocked up/knock someone up.

The thing is, gay marriage doesn't actually introduce any situations significantly different from those that can already happen. There are some slight extra variations, such as who precisely gives birth in the example above, but those are nothing but minor variants.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[loonycyborg]

What world view? I don't understand what you're talking about. I don't have any world view.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[loonycyborg]

But you still failed to establish that poly-marriage is inherently more problematic than homosexual marriage. I remain unconvinced. Polygyny at least is widespread in Muslim countries and Africa and is part of local law there. So it's not unimplementable. I say just take advantage of inventor's paradox and legalize gender-independent group marriage. Both polygamy and homosexual marriage will be subsets of it.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi. Gay Irish guy here. You must have descended from one of the crazies we kicked out a few hundred years ago. Things are going great over here now - weather is perfect, quality of life is among the highest worldwide, people are happy, loving and caring.

Its not perfect but it is better than ever for everybody, and improves every time we remove ourselves further from religious slavery and bigotry.

Sucks to be you.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Among other thing: it is now a law (an EU directive) that my religion's truths about many things (LBGT issues included) is "hate crime/speach" - so, i feel that my religion is suppresed (by the way: my religion -Christian- is well known about this "only those who want it must follow it").

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, homosexual marriage creates a lot of extra problems of its own.

Name them.

Marriage in many contexts is viewed as father, mother and their children yet it's a lot more complicated in case of homosexual marriage. Married homosexuals can still can have children, just not from each other.. If one homosexual will have a child from another homosexual of opposite gender and both of them have their own homosexual marriages then to whose family will the child belong?

Ooh, these? I guess somebody didn't realize that you could substitute "hetereosexual" in there since anybody can have sex with partners with whom they are not married. Heterosexuals can also have sperm donors, egg donors, gestational surrogacy the same as homosexuals. Heterosexuals can also adopt children. Heterosexuals can have divorces and custody discussions.

Sorry, but there's really no extra complication. It's no different what the genders are, these matters need to be addressed in the modern world.

Or are you going to completely deny ALL persons those capacities? Are you that intent on simplification?

At least homosexual couples have detecting adultery easier, they can easily say "But I didn't make that child with him/her" with it being easy to recognize as true absent some medical procedure while heterosexual couples may not even think about it. And there's at least one case of a woman undergoing a fertilization procedure at a clinic with sperm she took from a man against his consent as they had used condoms when they had sex. And no, the clinic did not have his permission. Had he not found the paperwork, he never would have known to ask, let alone pursue legal claims against them both.

A homosexual man, in that position, knowing he didn't have voluntary sex with a woman, would have it much simpler.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how western civilization dies. Immoral behaviours, decadence, and not living a Christian life.

Re: This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

Single people have fewer obligations than married people. Marriage involves a curtailment of some rights in return for other rights that can only apply if more than one person is involved. For example, the obligation and right of mutual support in marriage cannot be applied to single people, because there's no "mutual" there. And the single person can't have their spouse decide whether to pull the plug in the ICU because they don't have a spouse.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

Your post is still a lie. I specifically mentioned where you said "my religion is more important for humans (even LGBTt people) than some civil rights" and "i want to advise LGBTt people to stop being so irresponsible when demand (sic) their rights"

You claim that you agree with what Whiteox posted when he said "As far as I'm concerned, we should all accept (therefore not deny) everyone's choice to follow and act with any belief system they wish, as long as it doesn't interfere with the choice of others."

You lie. Plain and simple. Maybe you should apply to be Greece's next finance minister.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

Put simply, your expressed views on LGBTt issues ARE hate speech. Also, referring to me elsewhere as a boy/girl or dude/dudette is a slur.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

Who said anything about whether there's a good solution in "our" legal system? That wasn't part of the question until you added it just now. And in Canada, the question of multiple primary partners has already been answered by the courts, so I don't know about "your" legal system, but mine works just fine :-)

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Your post is still a lie. I specifically mentioned where you said "my religion is more important for humans (even LGBTt people) than some civil rights" and "i want to advise LGBTt people to stop being so irresponsible when demand (sic) their rights"

You claim that you agree with what Whiteox posted when he said "As far as I'm concerned, we should all accept (therefore not deny) everyone's choice to follow and act with any belief system they wish, as long as it doesn't interfere with the choice of others."

You lie. Plain and simple. Maybe you should apply to be Greece's next finance minister.

OK., let's try this again, but please you try a bit more - together, we can do it!

The best thing to do is let church be a church, and have civil issues outside it - like what happened in this case. YOU (and everyone else) should not try to connect this with religion because I AM religious: if my religion is threatened i would prefer to stop supporting LBGTt people - my religion is more important for humans (even LBGTt people) than some civil rights (that most LBGTt people will never even practice actually - less than 10% of LBGTt people plans to "marry").

As a person of religion that has civil rights to decide about such issues i want to advise LBGTt people to stop being so irresponsible when demand their rights: civil unions is your civil right, I support it - having sex with Jesus is not! Please stop suppressing my right to religion.... everyone will benefit from that.

I accept (therefore not deny) everyone's choice to follow and act with any belief system they wish, as long as it doesn't interfere with the choice of others (e.g., my religious choices ) - is there something you still don't understand? As i already wrote from the begining, i support civil unions between LBGT people - i don't like it (in the same way i don't like many things), but i support it... you have to relax a little and try to understand that maybe YOU can not differentiate between those simple things, but other people (like me) can. And my advise to LBGT people is to try understand this difference: we, heterosexual religious people, also citizens in democracies, who support LBGT civil rights, can decide with our votes about such issues - when LBGT people think that they must attack our religion to make us support them, then things become problematic... we already support them, what is the point on attacking us!

Anyway, i understand you have personal interest in this matters, so i don't blame you so much about acting this way - but you have to stop this "i accuse you" practice, and give me some answers too: do you have a serious problem with people like me (i.e., considering us as the "enemy") for believing LBGT behavior is bad, if we support the right of LBGT people to behave that way?

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Put simply, your expressed views on LGBTt issues ARE hate speech

I think that are LOVE speech - brotherly love from someone like me who wants LBGT people to be saved, as i want for everyone else...including myself!

Also, referring to me elsewhere as a boy/girl or dude/dudette is a slur.

You have to understand that when you have a signature informing people that "this post brought to you by the letter ' t ' in LGBTIt (Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Transgender, Intersex, transsexual)" (so, you have no problem informing me that you are a transsexual), then you have to provide a "hint" on how you wish to be addressed/refered - since you write that you have read my other comment where i address/refer to you as dude/dudette, you would have read that i wrote that i have met personaly transsexual people... in communication "face to face" i dealt with this easily, but from the internet i must have a hint... you surely understand the "practical problem"... o.k.?

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[serviscope_minor]

I disagree: you've failed to establish that homosexual marriage is more complex than heterosexual marriage. You gave a number of examples, but all of those happen with heterosexual marriage too.

OK, so for gender independent group marriage how would legalise it such that it is fair? From what little I know of the existing cultures, it doesn' begin to remotely cover the actual cases involved.

For example if one partner essentially looks after the other/house/kids while the other earns money, it's generally considered that this is a work sharing partnership so if a divorce happens the wealth earned after marriage is pretty much split evenly.

How on earth do you propose it would work when a partner joins part way through and one is divorced? It gets fearsomely complex.

While the inventors paradox exists, so does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

But I'm all ears. If you can sketch a way to make it work which covers much of the spirit of the current system, I'd be interested and willing to change my opinion.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

First, who says that I'm not heterosexual? I am.

Second, same-sex marriage is not an attack on anyone's religious beliefs, but plenty of bigots have worked hard to frame it as such. Think of it - nobody is demanding that same-sex marriage be mandatory for everyone. Gays and lesbians getting married is not an "attack" on your religion no matter how much you or anyone else claims otherwise.

The countries that have passed same-sex marriage have also included the rule that no religious practitioner (priest, pastor, whatever) can be forced by law to perform same-sex marriages, so we're even respecting your rights to practice your religious beliefs in your own way. We just don't want religions to obstruct the ending of discriminatory practices vis. marriage to LGBT. And yet, time and again this easily refuted accusation is made by fear-mongers.

Simply put, saying that civil unions are sufficient and that LGBTetc should accept that is an attempt to impose your beliefs on others outside your church, where you have no business doing so. When you say that ""i want to advise LGBTt people to stop being so irresponsible when demand (sic) their rights" you are treating them as second-class citizens; not only that, but you are publicly making it clear that you and your religion don't believe that equal rights apply to all. That is not "support." Being treated like a second-class citizen, without equal rights in law, is what is being fought here. If religions are against that, then maybe that is what is causing the flood of people who no longer take their beliefs from the church and only go there for the social aspects.

So, when you say that you support the right of LGBT people to "behave that way", you're simply not telling the truth. Marriage is part of people's behaviour. To deny it, and actively denounce their right to marry outside the church based on either sexual orientation or because their gender doesn't match their birth gender is not "supportive." What if people were to lobby that YOUR religion can no longer have marriages, just civil unions? That would also solve the discriminatory nature of the debate - NOBODY gets married. But we don't want to take away your rights - just equal treatment outside the church.

This is something that several religions have already addressed in a positive, inclusive way. Those who don't will just become less relevant to each succeeding generation.

I am not trying to destroy religion - the "religious folk" who engage in discriminatory behaviour and fear-mongering, and make their decisions on how to treat others without fully examining the question, are doing that job better than I could ever do.

And telling them that their life is sinful and they need to repent is NOT supporting the right of LGBT people to "behave the way they do." Far from it. It's paternalistic and insulting.

I'm just pointing all this out, is all. You publicly disagree with the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, well I'm going to defend their rights even though I am neither, just as they have defended mine. Same as I defend the right of Muslims to wear a turban instead of a hat while on duty as police officers. And the right of Catholics to wear a cross as big as they want (the government tried to pass legislation limiting the display of religious symbols a year ago - they got tossed out).

You know, there are both protestants and catholics who both say the same thing - "we support their right to behave that way, but they are sinning and need to repent and come to our way of believing or they will go to hell".

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

You must have a hint? How hard is it to Just look at my user name - Barbara Hudson - the same as I use in real life, in the courts, with the government, whatever. It's on every post I make :-)

And as a former believer who has returned to atheism, I don't want to be "saved" a second time. In retrospect, once was too much.

You're certainly free to believe in your own salvation, but I'm sure you'd be put off if other religions went to you and said "You believe wrong. we love you and want you to be saved."

It's why when I see the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons going door to door, I phone my neighbor so they can pretend they're not home. Why not respect other people's choices? The "great commission" in Matthew 28 isn't working any more :-)

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[loonycyborg]

What is the spirit of current system anyway? All people have different opinions. Personally I'd be fine with its abolition even.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[antiperimetaparalogo]

First, who says that I'm not heterosexual? I am.

Listen lady: my comments were not only about you personaly or "t" in general - they were about all the "alphabet" (and it's not my problem that you personaly or "t" in general want to associate yourself with that "alphabet"...)

Second, same-sex marriage is not an attack on anyone's religious beliefs, but plenty of bigots have worked hard to frame it as such. Think of it - nobody is demanding that same-sex marriage be mandatory for everyone. Gays and lesbians getting married is not an "attack" on your religion no matter how much you or anyone else claims otherwise.

The countries that have passed same-sex marriage have also included the rule that no religious practitioner (priest, pastor, whatever) can be forced by law to perform same-sex marriages, so we're even respecting your rights to practice your religious beliefs in your own way. We just don't want religions to obstruct the ending of discriminatory practices vis. marriage to LGBT. And yet, time and again this easily refuted accusation is made by fear-mongers.

Simply put, saying that civil unions are sufficient and that LGBTetc should accept that is an attempt to impose your beliefs on others outside your church, where you have no business doing so. When you say that ""i want to advise LGBTt people to stop being so irresponsible when demand (sic) their rights" you are treating them as second-class citizens; not only that, but you are publicly making it clear that you and your religion don't believe that equal rights apply to all. That is not "support." Being treated like a second-class citizen, without equal rights in law, is what is being fought here. If religions are against that, then maybe that is what is causing the flood of people who no longer take their beliefs from the church and only go there for the social aspects.

So, when you say that you support the right of LGBT people to "behave that way", you're simply not telling the truth. Marriage is part of people's behaviour. To deny it, and actively denounce their right to marry outside the church based on either sexual orientation or because their gender doesn't match their birth gender is not "supportive." What if people were to lobby that YOUR religion can no longer have marriages, just civil unions? That would also solve the discriminatory nature of the debate - NOBODY gets married. But we don't want to take away your rights - just equal treatment outside the church.

This is something that several religions have already addressed in a positive, inclusive way. Those who don't will just become less relevant to each succeeding generation.

I am not trying to destroy religion - the "religious folk" who engage in discriminatory behaviour and fear-mongering, and make their decisions on how to treat others without fully examining the question, are doing that job better than I could ever do.

And telling them that their life is sinful and they need to repent is NOT supporting the right of LGBT people to "behave the way they do." Far from it. It's paternalistic and insulting.

I'm just pointing all this out, is all. You publicly disagree with the rights of gays and lesbians to marry, well I'm going to defend their rights even though I am neither, just as they have defended mine. Same as I defend the right of Muslims to wear a turban instead of a hat while on duty as police officers. And the right of Catholics to wear a cross as big as they want (the government tried to pass legislation limiting the display of religious symbols a year ago - they got tossed out).

You know, there are both protestants and catholics who both say the same thing - "we support their right to behave that way, but they are sinning and need to repent and come to our way of believing or they will go to hell".

Let's agree that we disagree for now, and leave it to time to make us both wiser!

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[antiperimetaparalogo]

You must have a hint? How hard is it to Just look at my user name - Barbara Hudson - the same as I use in real life, in the courts, with the government, whatever. It's on every post I make :-)

You have a point, but to explain myself, please understand that i have personaly met with some "t" that were not comfortable enough with some real life name uses - i hope you understand. By the way, Saint Barbara is in Athens right now!

And as a former believer who has returned to atheism, I don't want to be "saved" a second time. In retrospect, once was too much. You're certainly free to believe in your own salvation, but I'm sure you'd be put off if other religions went to you and said "You believe wrong. we love you and want you to be saved." It's why when I see the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons going door to door, I phone my neighbor so they can pretend they're not home. Why not respect other people's choices? The "great commission" in Matthew 28 isn't working any more :-)

Let's agree that we disagree for now, and leave it to time to make us both wiser!

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

Think about it - when you wrote "And my advise to LBGT people is to try understand this difference: we, heterosexual religious people, also citizens in democracies, who support LBGT civil rights", it certainly gives the impression that you believe that transsexuals and transgenders in general cannot be straight. Not that there's anything wrong for those who are gay, lesbian, or bi, but it's simply a wrong assumption.

The real issue is equal treatment. The church has a loooong history of active discrimination against LGBT, divorced people, inciting hatred of jews, etc. It's a question of public order, not religion.

The change in public views is spotlighted in how the church lost influence in the most catholic country in the west over just 20 years. Evolve or become increasingly irrelevant is the choice now - and that choice up to the church.

The simple fact is that when plover wrote "This is how organized religion dies", he had it right, even though I wouldn't necessarily have phrased it that way. I have no problem whatsoever with religion evolving to meet the current needs of people - it's something that should be encouraged. But obviously many former and current parishioners have a problem with a church that is increasingly irrelevant to them and those around them.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

Fair enough. As I said, I don't hate you because of your beliefs.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[larkost]

How is that more or less complicated from children produced form extra-marital affairs? The courts have long histories of deciding this class of problem.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[serviscope_minor]

Well, there's the splitting up of assets during a divorce. I certainly wouldn't be happy with that being abolished.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[serviscope_minor]

Who said anything about whether there's a good solution in "our" legal system? That wasn't part of the question until you added it just now.

It was kind of implicit that "good" was meant to be with respect to Western culture and laws. You can have a nice unambiguous system when a man is allowed as many wives as he wants and if he wants to divorce one (she gets no say of course), then she's out on her ear without anything. It's good for certain definitons of good and it's clear and unambiguous.

And in Canada, the question of multiple primary partners has already been answered by the courts

Then HOW?

Why does everyone keep telling me these things exist without saying what actually happens? So far I've been told twice there are ways of doing it but no one has provided the slighest clue as to how.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Think about it - when you wrote "And my advise to LBGT people is to try understand this difference: we, heterosexual religious people, also citizens in democracies, who support LBGT civil rights", it certainly gives the impression that you believe that transsexuals and transgenders in general cannot be straight. Not that there's anything wrong for those who are gay, lesbian, or bi, but it's simply a wrong assumption.

It is not my problem that "Tt" in general (or even those feeling heterosexual specificaly) choose to associate themselves with "LBG". While i am afraid you may get offended by what i will write: people from USA have a very "shallow" culture! I am a Greek... we have a very "deep" culture, and a long tradition that has evolved thru the milleniums solving many issues that a "naive Yankee" can never understand. In some other reply to you i posted a link with a centuries old traditional Greek dance (it is about us Greeks killing Muslims... that's not the point, it does not consern you directly, so ignore this fact) - everyone there is a male... even the bride... we Greeks don't laugh about that (remember: its about killing Muslims), and the bride is honored. People from USA will never undertand the symbolism of a male dressed up as a female - they may believe is a carnival of some kind, lets have some fun, etc... but it's about killing Muslims!

The real issue is equal treatment. The church has a loooong history of active discrimination against LGBT, divorced people, inciting hatred of jews, etc. It's a question of public order, not religion.

The change in public views is spotlighted in how the church lost influence in the most catholic country in the west over just 20 years. Evolve or become increasingly irrelevant is the choice now - and that choice up to the church.

The simple fact is that when plover wrote "This is how organized religion dies", he had it right, even though I wouldn't necessarily have phrased it that way. I have no problem whatsoever with religion evolving to meet the current needs of people - it's something that should be encouraged. But obviously many former and current parishioners have a problem with a church that is increasingly irrelevant to them and those around them.

Let's agree that we disagree for now, and leave it to time to make us both wiser!

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

When you ask "Then HOW", you'll already find the answer elsewhere in this discussion. Or you can just use Goggle or Bing or Dogpile. Bigamy and polygamy are still illegal in Canada - the criminal code is federal law, not provincial, so this ruling applies across the country. Maybe at some point another provincial criminal court will render a different decision, in which case the whole thing will end up before Canada's Supreme Court.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

I'm not from or in the US. And the tradition of men playing all the roles, including those of the women, was the rule in Shakespeare's time. (Maybe that's why Romeo and Juliette couldn't marry - Jullie was a guy :-)

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[antiperimetaparalogo]

I'm not from or in the US.

O.K., i mis-understood.

And the tradition of men playing all the roles, including those of the women, was the rule in Shakespeare's time. (Maybe that's why Romeo and Juliette couldn't marry - Jullie was a guy :-)

Please... don't make comparisons like that to a Greek... when we Greeks were building the Parthenon the British* were still hunging from the trees like apes! And when we used males for female roles in our theaters we did not even had started building the Parthenon. Anyway, my point is that we Greeks (even me, a religious and traditional guy) are not so "puritans" as non-Greeks may think. A recent Greek movie that was something like a success in Greece (and in Europe): Strella (the movie is well made, but STUPID... i saw it, don't waste your time! A GREAT movie, and about what you wrote -"Jullie was a guy"-, is a Chinese called: "farewell my concubine" - you should see it, if you have not already).

* I love Shakespeare AND British people... but i like to make fun of "barbarians"!

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

Well then, you must think I'm really primitive - I'm in Poutineville, Kanuckistan (aka the province of Quebec, Canada). :-)

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[loonycyborg]

Really? It's pain no matter what. They say "always write a marriage contract". This answer fits with any kind of marriage, even generalized group marriage.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[dave420]

Says the bigoted fool who thinks women shouldn't be scientists. Your opinion is worth soooo much on this topic, as it's clearly soooooo highly informed.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[serviscope_minor]

Huh?

Are you being incredibly pedantic or are you unable to read?

As an example how how multiple partners can be dealt with in a sane legal system, you pointed to one where it's in fact illegal. That's not really a solution to allowing multiple partners in a fair manner.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

Yep, I pointed to one where it is illegal. That is how our legal system deals with it. Just because it doesn't deliver the result you want is not my problem.

Your question was very specific. Also, Immigration Canada does allow Muslims who have up to 4 wives, who they married outside the country, entry. That is how we deal with these things. Canadians can work out healthy compromises. That's why we were one of the first countries to legalize same-sex marriage. That's why abortion and religion are not issues in federal elections. That's why black people can walk down the street without getting shot. You have race riots - we have hockey riots. Nobody gets killed over the Stanley Cup finals.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[serviscope_minor]

Seriously are you actually interested in a proper discussion or are you just engaging in nit picking for giggles? If the former, I'll continue, but I don't really want to waste my time on the latter.

  Yep, I pointed to one where it is illegal. That is how our legal system deals with it. Just because it doesn't deliver the result you want is not my problem.

We already covered this.

That is how we deal with these things.

No, you haven't said anything about how it's dealt with.

You have race riots

We have riots where the looters form an orderly queue to pick up "a couple of free fings"

http://i.imgur.com/p7v6b.jpg

The looters would also politely wait for the green man before crossing the road with an armfull of "free" TVs even though our country is not so uncivilised to have such things as jaywalking laws.

Anyway you've still missed the entire point. First you tell me than Canada "deals" with it by disallowing it. Then you tell me that actually they don't disallow it and there are some loopholes. So far you have failed to actually say how it's dealt with when it occurs. There is a very specific problem:

How is death, divorce and inheritance dealt with?

I'll also note ou mentioned that all it does allow is for a man under some circumstances to have multiple wives. This is not exactly general polyamy. I even mentioned that in a prior post.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

So what? You asked how we dealt with it - I told you. Your problem is that you don't like the answer because it doesn't fit into your preconceived notion of what the "right" answer is. So what if the ban has certain exceptions? That's how we deal with it - on a practical level, not by being pedants.

And now you complain about things like inheritance. Again, so what? Those are also dealt with in the law.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[serviscope_minor]

OK pedantic nit picking it is then.

You waded in mid-thread then smugly come up with padentic "clever" points which of course haven't been addressed to you personally because as I said you waded in mid thread.

Go pat yourself on the back for being awfully, awfully clever and then realise that you ruined the chance for a sensible discussion about an interesting topic by ignoring the context and trying to score points.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

Feel better now? You asked a very specific question, I gave an answer, plus a supplemental answer, based on verifiable facts.

The US already has de facto bigamy. It's even on TV - see Sister Wives - and this court judgment striking down the ban on bigamy Mostly, it's being ignored because the laws might not survive a constitutional challenge. So, that's how US law handles bigamy, and you could have found this with the easiest of searches.

Next time, instead of asking a question to score points, how about you do a little research first :-)

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[serviscope_minor]

Yeah, the specific question was in this specific post.

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

The question being how to deal with inheritance for more than one partner.

So far your contribution has been to tell me Canada dealt with it just fine. By not allowing more than one partner! lolololitrolu etc.

Since you seem to have a habit of grabbing the wrong end of the stick very hard and never backing down, I look forwards to you rationalising how you made any contribution to the conversation whatsoever.

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[BarbaraHudson]

Here's the beginning of that comment:

Multiple lovers maybe, but multiple primary partners? I doubt that, personally. I don't think mere lovers need to be recognised in law. I don't see the case for it.

So the main thrust of the question was NOT about inheritance. Your question of multiple primary partners being recognized by law was answered several times.

But if you go up a bit, the discussion was not about inheritance until you tried to throw out roadblocks (changing the goalposts) after I pointed out you were wrong about the the existence of polygamy, there and elsewhere.

And the answer is obvious as far as inheritance is concerned, unless there's a will that specifies otherwise; the communal property remains communal. Doesn't matter if there's just one partner or more still living, so what's the big deal? Did you think before asking that question?

Re:This is how organized religion dies

[serviscope_minor]

Actually go back and read the comment carefully and read specifically the bit I quoted and was responding to.

I was disputing that multiple primary partners (which implies a polyamorous relationships because that's the only place "primary partner" has useful meaning) was more common than homosexuality.

So like I said, you've yet again grabbed the wrong end of the stick incredibly hard and are doggedly determined not to let go. No matter how much I show you have spent the entire thread trying very hard to answer an question I never asked, you will keep on justifying why your wrong-end-of-stickgrabbing is so very right. A clue: it isn't.

The point I then raised is that multiple partners is fearsomely difficuly because of things like inheritance.

You then told me that Canada deals with it. By not dealing with it! lol! Smug!

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

[scottbomb]

I've had it with the political articles. There are plenty of websites for those. Slashdot USED to be "News for nerds, stuff that matters". I'm not saying this story doesn't matter. But it has no place in ANY tech forum. I will surely visit from time to time but will no longer follow on my FB page. Adios.

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

[Deadstick]

Don't let the door...

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

[Anonymous Coward]

And you can't be arsed to hide the sections you don't want to see? Don't let the mouse bite you when you click 'log out'.

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 /.

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of faggots use Linux. So this is big news to them.

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

[phantomfive]

If you're wondering, the tie-in to technology is 'social media.'

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I believe Macintosh is more popular with that particular subset.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

That's IT.

That's one of the site slogans: It is what IT is.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

hit ya where the good lord split ya

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

[Anonymous Coward]

FWIW I found the news about Ireland to be more interesting and to matter more than your announcement that you have had it with such articles and will be adjusting your Slashdot reading habits in conjunction with FB, but thanks for the info anyway.

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

[aardvarkjoe]

Kind of like how every patent is new if you add "WITH A COMPUTER" to it.

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

[phantomfive]

Yeah. Usually I prefer a better tie-in to technology.

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.

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

[ArcadeMan]

Only the CEO.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe there are more gay people in IT (or well, more nerds are gay) then in the overall population. I feel like minorities are attracted by other minorities, I certainly am.

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

[Inferno Vulpix]

If the emphasis were truly on the social media aspect of it, wouldn't the title be "Social Media a Significant Factor in Ireland's Approving Same-Sex Marriage" and then discuss the social media aspect more than an off-handed mention in the last sentence? All I see is an article talking about something political/religious happening in Ireland.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

That is true in the wide sense of actually expressing opinions in words. I don't think it's true in the narrow sense of going out to vote. Voter turnouts worldwide seem to be falling, not rising, as more and more people are more and more connected via the Internet. (No, I'm not saying the Internet is causing this. But it's not stopping it either.)

If you're interested in the question of marriage, you don't need "social media" to get you to vote. If you don't care, "social media" will tell you that your friends care, which you already know since they are your friends and you talk to them from time to time.

So I'm not buying the "tech" angle here. Nevertheless, I don't see why this kind of news shouldn't be on Slashdot; there are plenty of stories touching on individual freedoms, which "nerds" often care about. This is one of them.

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

[antiperimetaparalogo]

If 10% of people are gay, then this impacts 10% of nerds.

Less than 3 percent of the U.S. population identify themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, based on Center for Disease Control and Prevention first large-scale government survey measuring Americans’ sexual orientation - source. There are more "nerds" effected by their baseball team losing a game, should Slashdot report baseball results?

I don't run Apache, but I don't bitch when they put an Apache story on the front page.

Is this a good analogy for "nerd" stories and this story? And what about my baseball team's results?

Get over it.

What i can not "get over" is that i made a comment in this "NON-nerd" pseydo-"discussion" (in which only certain opinions are allowed...) that has been modded down because... you know why! So, it is not only a NON-nerd story, but you have to be a "team's supporter" to participate...

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no, now I won't be able to read your bitching whenever there's something you don't like, woe is me, please come back to Slashdot user 1290580.

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

[drinkypoo]

Even if homosexuality were a disease, I still wouldn't trust the CDC to tell me what percentage of the population had it. And it isn't one.

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

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Even if homosexuality were a disease, I still wouldn't trust the CDC to tell me what percentage of the population had it. And it isn't one.

I have many other sources (from USA, UK, Europe) that put the number of gays, lesbians or bisexuals to what the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reports: less that 3% - i posted that as a source because it is the most offical i think (by the way, this "Center for Disease Control and Prevention" studies and reports about many things, don't get upset by the name - i avoided to express my opinion about homosexuality in that comment, i will do the same in this, but if you are interested i already did it here... but it is already modded as "flamebait", so...)

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

[whistlingtony]

Uh. There are Nerds that are gay. This is big news for them.

If you don't like it, no one made you read it. No one made you click reply. No one made you type. No one made you hit preview. No one made you hit submit.... Or is this one of those "If we allow gays, they might spread gayness" things? Did the gays make you hit reply?

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

[BarbaraHudson]

That title would have been too long. I like my title better. A title should not be an entire summary, just enough to catch the reader's interest. Also, what's wrong with describing how social media contributed to the referendum AFTER describing the referendum? You know, giving context?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh. There are Nerds that are gay. This is big news for them.

There are nerds who are gamers. Gamergate was big news to us. Slashdot decided to stamp on our faces with all the rest.

If you don't like it, no one made you read it. No one made you click reply. No one made you type. No one made you hit preview. No one made you hit submit.... Or is this one of those "If we allow gays, they might spread gayness" things? Did the gays make you hit reply?

He's probably just sick of Slashdot turning into a "Progressive" political outlet. I can't say I blame him since US "progressive" politics is becoming more authoritarian, censorious, anti-free speech and generally anti-nerd by the day. That's the nature of Faustian deals. There's always a catch later on down the line.

I don't believe that the Slashdot editors give a shit about homosexual rights. I think they're publishing these stories for hipster cred. Too bad most hipsters are fascists.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to take a scientific slant, it'd be a very small percentage. I'm sorry if it isn't politically correct to say, but homosexuality is an evolutionary disadvantage, so you'd expect the percentage to be rather small.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

"Social" media is not tech either. Wow, websites that allow insecure narcissistic people to post everything about their daily lives on the web is absolutely pathetic. This is political rambling nothing more and not adding anything to a tech site.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

I have noticed that. It's fascinating how much certain interest groups have been able to utilize social media to branwash people to seeing their point of view, usually by injecting humour or some call for moral outrage.

As an example, I wonder what proportion of the people here who consider gay marriage a basic human right had the same views ten years ago.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, besides that it was on this technological thing called the television. Amazing how Slashdot covers these technomologicle advances.

Social media is a given these days. If that is the criteria then Slashdot has turned into MSNBC.

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

[Inferno Vulpix]

I'm not an expert on writing titles, but the point of the one I offered was that it actually mentions technology. What you say about catching people's interest actually means that you should find a way to make nerds care about it, given the site we're on. Also, doing a word count shows that the sentence talking about social media is only 6% of the summary. That means that you read a title having nothing to do with technology, then read the vast majority of the summary and still see nothing even slightly regarding technology. What kind of tech news do you think that is?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately you're on the wrong side of a civil rights debate. I'm sorry that you are, I can sympathize with your position, but you and yours have lost this battle and you are losing the war, badly. There are very few people willing to accept "because God says so" as an argument, and the scriptural evidence is frankly a little weak.

I realize that you're coming from a place that is saturated with Belief, but from an outside perspective your posts may as well be written in Klingon. You sound like a crazy person. Clearly "crazy" is a matter of cultural context, but the point is that the culture has changed, and you're going to be increasingly marginalized if you don't change with it. For an example in a different context, you could be trolling a BitCoin story with stuff about returning to the Gold Standard. Not only is there objective evidence that the ideas you are espousing are wrong, but this is really an argument you need to be having with yourself. The civilized world is headed in a direction that contradicts your faith. Either you need to have a revelation about this or you need to accept that the world is going to go down this road no matter what you do or think or say. IOW get over it, or get over it. If you're not going to do either, don't be surprised, your argument is most similar to arguing that blacks shouldn't have civil rights because slavery is in the Bible. It's a bad argument with weak textual support in a context where half or more of the people are atheist and basically think you're a crackpot anyway. Getting called out on being a crackpot is, FYI, not persecution.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Your number is probably good, and as one of the aforementioned deviants, you're probably more or less right but it really comes down to definitions. Human sexuality doesn't really conform to neat boxes, which is as much as Kinsey and related studies can really tell us. Three percent may be the number who self-identify as nonstandard sexualities, but we expect this number to be underreported somewhat. However, it is probably safe to say that it's a small but non-negligible minority. You might be surprised at how many people can be tempted into unusual sex acts though... ;)

Captcha: amenable

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

[BarbaraHudson]

I would say, judging on the number of comments alone (it beats anything else within the last 48 hours, even though it was posted less than 24 hours ago) that my shorter title has empirically been proven to be more effective than the longer titles in other stories, and nerds do care about it.

The simple fact is that the Internet was part of what made this vote go the way it did.

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

[BarbaraHudson]

Obviously others disagree with you - just look how many comments it has compared to my story about turning red blood cells into neuron cells - which is undoubtedly biotech.

new type of marriage.

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm gonna marry a goat and 666 aborted babies.

Re: new type of marriage.

[Tomahawk]

Unfortunately for you a goat is not a legal entity, and also doesn't have the ability to understand the question (do you take this person?), nor answer it.
So, sorry, you won't be able to do that. At least not until goats evolve sufficiently.

Re:new type of marriage.

[BarbaraHudson]

Already been done

A Sudanese man has been forced to take a goat as his "wife", after he was caught having sex with the animal.

The goat's owner, Mr Alifi, said he surprised the man with his goat and took him to a council of elders.

They ordered the man, Mr Tombe, to pay a dowry of 15,000 Sudanese dinars ($50) to Mr Alifi.

"We have given him the goat, and as far as we know they are still together," Mr Alifi said.

Re: new type of marriage.

[Anonymous Coward]

You goat-a be kidding me!

Re:new type of marriage.

[Anonymous Coward]

Goats.ex

Re:new type of marriage.

[DutchUncle]

And the worst part is, all that both the man and the goat wanted was a zipless one-night stand . . . .

Re:new type of marriage.

[BarbaraHudson]

Goats.ex

Baaah - that's for after they divorce :-)

Fuck off to Twitter or Myspace

[Peter (Professor) Fo]

Why do wankers like you pollute tech forums. Fuck-off now.

In case you were wondering,

[PopeRatzo]

The Duggar Family is adamantly opposed to gay marriage because it's a sin against God and an abomination. Just for the record.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Re:In case you were wondering,

[Anonymous Coward]

There is absolutely nothing in the Torah, Talmud, or Bible that condemns child molestation.

Re:In case you were wondering,

[BarbaraHudson]

And don't forget that they endorse Mike Huckabee, whose own followers are castigating him for defending the indefensible.

Re:In case you were wondering,

[PopeRatzo]

There is absolutely nothing in the Torah, Talmud, or Bible that condemns child molestation.

And right on time, the contingent from 8chan is heard from.

You might want to look up Matthew 18:6. It sure sounds to me like Jesus had some idea of what to do with people who mess with kids. Although I think dismemberment might be a little extreme.

Re:In case you were wondering,

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, that has nothing to do with the issue, that's a parable about forgiveness. Try reading in context sometime.

Re:In case you were wondering,

[PopeRatzo]

Nope, that has nothing to do with the issue, that's a parable about forgiveness.

Is there anything creepier than using the Bible to explain why child molestation isn't really all that bad?

Try reading in context sometime.

Considering the fragmented way the Bible came into being, "context" varies from verse to verse.

Here is the text of Matthew 18:6:

Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

Now, the word that's translated here as "sin" is actually "skandalizo" (Greek): to “scandalize”;to entrap, that is, trip up (figuratively stumble [transitively] or entice to sin, apostasy or displeasure): - (make to) offend.

So I'm sorry, there is no "context" about that verse that makes it any less about scumbags who would mess with kids.

Re:In case you were wondering,

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there anything creepier than using the Bible to explain why child molestation isn't really all that bad?

Well, the Bible is all about child abuse. God wants his children to "love" and obey him. If his children don't, they're going to be tortured for eternity. How screwed up is that? Sounds just like any other domestic abuse case.

So I'm sorry, there is no "context" about that verse that makes it any less about scumbags who would mess with kids.

Are you calling God a scumbag? Have you read the atrocious things he's done to children of Israel's enemies?

God isn't above messing with kids at all:
2 Kings 2:24 - (Elisha, cursed some annoying kids, God took good care of them)
And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

Hosea 9:14 - (God, the original Planned Parenthood)
Give them, O Lord: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

14-1 I think... don't remember off the top of my head.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.

Re:In case you were wondering,

[PopeRatzo]

Are you calling God a scumbag?

In the original, yeah, kind of a scumbag.

He was much nicer in the sequel when they had the dude with the long hair and beard play Him. I think it was Jared Leto.

Re:In case you were wondering,

[Anonymous Coward]

Ehh, Jared just doesn't do it for me, not convincing enough. But, I'm not a fan of sequels, they usually turn into fan service vehicles to sell more crap... Merchandising! Where the real money is made.

Re:In case you were wondering,

[bhartman34]

That's just saying that an adult that causes a child to sin is condemned (presumably to Hell). It's not specifically about child molestation, and it doesn't really condemn doing anything to children (other than leading them to sin). If a person rapes a child, does the child sin? I can't see how.

what I found most surprising

[sribe]

The graciousness and politeness of the losing side. Their statements of congratulations are certainly not what you'd see from the religious right here in the U.S.

Re:what I found most surprising

[Black Parrot]

The graciousness and politeness of the losing side. Their statements of congratulations are certainly not what you'd see from the religious right here in the U.S.

"Religious Right" in the USA is a euphemism for "sex obsessed control freaks".

Re:what I found most surprising

[sribe]

"Religious Right" in the USA is a euphemism for "sex obsessed control freaks".

Correction: "pleasure-obsessed control freaks". Marijuana has (almost) nothing to do with sex, yet these are the people who are promising, at the state level, to undo the laws passed by citizen referendums, and, at the federal level, to force those states back into compliance with federal law. (Presumably by storming DEA assaults throughout the states, since the feds have absolutely 0 ability to direct local law enforcement's day-to-day operations.)

Re:what I found most surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Apologies for not having the author handy, but a brief google search brings up far more information on the insanity of puritanism than I care to dig through for a two-sentence Slashdot post:

"The one true impulse at the bottom of puritanism is the desire to punish the man with a superior capacity for happiness."

Re:what I found most surprising

[radarskiy]

As long as married gay men still can't get abortions, they are fine with it.

Re:what I found most surprising

[voss]

They lost...overwhelmingly. Its hard to be vengeful when you get curb stomped.

Re:what I found most surprising

[Shados]

Its not too surprising though. Its all fun and games to say people can do whatever the fuck they want when you don't see any effect.

I mean, why would I care what people do with their own body in the comfort of their own home?

Oh right, their own home is linked to another via the vents and heat loop, and your kids are getting contact highs in the city park.

I don't want the laws reversed, but do expect some knee jerk reactions as users become more and more visible and the downsides actually start affecting people.

Re:what I found most surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

I like the (almost) as I was about to comment clearly you've never had sex while high. An Orgasm while high is exponentially more pleasurable than when sober, kind of a bad thing knowing what you miss when not high.

Re:what I found most surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe you don't know the religious right as well as you think?

Re:what I found most surprising

[FranTaylor]

Its not too surprising though. Its all fun and games to say people can do whatever the fuck they want when you don't see any effect.

I mean, why would I care what people do with their own body in the comfort of their own home?

Oh right, their own home is linked to another via the vents and heat loop, and your kids are getting contact highs in the city park.

I don't want the laws reversed, but do expect some knee jerk reactions as users become more and more visible and the downsides actually start affecting people.

Sounds like a great reason to outlaw tobacco, why don't you get started on that and tell us how it goes

Re:what I found most surprising

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as married gay men still can't get abortions, they are fine with it.

And gay married women?

Re:what I found most surprising

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Oh right, their own home is linked to another via the vents and heat loop

What? If that's really the general case in the US, then drugs should be a very distant second concern, far behind the transmission of disease.

You need to get your HVAC-shit together.

Re:what I found most surprising

[Shados]

How did you think forced air central system worked in multi-hundred unit buildings? The kind that doesn't have 1 duct-less per unit (like hotels often have).

They're not the most common thing in the world, don't get me wrong, but I've seen them in Canada, in the US, France, UK, Japan and Hong Kong.

Which leads me to think you can find linked loop systems everywhere.

Re:what I found most surprising

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Perhaps naively, I thought that such systems worked such that people in different units didn't breathe each other's air?

That was what the first post in this thread implied, and that's the only reason I can see that pot smoking would be a problem, i.e. if the pot smokers outlet vent becomes your inlet. Please tell me that's not the standard for ventilation in other parts of the world.

Re:what I found most surprising

[Shados]

There's filters in between. If you're in a modern and well maintained building, that's okay (you'll get the smell though, but you won't get smoke or contact highs, lol)

Unfortunately, modern and well maintained buildings aren't the norm in a large part of the world. I lived in a "super luxury" 3 years old building right on the steps of MIT for a few years and they had to make the building smoke-free because of the way the heat loop had been built (there was filters for the A/C and air in-take, but for the heat, things were connected).

The actual air that was being pushed around was filtered and purified, but weed smoke would go through the system backward when they were off.

And even if you're not talking about that, only the most well built places are completely sealed from each other. Walls often don't have sealed joists, and in warmer areas won't have insulation in between (aside for noise insulation), so air and smell will slowly go through, if strong enough.

Its also a pretty big problem in older wood properties in cities where bribing the inspector is common.

Re:what I found most surprising

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Wow! I won't claim to be a ventilation expert, but I did read up on the subject when I designed and put my own mechanical ventilation system into my own house, and here in Sweden at least I have never heard of such a beast. Oh the humanity of breathing other peoples air, even if filtered. :-) Would fly like a brick if someone tried that here. (Granted, being Sweden, indoor climate is important, as the outdoors are somewhat inhospitable for parts of the year.)

Now, I've lived in apartments, and while I've had the usual problems of smelling someone elses smoke from their balcony when I had my windows open, to have to suffer that through a wall would really take the cake. That's definitely not to code here, and heads would roll if it ever happened.

However, as you say, probably not a reliable way of getting high on the cheap. It can't usually be that bad of a problem, surely. ;-)

Re:what I found most surprising

[Shados]

There's no such thing as air tight walls, even if you seal the joists, shoot insulting foam and sheets of loaded vinyl in between.

Some are just better built than others. And every country in the world, even Sweden, has shady inspectors. If it wasn't this, like you said, it would be sipping through the windows from downstairs. You're breathing it wether you like it or not.

The one thing you may not have as much of, is asshole neighbors.

And you think Canada's climate is nicer than Sweden? :)

Re:what I found most surprising

[lars_stefan_axelsson]

Yeah, I can't remember when I was in an block of flats last that didn't have concrete walls between the flats... Sure, concrete isn't technically "air tight", but its close enough as to make no difference.

And of course there is corruption here as well, but they don't rank us amongst the least corrupt nations of the world, year after year, for nothing. I wouldn't say that its a problem.

As for the climate in Canada, you get so much sun down there on the Mediterranean latitudes that you have no cause for complaints. :-) Canada is what, 49 deg North? That's bloody Paris! :-) Us here on up on the 60th parallel OTOH, we have no such luxury.

Wait, before you start cheering

[Anonymous Coward]

Ireland still outlaws abortion, in practice even in cases where there is medical necessity such that women have been denied life saving treatment and been killed.

Re:Wait, before you start cheering

[Anonymous Coward]

Gays and lesbians don't make babies, so nothing to worry about there...

Re: Wait, before you start cheering

[Tomahawk]

That was also put to a referendum, and the people overwhelmingly stopped it. So it's the will of the people.

A new referendum may come around in time. In the interim, there are laws allowing abortion in cases where the life of the mother is at risk.

Re: Wait, before you start cheering

[edxwelch]

The abortion laws are still ridiculous though. In the case of a woman being raped, she cannot get an abortion.
Also, it takes 5 years to get a divorce in Ireland

Re:Wait, before you start cheering

[bhartman34]

Two different things. I may not agree with their abortion restrictions (e.g., I think any restriction that ignores the life of the mother is patently ridiculous), but that has nothing to do with this victory.

You can celebrate on Christmas, even if it's not your birthday. :)

Re:Wait, before you start cheering

[Locke2005]

Gays and lesbians frequently do have babies, I think what you mean to say is that the incidence of _unintended_ pregnancy is very low for gays and lesbians. This is what I regard as the only tangible difference between homo and hetero couples.

What did you expect from catholics

[Anonymous Coward]

but more preverted sex?

Why is this "news for nerds"?

[Anonymous Coward]

This place sure is getting more and more pointless.

Re: Why is this "news for nerds"?

[Tomahawk]

A lot of nerds care about this stuff...

Re: Why is this "news for nerds"?

[Anonymous Coward]

What, because nerds are gay?
Fuck off back to your football locker to shower with 20 other guys.

Re: Why is this "news for nerds"?

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of nerds care about this stuff...

A lot of us care about video games, but Slashdot decided to toss us to the wolves last year.

Re: Why is this "news for nerds"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only members of the GNAA. Gay Nerd Association of America.

funny part

[slashmydots]

Since their constitution is also written in Gaelic, they got the grammar wrong on the first draft then corrected it. It stated that ONLY same-sex couples could get married.

Goyim's anus is the vagina of the 21 century.

[Anonymous Coward]

Trivia: the entrance to Hell is located in Ireland (Station Island, Lough Derg village, Donegal county). Now the irish have millions of such entrances: the defecation hole of the sodomite.

I hope Ireland will be placed under an interdict by the Vatican and various, severe natural disasters will make them repent eventually. It is better to die as a reformed sinner, who confesses and atones for his/her outrages against nature and God, earning the chance of purification in the Purgatory, rather then keep living recalcitrant in sins and eventually die as an irredeemable hell-bound! (Which only serves the masterplan of jews, who have sworn to destroy the christiandom by way of fraud and annihilation of goyim morality.)

Re:Goyim's anus is the vagina of the 21 century.

[Anonymous Coward]

On the off chance that you're not trolling, PLEASE get drunk and fall in an open sewer and burn in the Hell you love so much. You're a demon in human skin. If you ARE trolling, well, you should still die. Asshole.

Understanding transgender?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand transgender people. What's wrong with having a masculine personality with a female body or a feminine personality with a male body? Why do they go one step further and say their bodies are wrong?

Re:Understanding transgender?

[Ol Olsoc]

I've always said I was a Lesbian trapped in a man's body.

Re:Understanding transgender?

[BarbaraHudson]

I don't understand transgender people. What's wrong with having a masculine personality with a female body or a feminine personality with a male body? Why do they go one step further and say their bodies are wrong?

Because the two are different things.

Re:Understanding transgender?

[Stormwatch]

Dan Bunten (a name that old-school gamers may recognize) asked that after regretting his MtF transition. Couldn't he have expressed his feminine side without taking an extreme measure that turned his life into a wreck?

Re:Understanding transgender?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, aside from health and social consequences, which are lessening all the time, there's nothing in particular wrong with changing your body. It's easier to wear oppositely gendered clothing if you have done HRT (MtF) or have had top surgery (FtM), and for some people with e.g. Kleinfelter's or just say a petite body and low T levels, it's more of a correction than a change.

But the best way that I can describe it is by analogy to alien hand syndrome. In that, the person feels that their hand or other body part is somehow not their own, like it belongs to someone else or it just doesn't belong. This disorder can result in people chopping off perfectly healthy limbs to try to make their body match their mental representation.

It's not an easy path. The alternative though is to have the "wrong" hormones wreck your body. Very few people can do androgyny very effectively, and for most people it's not really an option. Imagine that you identify as female mentally, but your body is growing bald and fat-stomached, and hairy in the wrong places. There's a point of madness past which the hardships of transition are less than continued normal existence. Or, frighteningly often, transgender persons will simply commit suicide.

The short answer is that very few people do HRT in what you might consider a voluntary sense. It's a medically necessary solution to a terrible disorder. There's nothing wrong with being femme or butch, or straight, or any other gender expression, and HRT isn't morally any worse than any other medical treatment. Even granted that there are some people doing it for reasons other than strict medical necessity, there's enough normal people doing various kinds of body modification that the trannies shouldn't raise much comment. Just be glad it's not you and let them be.

The First Married Irish Gay Couple Under This Law

[Anonymous Coward]

Gerald FitzPatrick and Patrick FitzGerald

To the LGBT crowd

[Anonymous Coward]

If you guys really want equality why do you do it in the West?

Why don't you guys demand the same equality from the moslem countries?

Or are you guys just a bunch of woozies who only dare to bully the civilized West?

If you guys have the guts, why don't you guys go to the moslems and place your demand on the liberation the LGBT in the moslem communities

No, don't wait!

Don't let your LGBT brothers and sisters in the moslem communities suffer even one second longer

Go now!

10 (ok, 15) questions

[BarbaraHudson]

When you say you don't like LGBT and "t", I would ask these questions, with specific application to transsexuals such as myself:

1. How do you justify that don't you like someone you never even met?

2. Transsexualism is a medical condition. Why should I go against the advice of 5 psychiatrists, a psychologist, and my endocrinologist? I am not a doctor, so I defer to their judgment.

3. Why shouldn't I continue to preserve my civil rights, and speak up for those who aren't so lucky?

4.LGBTIt have always supported the right of churches to regulate who they marry IN THEIR CHURCH - just please don't impose your beliefs on either those churches who do perform LGBTIt marriages or on individuals who want a civil marriage. That's the law here, and there are zero problems with it. Why do you believe the fear-mongerers who claim that we want to force churches to marry those who do not share your beliefs? In other words, [citation required]. Among the 20 countries that support same-sex marriage, please list those that force churches to perform same-sex marriages.

5. My civil rights as a transsexual include the right not to be discriminated on based on either my former or current gender. I've had to take offenders to task before a tribunal twice just in the last year to ensure my civil rights are respected. Why should I believe that your religion is more important to me than my civil rights?

6. Why should I repent for a medical condition with an internationally-recognized treatment that is, in fact, recognized by many religions?

7. When you write:

As a person of religion that has civil rights to decide about such issues i want to advise LBGTt people to stop being so irresponsible when demand their rights: civil unions is your civil right, I support it - having sex with Jesus is not! Please stop suppressing my right to religion.... everyone will benefit from that

7.1 Why is it irresponsible to demand that every member of society have the same rights?

7.2 You wrote "Having sex with Jesus" ??? WTF ??? Who has asked for that?

7.3 Who is suppressing your right to believe in your religion? Who among the LGBTt is saying that religious belief is a thought crime?

7.4 Why do you insist on the right to impose your religious beliefs on others who do not believe as you do?

7.5 If you don't respect their beliefs, why should they obey yours?

8. If the influence of the church is dying (and today's vote proves it), isn't that the fault of it's members and their leadership? Why are you blaming others, who just want to live their lives, for your deficiencies?

9. Where in the bible does it say that transsexuality is a sin (do not refer to cross-dressing in Leviticus - it's not the same thing - and it insults both)?

10. You say you like slashdot sigs, but you don't like mine, which is my slashdot sig. How do you explain this apparent contradiction and why should I care? I'm "paying it forward" for the women who went before me to allow me to have my rights, which includes my sig. Seriously, why should I care whether YOU like it or not? Why don't you do like Jesus said: "If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out?"

Re:10 (ok, 15) questions

[antiperimetaparalogo]

When you say you don't like LGBT and "t", I would ask these questions, with specific application to transsexuals such as myself:

O.K., but keep in mind please:
a) i wrote "I don't like LBGT (and "t" - i like /. sigs!) - by the way, i am a Greek (Orthodox - which is almost like Catholics) Christian (note: my religion teaches, and my church believes, that LBGTt behavior is very bad, but we should love LBGTt persons)."
b) i mostly dont like LGBT (that is without the "t"), without that meaning that i like every "t".
c) i am not an "LBGTt professor" to know what the every letter means to every LBGTt
PLUS (and more important): please read again my comment, you may understand better its "spirit".

1. How do you justify that don't you like someone you never even met?

I HAVE MET SOME MURDERERS - I DON'T LIKE ALL MURDERERS. I have met some LBGT (and some "t") people - i don't like ALL LBGT (and most "t") people. Is it something unusual to write "i don't like murderers"?

2. Transsexualism is a medical condition. Why should I go against the advice of 5 psychiatrists, a psychologist, and my endocrinologist? I am not a doctor, so I defer to their judgment.

After 5 psychiatrists, a psychologist, and an endocrinologist? Neither i am a doctor, so i advise you to take their advise. Is LBGT a medical condition also?

3. Why shouldn't I continue to preserve my civil rights, and speak up for those who aren't so lucky?

I don't know! Why you ask me, someone who supports the civil rights of everyone, this question?

4.LGBTIt have always supported the right of churches to regulate who they marry IN THEIR CHURCH - just please don't impose your beliefs on either those churches who do perform LGBTIt marriages or on individuals who want a civil marriage. That's the law here, and there are zero problems with it. Why do you believe the fear-mongerers who claim that we want to force churches to marry those who do not share your beliefs? In other words, [citation required]. Among the 20 countries that support same-sex marriage, please list those that force churches to perform same-sex marriages.

Listen dude/dudette, i am not some kid, nor someone who knows LBGT people only from the tv - i personaly know people that organize "guy pride" carnivals, and i know their fucking "lets attack a church happenings". Plus, i don't know where this "here" is for you, but i am from Europe, where already some nothern-European churches must by law allow such "happenings".

5. My civil rights as a transsexual include the right not to be discriminated on based on either my former or current gender. I've had to take offenders to task before a tribunal twice just in the last year to ensure my civil rights are respected. Why should I believe that your religion is more important to me than my civil rights?

I don't like ANY anti-discrimination (race/sex/age/religion/etc) "rights", so fuck you for doing that to those people. Why should I believe that your civil rights is more important to me than my religion?

6. Why should I repent for a medical condition with an internationally-recognized treatment that is, in fact, recognized by many religions?

You don't have to repent for that - you can even try to go to some Orthodox/Catholic (or even Protestantic - i speak for what i know for sure) church and you will find love (not sexual, but brotherly/sisterly).

7. When you write: As a person of religion that has civil rights to decide about such issues i want to advise LBGTt people to stop being so irresponsible when demand their rights: civil unions is your civil right, I support it - having sex with Jesus is not! Please stop suppressing my right to religion.... everyone will benefit from that

7.1 Why

Re:10 (ok, 15) questions

[Anonymous Coward]

Your psychiatrists, psychologist, and endocrinologist were likely merely rubber-stamping your own autogynophilia - a perversion that means you get off on others treating you as a woman; you make other people reluctant props for your own sexual arousal in public. These "medical professionals" likely rubber-stamped your perversion out of fear of retaliation if they didn't; likely facing the loss of their licenses to practice if they told you the truth that you are a pervert with a severe mental disorder.

Re:10 (ok, 15) questions

[BarbaraHudson]

You total lack of knowledge on what transsexuality is, and bigotry towards transsexuals, shows. You say I should go to church and I might learn something. I did - I was a fundamentalist evangelical baptist. Probably read the bible cover-to-cover more than 20 times. Entered the whole thing into my computer along with a program I wrote to do quick searches - back before the Internet.

Here's just some of what I learned: Christians are more hypocritical and less shameless about it than atheists. Their claims of "hate the sin, love the sinner" don't match up with their actions, and don't even make sense. You either accept someone as they are, or you don't, and want them to change to conform to YOUR beliefs. Who died and made them god?

And saying "wake up from your sleep boy/girl" is a slur, same as "Listen dude/dudette", that if it were made here would get you hauled before a judge. And I'm not in Europe. This is not "extra rights" - simply the same right as everyone else has not to be harassed, ridiculed, or defamed.

When you write "a child that has no biological connection to at least one person from a LBGT couple should not be adopted by such people" you ignore the fact that same-sex couples have been shown to have much lower rates of child abuse and violence in the home than hetero couples, to the point that here they're given a bit of a preference, because it's not about "parental rights", it's about the good of the child above all other considerations.

Why don't you conduct an experiment. You wrote "you can even try to go to some Orthodox/Catholic (or even Protestantic - i speak for what i know for sure) church and you will find love (not sexual, but brotherly/sisterly)." Get dressed up as the opposite sex and tell them you're getting a sex change. Walk a mile or 10 in my shoes (just not the ones with the stiletto heels - you'll break your neck). See how "accepted" and "loved" you feel when they say that "we still love you, but not your sin."

Classifying part of the recognized treatment for an accepted medical condition as "sin" is dangerous. People who have "repented" and de-transitioned because of religious pressure are some of the sorriest, unhappiest people you will ever meet.

But if you're going to answer one question, I'll pose this one again - where in the Bible does it say that transsexuality is a sin that I should "repent" of it? You yourself said that "i also believe that LBGTt people should repent for their behavior ". Please be specific. What behaviour should I repent of?

Also, you prejudge me by saying I don't like you. I DO disagree with you. I disagree with 4 of my 6 sisters on this same issue. Doesn't mean I don't like them. This is slashdot, and a certain amount of directness (or bluntness) in argumentation (to get to the point quicker) is the norm.

Case in point - there was one guy who quite often tried to publicly embarrass me, to the point that I warned him in front of his girlfriend that if he did it one more time I'd call the cops. This only started after he heard the rumours, and I answered his questions honestly and openly. I ran into him a few weeks ago, and he now thinks I'm the greatest thing since sliced bread because he saw how hard I was working for the benefit of the community, including those who openly hated me. Simply put, I don't hate him because I'm too lazy to carry a grudge :-)

BTW, we now also know that sexual orientation is innate - gays and lesbians were born that way. Why should they "repent" any more than someone who was born a particular colour? It's like that with plenty of animals too, so it isn't "unnatural".

I am not here to hate, but to discuss, and when the opportunity arises, to educate. Hence my sig. If transsexuals don't openly stand up for our rights, we will lose them. If we don't debunk misconceptions (some of which are just because the person never really thought it all the way through before or lack of information, such as I believe is your case) and we

Re:10 (ok, 15) questions

[antiperimetaparalogo]

You total lack of knowledge on what transsexuality is, and bigotry towards transsexuals, shows.

O.K., since we have this "bigotry" word from the begining, i should treat the rest of your comment as i always do when i read it elsewhere...

You say I should go to church and I might learn something. I did - I was a fundamentalist evangelical baptist. Probably read the bible cover-to-cover more than 20 times. Entered the whole thing into my computer along with a program I wrote to do quick searches - back before the Internet.

Here's just some of what I learned: Christians are more hypocritical and less shameless about it than atheists. Their claims of "hate the sin, love the sinner" don't match up with their actions, and don't even make sense. You either accept someone as they are, or you don't, and want them to change to conform to YOUR beliefs. Who died and made them god?

But if you're going to answer one question, I'll pose this one again - where in the Bible does it say that transsexuality is a sin that I should "repent" of it? You yourself said that "i also believe that LBGTt people should repent for their behavior ". Please be specific. What behaviour should I repent of?

I hope your sexuality was not the only thing that conserned you when in church, so you had the chance to learn few things for the other topics Christianity is also about. Yes we Christians are hypocritical - i like to say that i try to become Christian! I don't think you are really interested in my theological knowledge about your medical condition - didn't i anwsered every other question you made clearly and honestly? About that "You either accept someone as they are, or you don't": the whole point of Christianity is to change us, so we become better...

Classifying part of the recognized treatment for an accepted medical condition as "sin" is dangerous. People who have "repented" and de-transitioned because of religious pressure are some of the sorriest, unhappiest people you will ever meet.

Why don't you conduct an experiment. You wrote "you can even try to go to some Orthodox/Catholic (or even Protestantic - i speak for what i know for sure) church and you will find love (not sexual, but brotherly/sisterly)." Get dressed up as the opposite sex and tell them you're getting a sex change. Walk a mile or 10 in my shoes (just not the ones with the stiletto heels - you'll break your neck). See how "accepted" and "loved" you feel when they say that "we still love you, but not your sin."

And some food for thought - would a male-to-female transsexual be allowed to marry a man in your church? Or, if your church only cares about birth sex, shouldn't they be allowed to marry a woman? I've never been able to get a proper answer from religious types who set strict rules on who can marry - they start sputtering and then mostly say "you can't marry a man because you're really a man" and "you can't marry a woman because you're not a man" and then, realizing the contradiction there, say "you can't marry anyone." This is what happens when arbitrary rules meet reality. :-)

I stoped wearing high heels when i was 5 years old - i tried my mother's shoes (when she was not home!), i almost killed myself (and from then i almost feel agony every time i see a woman trying to walk with them... poor ladies), and decided that this thing is not for me!

You should go to a Catholic church (or Orthodox - i say Catholic because they are more common in USA) and try to answer this question for yourself - but remember this: the church already has Jesus as its head... it does not need you to for that - act like a woman in church and you will be treated as a woman in church... so, keep you head down as a women must do... by the way:i am Greek.

And saying "wake up from your sleep boy/girl" is a slur, same as "Listen dude/dudette", th

Re:10 (ok, 15) questions

[BarbaraHudson]

Come on ... transsexuality has nothing to do with sex. There are transsexuals who are straight, gay, lesbian, whatever. To borrow a term from the O'Reily Perl books, it's completely orthogonal to the issue.

Also, I don't like the SJW crapola that came out of Gamergate, or the people who tried to profit from it by lying, crying wolf, and claiming they were harassed into leaving their homes when it wasn't true. I'm also against quota-based systems and other politically correct "solutions" for gender equality because they just perpetuate the stereotypical myth of women needing a leg up because we're not equally capable.

I'm NOT upset with you. Really. We probably agree on a lot of things. And since you've taken the time to engage, I'll friend you. Keep in touch, okay?

Re:10 (ok, 15) questions

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Come on ... transsexuality has nothing to do with sex. There are transsexuals who are straight, gay, lesbian, whatever. To borrow a term from the O'Reily Perl books, it's completely orthogonal to the issue. Also, I don't like the SJW crapola that came out of Gamergate, or the people who tried to profit from it by lying, crying wolf, and claiming they were harassed into leaving their homes when it wasn't true. I'm also against quota-based systems and other politically correct "solutions" for gender equality because they just perpetuate the stereotypical myth of women needing a leg up because we're not equally capable.

I agree!

We probably agree on a lot of things.

"PROBABLY"? Are you stupid girl? We just agreed in so many things...

I'm NOT upset with you. Really.

I am really glad - i hate myself when i upset people (and you know how Christ gets upset when someone that pretends to be a Christian upsets a fellow human being).

And since you've taken the time to engage, I'll friend you.

I really appreciate your friendship - but take my advise in this and lets be real friend, so don't do it by pressing some web button: not because i have any problem with that, but because you will have (too much Slashdot stupidity, too many stupid Slashdoters)... just take my advise as a friend!

Keep in touch, okay?

I will try to stick around my friend.

Re:10 (ok, 15) questions

[BarbaraHudson]

Sounds like a plan to me, even if I choose not to take your advice wrt LGBT rights :-)

Re:10 (ok, 15) questions

[antiperimetaparalogo]

I now see my friend that you choosed to ignore my advise... poor girl... many Slashdoters will associate you with me... but that is your problem!

Re:10 (ok, 15) questions

[BarbaraHudson]

Agreement isn't necessary - and it makes for more interesting conversation, no? The way I figure it, anyone who agrees with everything I say is going to be both boring and wrong at least some of the time and be unable to point it out :-)

Heck, if APK had an account, I'd friend him despite the huge battles we've had - on many topics we don't see completely eye to eye but we're able to appreciate each other as human beings (I know, shock to everyone who's been here watching from the sidelines the last decade).

Re:10 (ok, 15) questions

[antiperimetaparalogo]

Agreement isn't necessary - and it makes for more interesting conversation, no? The way I figure it, anyone who agrees with everything I say is going to be both boring and wrong at least some of the time and be unable to point it out :-)

Heck, if APK had an account, I'd friend him despite the huge battles we've had - on many topics we don't see completely eye to eye but we're able to appreciate each other as human beings (I know, shock to everyone who's been here watching from the sidelines the last decade).

You just become friend to APK - SERIOUSLY! And now you have to help me as a friend: who is this APK?

In the few weeks (maximum a month) i have a Slasdot account, (not directly - mostly by others replying to people that replied to me) i was been called "APK" several times: "he become the Greek APK", "he is APK pretending to be a Greek", "he is APK registering an account", etc - i undestand that this was not a compliment (i am not so stupid!). so... hit me with the truth!

Re:10 (ok, 15) questions

[BarbaraHudson]

Go to my journal and read the first two entries. It explains how I no longer use my 5-digit account, etc. Look at the comments in the second entry. And that's tame. There are days when he would literally post 100s of comments in articles, some a lot worse. But that's okay - we're good now :-)

To the willfully obtuse

[Uberbah]

Why don't you guys demand the same equality from the moslem countries?

Why do you think they aren't?

If you guys really want equality why do you do it in the West?

Because that's where they live, dumbass. Same reason why you spent more time dealing with the laws where you live than what they are in Bumbfuckistan.

Western Civ sinks lower into the morass

[hardihoot]

Just as blowfly maggots are a symptom of diseased and rotting meat, so is the acceptance of homosexuality a symptomof a diseased and rotting nation. Exterminating the maggots will not stop the meat from rotting, neither will exterminating homosexuals stop a nation from rotting either. Such rot is caused by a moral, spiritual, and character deficiency amongst its people. To stop meat from rotting the application of a preservative must be applied --salt, and so too must a preservative be applied to a nation to stop its descent into depravity. That preservative is the salt of the Gospel of Jesus Christ: for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, Jesus, that whosoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. The light of truth is blinding, and the clarion bells of righteousness sounding hateful speech to the wicked who walk in the darkness of evil thoughts and deeds. I pity the nation of Ireland whose people are so foolish and confused they do not understand the truth that in the beginning God created all life, including humans, and he made them male and female one for the other that they may produce offspring. Only someone utterly evil, depraved, or mentally ill cannot see the self-evident truth that male and female were created and designed one for the other. The people of Northern Ireland are probably quite thankful they are a separate entity from Ireland.

A Good Sign of Things To Come

[bhartman34]

Hopefully, this will lead to other countries, including the U.S., doing the same thing

I can't for the life of me figure out why I should give a rat's ass if two particular adults want to marry each other, as long as they're not biologically related. As Jefferson would say, it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket.

The people who should really be happy about this are the lawyers. More divorces and custody cases for them.

Doesn't belong here

[Skarjak]

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

Re:Doesn't belong here

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of us here have NO idea why this is here either!

St. Patrick is spinning in his grave

[amightywind]

Gay marriage sickens me. I am embarrassed to be of partial Irish decent.

news[fnord!]

[Cafe Alpha]

At 1st I misread the notnewsfornerd! as a fnord! http://www.rawilson.com/illumi... :/
come on, begin gay or lesbian is often a bit nerdy. Church-lady types approve of neither science nor sex, and certainly not non-standard-issue sexual attractions.

Re:news[fnord!]

[Locke2005]

Churches DO approve of sex, but only if it is done expressly for the creation of more tithers. The Catholic Church appears to have always preferred quantity of life over quality of life. They took over 300 years to "forgive" Galileo, so I doubt of they will be changing their stance on creating as many Catholic baptized babies as humanly possible any time in the near future. Homosexuality has traditionally been discouraged precisely because it lowers the birth rate; see the history of Sparta as a case in point.

NEWS FOR NERDS!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm Irish
I voted Yes Yesterday.
This story interests me.
But what the fuck is it doing on Slashdot?!!?

I've got no tolerance for this offtopic political shit in the wake of Gamergate. Slashdot had its chance to prove it could report accurately on major issues in nerdom and it failed. Miserably.

I get that Slashdot is trying to be a "progressive" site. But then the editors turn around and side with internet fascists, new age puritans, and insane anti-gamers. So fuck off. This isn't a progressive site and I don't believe for a second the editors care about Ireland, or homosexuals in Ireland, or the meaning of this votes, other than as ammunition for their toxic domestic culture war. Just stop reporting on politics and go back to being a techies news site, because when the big issues finally come up, you will either drop the ball, or worse side with whoever decides to attacks nerds again for being nerds.

Stop turning this site into a political propaganda outlet.

You want right PAddy me boyo?

[noshellswill]

Ya want Bantu rights, ya got bangerboi mall-fyucks ... you want wettbakkks rights, ya got narcoMEX cocaine mules ... ya want faglez rights, ya got NAMBLAized middle-schools ... nice feckin-A job PAddy the drunken black-Irish stooge. I guess the NI Orangemen kicked so much shit out of you it has to hang around some-place. 

Biologically related?

[Frankie70]

What's wrong with 2 biologically related gay people marrying?

Re:Biologically related?

[bhartman34]

You've got a point there. Nothing would be wrong with that, I suppose.

some reasons...

[Anonymous Coward]

https://sites.google.com/site/beforeiformedyoucolumn/columns/article-4

some reasons

[eegad]

https://sites.google.com/site/...

Re:some reasons

[Murdoch5]

Redefining marriage so you can interject incorrect statements about homosexuality, doesn't give you valid counter points, it shows the intellectual ability of a child.

Who the **** cares??

[Anonanonaon]

Well, obviously, lots of people care.

But I have to say, I am sick of this stupid debate.

-It's not to say that I think gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. What I'm saying is that I don't give a hoot. Get finger rings. Adopt kids. Have a great life. Sorry, but I just don't care. I think about the question of yes/no, and I get bored and fed up.

And I know the arguments, "Entitled hetero male. You'd care if YOU were the one who blah, blah, blah".

No, you're not getting it.

It's a make-believe issue which NOBODY should give a fuck about. It's not interesting. It's stupid. The paranoid conservative imbeciles who oppose it are just as tar-balled into caring about this stupid bullshit as those who march in those retarded gay rainbow parades.

No. Wrong. This is not me saying, "Gay Marriage shouldn't be an issue. It should just be. Peace out, bro." -If you think I'm saying that, you are not getting it:

What I am saying is this whole idiot issue is wasting our energy on unimportant fluffy goddamned nonsense while relevant issues are exploding on the world stage around us right now.

"Oh, you would think it was important if you weren't allowed to marry the person YOU loved!"

Fuck off, you compliant, herd-following jack ass. Your tits or cock and what you do with them is BORING. It doesn't matter. Do you think your little orgasm means anything special among the billion orgasms this planet experiences every single fucking day? Do you think your special body issues are fucking relevant to anything? Whether or not you wear pants or a dress is the stupidest non-issue in the universe.

-Yes, your hipster friends have all latched on to the popular-wagon which happens today to be filled with gays and other people who want special attention paid to their unique and special gender issues. -Yes, it's the issue you can get uppity about without the threat of anybody actually telling you to fucking shut up, (fucking Shut Up!), and where the whole crowd is at your back making you feel accepted and part of the gang (so long as you holler the right slogan-du-jour).

But, please.

Somebody make them shut up. Because they are STILL not getting it.

Listen: Marriage is just another make-believe piece of bullshit designed to create exactly this sort of distracting problem. Marriage is a legal fiction. A piece of paper.

Marriage license? A marriage license?? Are you fucking kidding me?

The goddamned state is telling me I need a license to share a bed with a very best friend? Bzzt. Sorry. Fuck off.

Why the hell do people play along with this imbecilic bullshit? Is it because, well, everybody else is following along with the same imbecilic bullshit due to some kind of automatically binding social-contract (which I never fucking signed), so they might as well go along also?

Is it because it's been sold to us through stories about princesses and white dresses since we were tots? Yeah, probably. And I'm sure there are plenty of (blandly sophistic) "compelling" arguments about micro-corporate familial unions and such. -Except if we ran society in a healthy way, we wouldn't need to involve goddamned legal representatives in child rearing. We'd have psychologically healthy parents with psychologically healthy neighbors, and if Daddy gets abusive, we'd beat the shit out of him and leave him on the steppes to dry out. And baby would point at every man and woman in the community and say, "Daddy, Daddy, Daddy, Mommy, Mommy, Mommy" -because we'd all be raising all the kids together.

"But it's not like that! Be realistic. Get with the program!"

Oh dear god, Fuck Off. -Who the hell gave us this "program"? I'll tell you who; the same people who spiked every scrap of media coverage of the last Olympic games with a retarded dose of Gay Activism in an effort to make everybody hate Russia. -Not because anybody at the top levels actually gives a flying

What the hell has this got to do with 'tech'?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I forgot - Slashdot is now 'Cultural Marxism' dot, and pushes Jewish bullshit with every other story. Nation-wrecking scum.

Chris Cornell had a song about this

[Anonymous Coward]

She'll never be your man

http://www.metrolyrics.com/shell-never-be-your-man-lyrics-chris-cornell.html

She won't love you like I did. LOL! I can't even get a g/f I have a fleshlight instead :)

Definitions, Definitions

[BeemanIT]

Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is between two individuals. Marriage is for those traditionalists. Marriage is so "old schools". What is Marriage? We just have sex here and there but no commitment anywhere.

Re:Definitions, Definitions

[Locke2005]

The problem is that there is crossover between the religious tradition of marriage and the legal status of marriage. My recommendation would be to make the two completely independent, thus finally achieving the ideal of separation of church and state. Churches have the right to not consecrate unions they disapprove of, for whatever reasons. But the state should not be allowed to discriminate, especially when that discrimination is based on religious mythology, not scientific evidence.

Re:Definitions, Definitions

[BeemanIT]

Last I checked, two male connectors do not connect nor two female connectors. If someone is using their body parts for something other than nature intended it's a perversion. You wouldn't use a hammer to buffer a car, that too is a perversion. When talking about the state and legality, people have to pay the state for the marriage license. This is just another tax. So I really don't care if those who are homosexual want to be legally married if they want to pay the tax like everyone else in America.

But the real question is...

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this tech related? I thought this was Slashdot, not the Huffington Post.

Fabrics are tailored to an individual

[Bust0ut]

The moral, social and ethical fabric of a country can keep it strong as it unites the people for a long time. After a country has matured, anyone seeking to change this fabric only alters it for his/her self. Why not add fabric to the outfit? We can practice adoption and inclusion instated of altering and cutting apart the good stuff.

What is marriage for?

[Anonymous Coward]

If marriage is only about the romantic feelings or sexual acts between two consenting adults then why the hell is the government involved in it at all? If it is about providing stability for child rearing, then (setting aside no-fault divorce for the moment) there's an argument to be had to limiting marriage to a man and a woman as they are the only pair that can naturally produce children.

Then one may say "What about people who are infertile? People too old to reproduce? etc." The answer to that is that the law doesn't have to have a perfect fit - only a rational one.

Of course the argument has been made that homosexual couples are fine parents, but in every single instance where there has been a study of homosexual parenting, the study was based on a convenience sample (where the researcher advertised in homosexual advocacy media or with advocacy groups for his study sample) or it was a snow-ball sample (where participants in the study recruited more participants). Why? Because it is nearly impossible to obtain a statistically significant sample size of stable homosexual relationships with children using a random population study because there simply aren't enough of that sub-group available for sampling purposes (Less than 1% of US households are gay couples, only 1/5 of those have children in them, and obviously, a smaller percentage have been together for the life of the child like a stable marriage relationship).

What's wrong with convenience or snow-ball sampling? They're inherently biased and the bias cannot be corrected for. For instance, in a couple of studies on homosexual concordance among monozygotic twins, the convenience samples found rates of concordance between 47-52% for homosexuality among monozygotic twins. However, when researchers did a random population study based on the Australian Twin Registry, they found a concordance rate of 11% among monozygotic twins and 6% for dizygotic twins (interestingly, adopted siblings, who shared no genetic material also had 6% concordance rate for homosexuality). The previous researcher's reliance on a convenience sample create the likelihood of “ascertainment bias”. In the words of the researchers, “twins deciding whether to participate in a study clearly related to homosexuality probably considered the sexual orientation of their co-twins before agreeing to participate”. The study participants knew what population group was being studied, knew what was being studied and had an interest in the findings of the study but somehow were expected to be completely unbiased in coming forward for the study and providing information to the researchers - it's absolute folly to think that the studies on child rearing by homosexuals reflect anything other than the bias of the researchers and their subjects.

So what we are left with is making a fundamental shift in society based on no real information - just a vague sense that society should somehow have some role in recognizing the romantic feelings or sexual acts of two people - something that we recognized some time ago as a private matter.

Re:What is marriage for?

[Locke2005]

Refusing to grant same-sex couples the same legal status as other couples is blatant discrimination against the children of same-sex couples, of which their are many, regardless of whether or not you consider them "natural". Eliminating this discrimination is a fundamental civil rights issue. Yes, we probably should have a discussion regarding whether or not all the legal advantages conferred with the legal status of marriage are appropriate, but it appears obvious that you can't grant rights to some families while denying those same rights to other families -- that flies against the basic principles upon which our nation (USA) was founded. Is Ireland different? There the state has traditionally deferred to the church in ways that make uncomfortable those of us that believe in the principle of separation of church and state, but I believe the same civil rights arguments apply universally.

Re:What is marriage for?

[phrackthat]

Precisely how does it discriminate against children to limit marriage status to heterosexuals? Children can still inherit from their parents. Children can still be loved by them. Frankly, the state has no purpose - no skin in the game, if marriage is just about romantic feelings or sexual acts. Everything that the state has an interest in pertaining to whether a couple stays together or not (and thereby incentivizing it through the promotion of marital status) has to do with the offspring of that couple. There is no scientifically sound evidence that homosexuals raising children do not harm those children. The only studies that conclude otherwise have been convenience samples, snowball samples or a combination of both and those studies are subject to a number of biases that render them unreliable and likely invalid - social desirability bias, ascertainment (sampling) bias - including self-selection bias, pre-screening bias and geographic sampling bias (for instance, including only subjects in a small urban area).

Everything that we know about child rearing and homosexual relationships (particularly male-male relationships) stand against the concept that children are just as well off being raised by homosexuals. Homosexual relationships are less stable (both MSM and FSF) which is a huge factor for the mental health of children, homosexual relationships are often if not usually polyamorous, they lack role models of the opposite sex, children raised by same-sex couples are FAR more likely to choose that lifestyle for themselves (which itself lends one to think that homosexuality is more culture than biology) and if those children become homosexual they will be far more likely to engage in risky sexual practices, abuse drugs, be at risk of suicide and other psychological issues, have STDs and have a shortened lifespan (for instance, when you include the various risk factors - suicide, drug use, STDs, depression and anxiety, etc, the average lifespan of the male homosexual is reduced by about 20 years as compared with lifespan of a heterosexual (which is roughly equivalent to the years lost from being BOTH a lifelong smoker (10 years lost) and being morbidly obese with a BMI >45 (8-13 years lost)).

We need to look at the actual science - not just go blindly into making a dramatic societal change without knowing the consequences.

What is marriage for?

[phrackthat]

If marriage is only about the romantic feelings or sexual acts between two consenting adults then why the hell is the government involved in it at all? If it is about providing stability for child rearing, then (setting aside no-fault divorce for the moment) there's an argument to be had to limiting marriage to a man and a woman as they are the only pair that can naturally produce children and there is absolutely no valid scientific evidence that homosexuals provide parenting on par with that of heterosexual couples.

Then one may say "What about people who are infertile? People too old to reproduce? etc." The answer to that is that the law doesn't have to have a perfect fit - only a rational one.

Of course the argument has been made that homosexual couples are fine parents, but in every single instance where there has been a study of homosexual parenting, the study was based on a convenience sample (where the researcher advertised in homosexual advocacy media or with advocacy groups for his study sample) or it was a snow-ball sample (where participants in the study recruited more participants) or a combination of the two. Why? Because it is nearly impossible to obtain a statistically significant sample size of stable homosexual relationships with children using a random population study because there simply aren't enough of that sub-group available for sampling purposes (Less than 1% of US households are homosexual couples, only 1/5 of those have children in them, and obviously, a smaller percentage have been together for the life of the child, like a stable marriage relationship). Since only 0.18% of US households are led by homosexual couples with children, it is inherently difficult and cost prohibitive to conduct a randomized population study that uses objective criterion to evaluate the effects of being raised by homosexual parents and instead what we see is studies conducted by self-proclaimed gay activists using methodologies that will inherently bias their studies in the direction they prefer.

What's wrong with convenience or snow-ball sampling? They're inherently biased and the bias cannot be corrected for. For instance, in a couple of studies on homosexual concordance among monozygotic twins, the convenience samples found rates of concordance between 47-52% for homosexuality among monozygotic twins. However, when researchers did a random population study based on the Australian Twin Registry, they found a concordance rate of 11% among monozygotic twins and 6% for dizygotic twins (interestingly, adopted siblings, who shared no genetic material also had 6% concordance rate for homosexuality). The previous researcher's reliance on a convenience sample create the likelihood of “ascertainment bias”. In the words of the researchers, “twins deciding whether to participate in a study clearly related to homosexuality probably considered the sexual orientation of their co-twins before agreeing to participate”. The study participants knew what population group was being studied, knew what was being studied and had an interest in the findings of the study but somehow were expected to be completely unbiased in coming forward for the study and and objective in providing information to the researchers (as opposed to engaging in social desirability bias (when research subjects respond in ways that present themselves and their families in the most desirable light possible) - it's absolute folly to think that the studies on child rearing by homosexuals reflect anything other than the bias of the researchers and their subjects. There is no sound science showing otherwise.

So what we are left with is making a fundamental shift in society based on no real information - just a vague sense that society should somehow have some role in recognizing the romantic feelings or sexual acts of two people - something that the law determined years ago was an entirely private matter (See Griswold v. Conn.).

Marriage is not about love

[Anonymous Coward]

Marriage is a union of two people who love each other and that is all it is, period.

Love has nothing to do with it. Civil marriage is a legal arrangement primarily about procreation and the care of children.

Many couples are united in love without getting married.
Many couples willingly get married without being in love.
Many couples get married only when they have kids.
Marriage legislation does not mention love, but often mentions procreation.
Some coupes who love each other aren't allowed to get married.

If you need to get married to show that you love your partner then you need to take a good, long look at your relationship.

Old joke

[Locke2005]

So Gerald Fitzpatrick and Patrick Fitzgerald can now finally get married? They don't call them "Gaelics" for nothing!

The internet is where religion comes to die

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations to those who used social media to ensure that this was passed.

Good to see the clergy sticking to their old ways and failing at every turn. Our logic trumps your beliefs EVERY time.

The church lobboed to become the sole provider

[Anonymous Coward]

The Church lobbied quite recently to become the sole provider of marriage services. Before then, marriage was possible with ANYONE presiding, all they needed was some minor authority. Ship captains, for example.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretna_Green

so when the religious whine about how their religion defines what marriage is, they're talking bollocks, because for millennia the church was merely one tiny segment of the marriage service industry.