If Ireland brings into law the popular opinion that marriage can also take place between same sex couples; what is the flow on consequences?
1. Does it mean surrogacy and I.V.F. will also become a legal right?
2. Does it mean marriage celebrants within the Churches can be sued or found criminal for refusing to conduct a requested service?
3. Does it mean that the State must now recognise all same sex couples living together as de'facto and have the same rights as a man and woman living together?
4. Does it mean the homosexuals have the right to violate the conscience of person under law to objection to perform a service for same sex marriage?
5. Does it mean the term marriage cannot now be used as a specific biological state between a man and a woman and is now merely an emotional state of a love union between and two unspecified persons?
6. Does it mean social norms of "mother" and "father" cannot be used in birth certificates because gender no longer recognised?
7. Is the next step the legalizing of multiple partners; and the lowering of the age of marriage to pubity for girls

Josephus,
Look closely at the figures, they had a 60% voter turnout from an electorate of 3.2 million with a 62% yes vote, that's 37% of voters supporting constitutional change, it's not even close to a majority and far from a popular decision.
It's as we've said all along, in Australia where voting is compulsory and turnouts are high Gay marriage doesn't stand a chance of passing a referendum because it has nowhere near the levels of support suggested by polling done by pro Gay organisations. The only way Gay marriage can be implemented is by court decree as in the U.S or where the parliament has overruled the people as in Europe. Gay marriage is nothing but a single use political power play which has no real support from the wider community, once expended it's gone.

I forgot to add, Irish are also notoriously stupid and apathetic people, the country has been on life support since they joined the EU and soon enough they'll get the type of society they deserve, at which point they'll do their usual trick of mass emigration when it all falls in a heap.

The overthrow of social norms upheld by the Church was foretold in the 1930's by atheistic communism. The Church has been aware of this for almost a hundred years with the rise of atheistic socialism. The point being that there is no such thing as sacred it is a control mechanism by the Church.

Currently the N.S.W. Department of Education has the will to ban text used in religious education if it teaches marriage is only between a man and a woman. They prefer to teach a child can have two fathers or two mothers; that biological heritage is of little importance, heritage is about where one finds love that makes that person a parent.

What will homosexual marriage mean for Ireland?

From what I gather it won't mean much at all to
the average person. Who someone else marries
(as long it's between consenting adults) should
not really affect other people or other people's
marriages. And people who are in committed relationships,
love each other, and want to marry - should be allowed to
do so.

Apparently the government approved of this step - as did
a large percentage of Irish people. The ones who may have
problems would probably be the religious,
namely the Catholic Church. The church
has problems with homosexuality, with divorce, with re-marriage,
and so on. Add to that the mix of the sexual abuse crisis -
and the problem grows.

Interesting times ahead.

Foxy,

"Apparently the government approved of this step - as did
a large percentage of Irish people...."

Apparently a large percentage of the people didn't vote so we don't really know if they approved or not.

"The ones who may have problems would probably be the religious,
namely the Catholic Church."

Why do you assume that religious people in Ireland are all Catholics?

"The church has problems with homosexuality, with divorce, with re-marriage, and so on...."

The Church has no problem with those things, the Church has its rules and teachings on them, it is others who have the problems.

Dear Is Mise,

Thank You for your opinion.

However I prefer to take the opinion of Paul Collins
who is Australia's most controversial and respected
commentator on the Catholic Church. He's a graduate
of Harvard Divinity School and the Australian National
University. He is a former priest and a historian
and boradcaster. Dr Collins is also a former specialist
editor of religion for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Reading quite a few of his books -
he does make it quite clear the problems
the Catholic Church has with all the things mentioned
in my early post (homesexuality, same-sex marriage,
abortion, celibacy, to name just a few).

I actually strongly support gay marriage. I congratulate the Irish and wish for the same in this country.

As a libertarian I support the right of anyone to carve out their own destiny, as just had my 25th wedding anniversary, may you have the same happiness that we have.

(P.S. you get less for murder)

Dear Shadow Minister,

Congratulations to you and yours.
What a great milestone. I'll have
to have a glass of bubbly in your honour
this evening. Wishing you even more
memorable times ahead.

Congratulations Shadow on achieving your 25 year mile stone, well done bro, from de gay aboriginal refugee, GAR for short, or if you suffer from a stutter you can call me Gar Gar. LOL

At least on gay marriage we are singing from the same song sheet.

Jay, is that what they call fuzzy logic, your interpretation of the Irish vote, you logic was all fuzzy to me. 60% of the 60% didn't agree with the 60%, who had no idea what the other 60% were thinking, besides at the end of the day they were all Irish anyway, and who cares what 60% of Irishmen think, they only think about Guinness and leprechauns. The second after consuming a few pints of the first.
I note you have added the Irish to your long list of those to be hated in society.

As in the case of de'facto couples in Australia they are classed the same as married. Therefore Government in the future may if marriage is granted to homosexuals consider two single men or women with children receiving single parent allowances while living under the same roof weather officially married or not, as one family. Thus removing the benefits of being single, saving Government welfare.

This means Government is no longer concerned with bedroom behaviour but living arrangements. I thought homosexuals just wanted to live a quiet life. NO! the activists behind the move want to destroy marriage loyalty between a man and a woman and believe in free love as it makes big money. The population has been duped by sentimentality of supposed equality to love who ever you feel like. The radical social reformers will not stop with granting the right to same sex union; they want a genderless society. We no longer are recognised as husband and wife we already have partner status.

When you read the stories of some girls brought up by two mothers there is already anger at not having a relationship with their father as other girls. There is already a dysfunction between the mother's relationship with men influencing her daughter.

Ireland's vote will result in more kids being denied a father and mother. It will result in perverted and unhealthy sex as being portrayed as normal. It will lead to more child sexual abuse. It will lead to less free speach and more demonisation for anyone sane enough to stand for the natural family. It will lead to all promoting immoral lifestyles and gleeing in the sunlight for a short period of time. It will lead to much more destruction in families with academics dumb enough to ask why. More suicide, more drug abuse, more domestic violence. Yep congratulations Ireland. The regressive country.

<<I thought homosexuals just wanted to live a quiet life.>> Not possible Fr.Joe with all you Christians, banging on their bedroom doors and peeping in their bedroom windows.

Wow Runner! hallelujah brother, hallelujah! Was that post the leftovers from your 'Eternal Damnation Sermon' you delivered from the pulpit yesterday?
Why don't you simply call on your god to do a Sodom and Gomorrah on the Irish? Problem solved, or have you already done that.

Foxy,
The truth is that the majority of people, including the Irish either don't care about homosexual marriage or are opposed to it.
The Irish result shows that slightly more (40%) people are disengaged from or disinterested in the issue than support it (37.2%).
Saying "I don't care enough about the issue to vote on it" isn't the same as "It won't affect me so I don't need to bother voting", all the Irish result proves is that homosexual marriage is seen as an irrelevant issue and that the lives of homosexuals and the way the live don't matter to most people.
That's not a victory for Gay activists, they've managed to estrange themselves from 40% of voters and totally alienate about 20% of the population altogether.
Once the Gay rights thugs start harassing the people who didn't vote or opposed them on principle as they're now doing in Northern Ireland the situation is going to deteriorate.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/19/northern-ireland-ashers-baking-company-guilty-discrimination-gay-marriage-cake
When I discuss this issue in real life people often ask what's next for Gays? There's your answer, the next phase of Gay activism is continuing their "long war" on traditional values and driving anyone who holds to those ideals out of business or hounding them from their jobs as in the case of Brendan Eich.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/04/06/does-mozilla-dumping-its-ceo-over-prop-8
This is what Gay power looks like.

Jospehus, in direct answer to your questions:

1. Does it mean surrogacy and I.V.F. will also become a legal right?
No. There will be no change in relation to parenting rights and fertility service

2. Does it mean marriage celebrants within the Churches can be sued or found criminal for refusing to conduct a requested service?
No. The church will be free to marry, or not, as it chooses, just as it is now.

3. Does it mean that the State must now recognise all same sex couples living together as de facto and have the same rights as a man and woman living together?
It means that married same-sex couples will have the same status as married opposite-sex couples. Only people who have been through a marriage ceremony are married.

4. Does it mean the homosexuals have the right to violate the conscience of person under law to objection to perform a service for same sex marriage?
No

5. Does it mean the term marriage cannot now be used as a specific biological state between a man and a woman and is now merely an emotional state of a love union between and two unspecified persons?
Marriage has never been a biological state, nor a merely emotional one.

6. Does it mean social norms of "mother" and "father" cannot be used in birth certificates because gender no longer recognised?
No, gender is still gender.

7. Is the next step the legalizing of multiple partners; and the lowering of the age of marriage to pubity for girls
No

I'm pro, but I really have no idea what will happen... That's for some smarter people to judge.

"2. Does it mean marriage celebrants within the Churches can be sued or found criminal for refusing to conduct a requested service?
No. The church will be free to marry, or not, as it chooses, just as it is now."

That is indeed the status quo, but for how long?

I'm tipping that it won't be long before before Gerald Fitz Maurice and Maurice Fitz Gerald are claiming that the law discriminates against them because the Catholic Church is allowed to refuse to join them in holy wedlock.

Wherever homosexual marriage has become law it denies the right to discriminate which is the reason homosexuals want the term marriage. Therefore one cannot discriminate on sexual preference which will make a large part of the population criminals before the law if they follow their conscience. This takes us back to the 16 century conscience civil wars. Ireland is not immune from conscience civil war.

Rhian, You are simple and naive to what is actually happening by the homosexual reformers. Most homosexuals just want a quiet life but activists have another agenda, and that is to confront the traditional values that marriage is a biological union with the purpose to raise and protect children.

Is Mise, given the perverted state of the Catholic Church in Australia I doubt gay people would want to be married by Fr. Fcukemup

@Is Mise

The churches can – and do – refuse to marry people for lots of reasons. Some won’t marry divorcees or people from other denominations. Some won’t marry people who are not active churchgoers, or even in their own congregations. None I know of would marry two people of a different religion, and most expect the happy couple to at least pay lip service to Christian faith.

There is no need to enforce gay marriage in church. Most marriages nowadays are civil ceremonies, anyway.

I hope the churches do decide to marry gay people (each denomination will make its own decision), but I also respect their right to choose not to.

@Josephus

Lots of countries that don’t alow gay marriage nonetheless give protection against discrimination in other spheres, such as employment.

You can assert that the purpose of marriage is “a biological union with the purpose to raise and protect children”, but that doesn’t make it so. Marriage has to different extents been about many things - property rights and inheritance, forging alliances between families and clans, creating a mutually supportive social unit and conforming with social conventions governing sexuality, as well as raising children. of these reasons, the last two have probably diminished most in importance in recent decades. Nowadays a large number of children are born outside of marriage, and a large number of marriages produce no children. A significant proportion of marriages end in divorce, and there are many single parent and blended families

Rhian,

I'm well aware that the churches are at present allowed to discriminate as to who they marry but I'm tipping that SSM activists will push for this to be changed.

@is mise
perhaps, but I'm tipping they won't succeed

Rhian,
Already equal rights for homosexuals to cohabit has been granted to them, but they are not satisfied with that. They want everyone to accept homosexual cohabitation as marriage. Homosexuals already have legal rights to property and inheritance of a lover and equal health care. They selfishly want the rights to children by surrogacy and I.V.F. They have no real concern for the welfare of the child in normal social environment, children need both a mother and father in a healthy environment to develop good relationships. Having lived beside teenage children raised by two lesbian women they had no boundaries in behaviour.

//children need both a mother and father in a healthy environment to develop good relationships//

Is that so? My father's mother died in childbirth - he never knew his biological mother - and his father never remarried. My father is a law-abiding retired engineer who has been married to my mother for over forty years. Given that you believe my father needed his mother to raise him in order to develop good relationships, how can you explain his remarkable success? Let me guess: he's the exception that proves your rule.

Did your father have sisters?

Oh for goodness sakes Josephus, you are really clutching at straws now!

I would imagine that your stand on 2parent families wouldn't sit well with all those families left without a father or mother after the World Wars, who had to bring up their children alone, and did a good job at it.

Hi Fr Joe, I had a sister, Sister Mary in the third grade. Sister Mary liked to belt little boys with a leather strap, and pull little girls long hair. is that the kind of Sister you are talking about? LOL

Only the union of male and female genome constitutes the full capacity to produce another human in their likeness.
Were those children of the war adopted by a mother and father or a single parent without opposite sex siblings? Why do we now have domestic violence and so many single mums? Of course they were well raised - not likely.

Josephus,

From its origins as a form of trade and a method of forming alliances between families, marriage has always been a social construct, not a biological one.

I support traditional marriage because my daughter is worth at least a goat and two oxen. Today's so-called "conservatives" are a bunch of wets who have caved to the demands of progressives.

I don't know the background on this paper to make any comment on it's potential biases but an interesting read on the role of the Catholic Church in the Republic of Ireland at http://publish.ucc.ie/ijpp/2010/01/moran/01/en

R0bert

"Did your father have sisters?"

No. He has one older brother and in some ways I'm closer to Uncle Brendan than I am to Dad.

How is this relevant? Please show all working.

"Only the union of male and female genome constitutes the full capacity to produce another human in their likeness."

Of course. We are a sexually reproducing species. If somebody can instruct me how attempt to go about human asexual reproduction (and I don't mean just masturbating), I'm keen to try the experiment in my experimental kitchen.

How is this relevant? Please show all working.

"Why do we now have domestic violence and so many single mums?"

We've always had domestic violence: if you don't believe me google the phrase 'rough music'. That was the punishment they used to give wife-beaters (and a damn good punishment at that), but it still didn't stop the problem.

Do you know how to stop domestic violence? Please show all working.

"Of course they were well raised - not likely."

And with that remark you've just crossed the line from crass, thoughtless comments to deliberately vicious comments. You've never spoken with my father or his forefather, but you're happy to condemn their upbringing nonetheless. Well, if the debate has descended to such a low point:

Josephus, your momma's so fat that Einstein would have had to reformulate his general field equations if he'd met her.

The vote to normalise same sex union will give some comfort to homosexual Priests being attracted to young vulnerable boys. They will reason it is now normal to be attracted to the same gender. Of course they are not Christian in their behaviour, in the fact that they are to suppress their sexual behaviour. Though many bisexual parents equally abuse children in the privacy of their own homes.

The Church must abandon the term marriage and use the term "Divine Union" which is sanctioned by God for the procreation of the family. This will allow the secular State to change the meaning of the word merely to mean a social contract. This will define the difference between State and Church weddings.

Yeah Josephus that's a good point, Shorten's bill won't compel pastors,priests or celebrants to perform homosexual ceremonies and as I said in another thread the state recognises all sorts of things we might not agree with so we work around it's rules or at least try not to break them in an overt manner. As with everything the bourgeoisie do this marriage equality bill is subject to the laws of unforseen (by them) consequences, before this there was no reason to discriminate against homosexual couples, if it passes then there will be yet another category of people created. The more you break society up into groups the more avenues there are for the discerning citizen along which to discriminate, homosexual marriage is not supported by the community so celebrants who perform such ceremonies and the businesses which host them may find themselves discriminated against and put out of business, either that or a large number of businesses are going to be competing for a only few hundred same sex weddings per year. If a prospective couple doesn't want their special day tainted by association it will very easy to ring up a celebrant or reception centre and ask "Do you cater for same sex marriage?" if the answer is yes then the caller only need say "OK thank you for your time" hang up and move on to the next on the list. So before the bourgeois posters cry out that most people aren't that petty and small minded I'm here to assure them that yes, most people are that fussy, especially when it comes to weddings.

My wife and myself a couple of years ago managed the Church premises for parties and weddings as it was a Function Centre with commercial kitchen that could cater for 350 seated dining guests. On one occasion we had a request from a Indian couple who wanted to set up a curtained area in the middle of the hall, where their priest would bless their sexual union and declare them husband and wife.

We were at first reluctant to give them permission being of another religion, but we said nothing and as it turned out several weeks before the marriage the couple broke their relationship saving us any embarrassment.

Because of multiculturalism in Australia homosexual State unions will directly conflict with cultural values, not only Christian. Of course atheists will not care and they will bully their opinion on changing the law.

Dear Josephus,

Please explain how homosexual couples will
affect other cultures? After-all homosexuals exist
in every culture. And it is important to recognise that
there is an immense range in marriage, family, and
kinship patterns not only in our own, but in other
cultures as well.
The family patterns of other cultures challenge
many of our assumptions about the nature of marriage,
family, and kinship.

Foxy, no they don't and no there aren't, no society on earth condones homosexual marriage and places it along side heterosexual marriage, it's purely a top down, state sponsored political movement which has appeared in the last 15 years in a handful of countries and which has no cultural or historical context whatsoever. So called gay culture itself is based on the total rejection of marriage and "heteronormative" relationships in favour of homosexual communes and alternative lifestyles, for flip's sake it's the first point in their manifesto.

Thanks Jay! as we know Foxy has no culture examples placing homosexual relationships as marriage and she cannot give examples. She is all exaggerated bluff.

When my nephew was in Iraq the bisexual Iraqi men there said, "men are for pleasure women are for babies", and they were only married to women for life and men were for casual sex. They had no sense of financial responsibility to other men only their wives and family. This similarly among bisexual men in Africa spread AIDS, as it has done in Australia. Because of this fact of the spread of disease is the reason the Christian scriptures forbid it. It is a health issue recognised by many religious cultures.

Even if homosexuals relationship be called marriage by the State, it will never constitute equality of the relationship of a husband and wife. Therefore a biological and sacred term need to be applied to that relationship to restate it to its original meaning. The term marriage will become a loose term just meaning, love between two persons living together and not adequately define the term of the biological family.

u r right Josephus just like calling people in defacto relationships partners does not change the fact they r living in sin. The changing of language in order to make what is abhorrent more palatable just gives people false security. Interesting we have a man who was accused of rape, then divorced,part of the sleazy union movement now trying to win political points by moralising. says it all

Though runner at least De'facto heterosexual couples if committed for life conform to scripture pre Roman times when the State got involved.

Watch out Josephus, your good mate Runner won't like you promoting sex outside of marriage for any reason.
Maybe the good book doesn't feel that unmarried sex is as bad a sin as gay sex then?
Oh dear, I doubt Runner would concur with that radical idea.

I was wondering why we all have to live by the dubious morals of this ancient book, written by mere humans, especially if we don't believe in any of the gods that others imagine are there?

Josephus,
Openly Gay men do have happy marriages to women as well, I met just such a couple about two weeks ago when working on their house, the husband while a nice enough chap was the fruitiest character you'd ever meet. When I arrived to start the job he was the only one home and I just thought, he's Gay, whatever, he's rich and eccentric and he's paying me to install these new mantlepieces, no big deal. Then later on an older woman arrived, we had a brief conversation and I took her to be his housekeeper or secretary, but lo! It turns out she was his wife of many years. If you read authors like Robert Oscar Lopez they will say that many men grow out of homosexuality in their late twenties but many find themselves stuck in the lifestyle because they've "come out" in their teens and society now regards them as Gay. The pro Gay research also shows that in 15-21 year olds same sex attraction or at least curiosity is present in about 8% of young people, however in those over 21 it's around 1.6% for men and slightly higher for women, so clearly most people do grow out of it and coming out as a teen might not be the best course of action..but heck, I've got kids, trying to explain to them how present actions influence future prospects isn't always easy.
Foxy's post is true up to a point, there will always be a minority of people with complex and unorthodox personal lives and we need not concern ourselves with them unless it affects us personally. What marriage equality aims to do is end this diversity but as I said, the best laid plans of bourgeois mice and men eh? Every social engineering experiment the upper classes try almost always has the exact opposite effect to the proposals debated and ratified in parliament, look at multiculturalism.

Here's Robert Lopez' blog, this is a pretty cutting article but he says what the majority of people really think:
http://englishmanif.blogspot.com.au/2015/05/my-favorite-things-to-expect-when-gay.html

Ireland is much in the news of late and their vote on same sex marriage seems to have galvanized some of our politicians into action on the same matter.
Ireland however has had earlier impacts on Australian life, not the least of which is Australian Rules Football (aka AFL), let's have a discussion on what has come to us from the Emerald Isle.

Sorry about that, it was meant to be a new discussion; so please disregard as it is intended to be on the lighter side.

Jay, I can totally agree with your last post. I know several very effeminate men who are happily married, who if in today teens would be identified by their peers as gay. The very fact they can produce children indicates their normal function as a heterosexual male.

Josephus,

"The very fact they can produce children indicates their normal function as a heterosexual male."

True, but it is also true of homosexual men, there are plenty of instances, on record, of men who were homosexual marrying and fathering children, sometimes in a desperate attempt to deny their sexuality; often lading to years of unhappiness for them and sometimes unhappiness for all concerned.

Why Jews Push Gay Marriage
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yLbF0BtZs4

Is Mise, Yeah but homosexuality when coupled with discretion has never been a problem for anyone, men who ran afoul of the law before it was de-criminalised were usually involved in other criminal activity as well.
When I hear of these "house parties" in the 1950's instead of having some image in my head from TV or movies of genteel cocktail parties spoiled by raids and beatings I picture some of the "bohemian" parties I went to back in my Fitzroy days where in addition to sexual dalliances by all persuasions there was always drug use and often youths under the age of 18 present. To say that anything goes in that milieu is an understatement because literally everything goes, I can recall a party at an address in Richardson St Carlton in about 1992, sitting on the living room floor smoking bongs with my friends while what sounded like a rambunctious Lesbian orgy played out in the adjoining room and pairings of all descriptions occurred in the garden, the bathroom and the kitchen. The cops would often turn up because of noise complaints and on occasion arrest people for being drunk or for possession of narcotics and yeah they'd rough people up as well if they got lippy.
In those days I had two good friends, one a housemate and the guy next door who would pretty much do anything with anyone if the mood took them,on one sunday morning there might be a gay man having breakfast in my kitchen, the next a young woman but both are now married with children and simply grew out of their bisexual phase like I grew out of my drug taking and binge drinking.
That's a massive digression but my point is it's always been the case that anyone who's a bit different or a bit "loose", a drug user or homosexual or whatever will always find themselves getting aggravation from the cops and the "squares", you just have to find a clique in which you're comfortable and conduct your activities in secret and there's a clique for everyone. Cont-

cont- Uncontrollable sexual urges are a sign of other problems, poor impulse control, anti social personality disorders and such, if a person's sexual urges threaten the stability of their personal relationships, if they put sex before everything else then they probably need psychiatric help. Men in monogamous relationships do want to do things which would threaten the stability of the home, I mean I really loved drugs and booze and would happily spend every day stoned, on the couch playing video games and drinking bourbon and coke from a can. However I don't do that because the satisfaction I get from going to work and being an engaged father and husband is more appealing and interesting than the numb, wooden headed druggie existence. Being married to a woman is great, monogamy is a good way to keep yourself on the straight and narrow I'd recommend it to any man, especially Gay men who are tired of the phoney, soul destroying aspects of the Gay scene.

Is Mise, Obviously their children were not produced from homosexual sex; but rather from a heterosexual relationship.

Jay, wise words.

The vote comes up in parliament tomorrow it won't be based on reason but on popular opinion, and alienate most religions.

Constance, Yes true devout Jews do not get involved in non Jews political decisions, they leave it to the unbelievers in whose lands they are dispersed. The unbelievers are those that do not follow the laws of God so will live the life that bring the curses of disobedience upon them.

Josephus,

"Is Mise, Obviously their children were not produced from homosexual sex; but rather from a heterosexual relationship."

Is that so?

Who would've believed it!!

Is Mise,
If they are fathering children they are not homosexual, but they are bi sexual.

Josephus,

It is well documented that homosexual men have married women in an attempt to deny their sexuality, to disguise their sexuality.
They have not necessarily been bi-sexual as that term supposes that they are attracted to both sexes.
A homosexual who marries a person of the opposite sex doesn't necessarily enjoy any required sexual relations but engages in them as part of the pretense, this, primarily, is what has been the cause of much unhappiness.
Some homosexuals have had understanding wives who have supported their husbands when they realized the problem, others have not been so lucky, but, fortunately for those attracted to the same sex, things have changed and the desperate subterfuge of an outwardly heterosexual marriage is no longer an apparently necessary option.

Josephus,

So who are the truly devout Jews? You must be aware how powerful the Jewish lobby groups are who interfere with Western politics all the time including their push for gay marriage all the time.

Why I Left Judaism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGTp1Q162Gw

Secrets Of The Synagogue
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAXiqIOTl6Q

The Jewish Talmud Exposed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZA-JCLYeDro

SATANIC TALMUD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quTXwTjgfc0

I thought we were discussing Irish homosexuals, not Jewish hatred?
Start your own anti-Semitic thread Constance...

Josephus, you must have been living under a rock if you really weren't aware that some gay people try very hard to live 'normally', and not follow the natural sexual urges they were born with. Yes, they can have children, but no, they don't have to be bisexual.

At the end of the day, some heterosexual people have anal sex with their partners too, but that doesn't make them homosexual.

The main thing is that it is 'normal' for them to feel attracted to the same sex as themselves. Thus, it is their right to be treated equally as any other couple and be allowed to marry legally. Ireland is very brave, and a step above the other countries in that regard.

Suseonline,
Please give us your definition of what marriage constitutes.

Homosexuality is a sexual act with a person of the same gender.
Bisexuality is sexual acts with persons of both genders.
Heterosexual is sex with a person of the opposite gender.

Sexuality is not an emotional preference, it is the act by the person, and similar twins or two sisters or brothers can be emotionally attached to each other but it does not mean they are married.

To define marriage merely as two persons who love each other and want to commit to each other as lovers, is so vague it does not define the exclusive relationship of bride and groom of mother and father.

All the above notions have already been answered Josephus.
I guess few people agreed with you in the heavily populated Catholic country of Ireland though did they?

Certainly they would never have even considered an expensive referendum on the subject of gay marriage if they believed all the archaic points you have raised.

Suse,

Constance is at least constant!!

Suseonline,
Typical uninformed answer, as you do not have a definition that is exclusive of the relationship.

//Homosexuality is a sexual act with a person of the same gender.
Bisexuality is sexual acts with persons of both genders.
Heterosexual is sex with a person of the opposite gender.//

So what is it when you're having sex with somebody of the same gender but fantasizing about the opposite gender, or vice-versa?

"So what is it when you're having sex with somebody of the same gender but fantasizing about the opposite gender, or vice-versa?"

Not taking a position on an issue.

WmTrevor, I would say those people are either in denial, or in deep conflict.
They are lying to themselves and to their current partner.

Josephus...sigh...I have answered your question so often on this forum, I am bored with it.
Marriage is a legal joining of two people who love each other.

It can't always have anything to do with sex or religion or children, because there are many marriages who persist despite not having sex, nor wanting or having children, and never having been involved with religion or gods at all.

Obviously, the majority of people in Ireland agree with me, and soon it will be the same in Australia, so you had best come to terms with it.
No one is asking you to marry any man...

Suse,

It was the majority of those in Ireland who voted, not the majority of the Irish people, there is a difference.

Remember when Margaret Thatcher became the British PM?
She got there on 46% of the votes of those that bothered to vote.

"So what is it when you're having sex with somebody of the same gender but fantasizing about the opposite gender, or vice-versa?"

Confusion?

Is Mise,

"Remember when Margaret Thatcher became the British PM?
She got there on 46% of the votes of those that bothered to vote."

And your point is?

The people who voted affected the outcome - golly gee! That's the way democratic elections and referendums are conducted in "most" democracies (compulsory voting being an unusual form). You appear to be pedantically trying to prove that Ireland really didn't vote in gay marriage in the referendum.

And as for Thatcher being elected with only 46% of the vote, so what? Cameron's Tories were re-elected recently with only 36.9% of the vote.

http://theconversation.com/voting-system-gives-tories-a-result-most-uk-voters-didnt-want-41595

"‘First past the post’ distorts multi-party contests'"

"The only voters whose ballots count for the election of an MP are those who support the candidate who gets the biggest share. This biggest share is usually well under 50%, because there are five or sometimes six parties getting significant support in the UK. There is no preference voting..."

People can only use the democratic system that they have access to - the result is "the voice of the people" no matter how much the system is distorted.

"The people who voted affected the outcome - golly gee! That's the way democratic elections and referendums are conducted in "most" democracies (compulsory voting being an unusual form). You appear to be pedantically trying to prove that Ireland really didn't vote in gay marriage in the referendum."

No, merely correcting an incorrect statement.

You are being pedantic Is Mise.
You know I meant the majority of Irish people who actually voted.
Obviously the rest of the population couldn't give a damn either way, if they didn't bother voting at all.
A great victory for human rights though, whichever way you look at it.

Suse,

I know nothing of the sort and I am a fully paid up member of The Ancient Order of Pedants.

I can well believe that Is Mise! :)

Suseonline, defined marriage in this vague term, "Marriage is a legal joining of two people who love each other".

It does not define her use of the term love as we all should love and care for each other, does that then define we are all married. There is no exclusion clause and no life long commitment. What is the emphasis on the word joining? does it mean a sexual union? What purpose does the State have in recording the unproductive sexual union of two persons of the same gender? This will allow the State to examine all persons of the same gender both receiving welfare, especially if they love each other as your definition describes.

Suse - this is you
http://www.deesillustration.com/artwork.asp?item=151&cat=satire

this is what you are defending
http://www.deesillustration.com/artwork.asp?item=317&cat=satire

An Irish Homosexual speaks out against the Yes Vote.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6HD8KLQBvA

Josephus, it may be vague to you but that is my own opinion about the definition of marriage. You can have your own opinion. Neither of us is wrong or right, it is just an opinion.

"It does not define her use of the term love as we all should love and care for each other, does that then define we are all married."
You didn't ask for my definition of love, and the rest of that question is silly.

"There is no exclusion clause and no life long commitment."
I don't believe it should be lifelong if there are any good reason it should end in divorce.

" What is the emphasis on the word joining? does it mean a sexual union? What purpose does the State have in recording the unproductive sexual union of two persons of the same gender?
I always thought 2 people would join as a married couple? Am I wrong?
What purpose does the state have in recording the unproductive sexual Union of two persons of opposite sex? Are you suggesting infertile or older couples shouldn't marry?

" This will allow the State to examine all persons of the same gender both receiving welfare, especially if they love each other as your definition describes."
I'm not sure what you mean here Josephus?
Doesn't the state already deal with defacto gay couples on welfare?
Being married will be the same, as with heterosexual couples.

In the wedding ceremony the "joining together" refers to the sexual union of the husband wife and vows witnessed by those present and is recorded by the State as legally binding, in contrast to casual sex.

I suggest you look at the last link I posted by some in the Irish homosexual community in support of the "NO" vote. At least they are informed, unlike the Media brainwashed public, that marriage is merely about love.

Gee Josephus, the 'media' sure did a good job on 'brainwashing' the Irish public didn't they....what with forcing the many hundreds of thousands of people to go against their will and vote for gay marriage?

You sure give the media a lot of power.
Are you for real? Do you think the majority of Irish people are so gullible?

Or could it simply be that these people just thought it was the right thing to do?
They weren't' so stupid as to imagine gay marriage would affect anyone else at all, except those stuck in a time warp where they still believe an invisible God 'spoke' to one of the many mere human writers of the fictional bible and called homosexuality an 'abomination'. 2000 years ago?

Australia will follow Ireland's lead soon, and rightly so.

If people wish to be ignorant of the developed functions of the human body so be it. Biological science does not support the view of two lesbians were designed to use artificial means to fulfil their female design. Nor was the human rectum designed to take the male penis and spread diseases found in excreta, like hepatitis and AIDS etc. I have been to three funerals of men in their 40's who have died of the debilitating AIDS virus.

//Nor was the human rectum designed//

Try telling that to some people...

Do you think it is only male rectums that take penises Josephus? Because there are a plethora of videos on the internet that conclusively disprove that theory. Nor is it exclusively male homosexuals who catch HIV. Given your interest in biology, you should note that strictly speaking it is HIV which is transmitted, not AIDS. Antiretroviral therapy is effective these days that in developed countries like Australia, progression to AIDS is increasingly rare and most HIV-positive patients can live long and happy lives.

Of course, a gentleman engaging in any sort of casual intercourse has the option - and would be wise to take it - of wearing little rubber devices to prevent issue. By wearing a rubber sheath over their old feller, they can significantly reduce the chances of catching most STI's, including HIV.

I really don't see what this has to with marriage.

Suse,

"Australia will follow Ireland's lead soon, and rightly so"

Not going to happen, Ireland had a referendum we won't and can't.

Toni Lavis, Marriage is primarily about raising and protecting children which results from vaginal sex. Other forms of deviate sex is not capable of producing children. Read any woman's magazines their obsession is who is marrying and who is having children. They clearly associate the two - marriage and children.

Reports show that almost all women who care about their vaginal health feel degraded and dirty with anal intercourse. It is the cause of infection.

Surveys of adopted children show that adopted in their mature years almost always suffer guilt and emotional displacement if not with their natural mother even if raised in a loving family. This is a primary reason surrogacy should not be used to birth children unless a close relative.

Homosexuals couples who want children must not be allowed to use surrogacy or IVF merely to satisfy their desire for children.

Fr Joe,

In your opinion then, who should be allowed to use surrogacy or IVF merely to satisfy their desire for children. If its not the Homosexual couples, then who?

Can you clear this one up for me, I believe it was "legal" to have sex in a church until medieval times. Just asking.

//Read any woman's magazines their obsession is who is marrying and who is having children. They clearly associate the two - marriage and children.//

I'd prefer not to. Any man who thinks that celebrity gossip mags present a realistic view of womanhood needs his head read as much as any man who thinks that zoo magazine (another trashy rag I'd prefer not to read) presents a realistic view of womanhood.

A woman is so much more than her 'naughty' bits or her potential to bear children. There's the conversations, and the games of scrabble, and the times she cooks you dinner after you've been cooking all day at work, and the falling asleep in her arms. There is more in life than sex, and I know I'm not the only one who gets that.

Which part of a male's anatomy prevents him conversing with his partner, playing scrabble, cooking dinner or spooning?

Or is it all about the sex, you dirty old pervert?

Josephus, you read reports about vaginal health?
Interesting.

The male penis (and women's vagina) can pass on infections of all sorts without ever having been near someone else's rectum.

As for adoption, I agree it can certainly lead to some very mixed up adoptees and relinquishing mothers. I am assuming you are ok with a woman's choice to choose abortion rather than be forced to carry on with an unwanted pregnancy and birth, and an adoption then?

Toni Lavis,
You know very well I mean relationship is more than sex, as all good relationships outside of marriage do not include sex. However sex is to be exclusive to within marriage as sex outside of a lifelong commitment to each other is merely using each other for self gratification.

I see you class sex as the "naughty bits" = rather an immature little boy view. Sex is primarily for procreation of children in one's image.

You said, "There's the conversations, and the games of scrabble, and the times she cooks you dinner after you've been cooking all day at work." A mother also does that but you do not have sex with your mother.

Suseonline, If you watch S.B.S. news reports as I do you find what is happening in health. My wife who was a senior nurse in the 1960's for a gynaecologist in Cornelle University Hospital totally agrees with you. That is why anal sex is unhygienic and causes so many problems to women health, whose husbands anally abused them.

Adoption to a family is a far lesser evil than the taking of a life of an unborn. The important factor is to give the child links to its birth family

Josephus, you ask your wife whether there were more 'health problems" suffered by women who were 'anally abused' by their husbands, or just the usual sexually transmitted diseases caused by 'normal' sex that cheating husbands brought home to their wives?

Heterosexual husbands (and lovers) caused way more STD's in their wives than the far fewer population of homosexual couples ever could.

I felt sad to read that you think sex is 'primarily' used to procreate children in your own image.
I assume then that once the wife is pregnant, sex is ceased until they are ready to 'procreate' again then?
And if the couple is known to be Infertile, or too old to breed, well sex can cease altogether?
That is just so sad....

With same sex marriage in Ireland it will bring many changes to how people, that are not considered the norm, will be treated. Gay people are the same to me. I have worked with many people from different backgrounds, cultures and religions it hasn't caused any disasters.
We are all the same.

It will surely boost the tourist trade, marry and honeymoon on the one 'plane ticket.

Suseonline,
You said, "I felt sad to read that you think sex is 'primarily' used to procreate children in your own image".

I wonder what you believe each gender's reproductive system is primarily for? Obviously you believe it's primarily for pleasure. That is not the primary purpose of its design, it is incidental.

By the way my wife and I are still intimate at 75

lamp,
Perhaps you do not see difference between gender.
My daughter when taking in male flatmates into her 3 bed apartment always took in homosexuals as there no hassals with them and they were tidier than both girls and straight boys.

Dear Josephus,

Opposite sex couples aren't required to demonstrate
their intent or capacity to procreate before
they may marry. Many opposite sex couples never
procreate and the state still recognises them as
married. Therefore obviously -
marriage is not about procreation.

Your daughter is very lucky that the positive stereotypes
of gay men turned out to be true. As in -
gay men being tidy, neat, well-groomed, well-dressed,
artsy, friendly, fun, fit, et cetera. Perfect room-mates.
A pretty tall order
for anyone to fill. She's lucky they didn't turn out to
be ill-bred, badly behaved, and slobs.

//That is not the primary purpose of its design, it is incidental.//

OK, just who is responsible for this 'design'? Because I want to have a word with the engineer(s):

What the hell were you guys thinking when you left the testes on the outside? Too much work to tuck them away safely inside like the ovaries where they can't be inadvertently be struck by stray cricket balls and the like? Shoddy work is what I call it.

No wonder you've got all sorts design flaws like unintended pleasure from necessary reproductive activities with shoddy engineers like that. At least, I assume it's an unintended design flaw: you seem to be the only one who's been privy to the original blueprints. Maybe you can tell us how it's all meant to work. It still seems slightly distasteful to me that I expel bodily waste and reproduce via the same urethra. Is that the engineers taking a short-cut, or is that what is laid out in the blueprint?

//By the way my wife and I are still intimate at 75//

A mental image I did not need...

When there is zero probability that she will conceive, because there is zero probability that she is fertile. You dirty old pervert! You're not having sex to reproduce, you're having sex because it's fun. And yet you wag your finger at gays having sex for pleasure. Josephus, has it occurred to you that might be applying unfair double standards?

Toni Lavis,
Ignorance of the biological reason; the testes are on the outside of the body is because they produce fertile sperm at a lower temperature. If they were internal organs the sperm would be infertile. There is no shame in being informed about the real facts of the human body. Many prefer to deny their human function to have children till it is too late or because they in their youth chose same sex partner.

//Ignorance of the biological reason; the testes are on the outside of the body is because they produce fertile sperm at a lower temperature. If they were internal organs the sperm would be infertile//

This is exactly what I mean by shoddy engineering. How hard can it possibly be to design sperm that work at a slightly higher temperature? But it's easier to fudge the sperm, wack the testes on the outside and hope the boss won't notice, knock off early to the pub and hope that nobody catches on.

I reckon it was done by consultants. There is no way that the same engineers designed the liver and the male reproductive system. The liver is a work of art. The human male reproductive organs? Definitely consultants.

Foxy,
The only reason the State has to record marriage is to keep records on births and who is responsible as next of kin, mother, father of the child. Deaths are also recorded because it changes the statistics. Both of these records are to keep the status of the living citizens.

That two persons of the same gender want to live together as lovers does not change the population statistics one iota. For that reason two persons of the same gender is of no concern of the Government as their relationship is not equal to a husband and wife, and NEVER will be.

There is a much more sinister purpose by the homosexual activists which they believe they will change public attitudes by law, which will backfire when they start bringing discrimination cases to Court.
Everyone deserves to be treated with respect, but that is not enforced by legal action. The same shunning behaviour of homosexual acts by 14 to 24 yr old boys will still persist it will just fracture society even more if the homosexuals start legal action.

Well said Toni Lavis. One could go even further and say the male penis should have been made too big to fit in anywhere else other than the vagina either! Just saying...

Josephus, either one or both of the gay partners could be (and often are) the natural parents of one or more of the children living with them. Are these children not to be part of the state's 'statistics'?

You couldn't really give a damn whether the Gay people, or the straight ones, madly raced about and sued each other for discrimination or not.

Why not just be truthful and say you think homosexuality is an 'abomination' because a so-called disciple of Jesus said so in an ancient book?
Jesus or God never said that by the way, it was only said by another mere human...

What I learned about homosexual acts I learned from Biological science that it takes a man and a woman to produce a child. Do we now have children produced by same sex couples. The world of science needs to hear about this, otherwise it is a hoax.

Dear Josephus,

Could you please provide evidence for your
claim that the only reason the state records
marriage is because it has to record births,
et cetera - in all the records I've searched
I've not been able to find your claim to be true.
There already exists a register of births,
deaths, et cetera, which is separate from
the register of marriages - and there's a variety
of reasons given for each one register. However,
the register of the birth of children and those
of marriages are separate records.
Your claim appears to be invalid.

Suse,

"Why not just be truthful and say you think homosexuality is an 'abomination' because a so-called disciple of Jesus said so in an ancient book?"

Which disciple of Jesus said that?

"Jesus or God never said that by the way, it was only said by another mere human.."

Didn't think that you believed in God, and wasn't Jesus a mere human in your philosophy?

Foxy, I suggest you look at your birth certificate and you will find Fathers name - Mothers name. The records are part of the family tree, who is related to whom? Do some family history and find who was married to whom and who was their ancestor and who was their children. In every child's case you will find a mother and father.Though on some records father is listed as unknown. it doesn't mean the child did not have a father but the mother was promiscuous. Many de'facto couples register their relationship as married for the sake of the children. Marriage which is essentially the commitment is for the sake of the children. Which is exampled by many species who pair for life. Just that human reject the union and responsibility to their offspring. Marriage registrations were introduced by the Roman State and later administered by the Church to record its citizens births and deaths.

Dear Josephus,

I think you're a bit confused.

We are not talking about birth certificates here.
Not everyone who marries has children or wants them.
And on the marriage certificate - there is no father's
name or mother's name - listed because having
children is not a marriage requirement.

Dearest Is Mise, abominations and other terrible sins were ranted about in Leviticus, as you well know.
Technically, Moses wasn't an actual disciple of Jesus, but he certainly claimed to be the mouth-piece of a god!

Any good Christian would flog you for suggesting Jesus wasn't a god.
Didn't he rise again?
Not many humans can do that, apparently.
You are correct in saying I don't believe in any God, but I am merely quoting an old book.

Suse,

You put your foot in it and your above post above won't absolve you from your inaccuracies.

//Which disciple of Jesus said that?//

Paul the Apostle, aka Saul of Tarsus, aka St. Paul. Not one of the 'Twelve Apostles', but generally considered as one of the most important figures of the Apostolic Age.

//wasn't Jesus a mere human in your philosophy?//

Yes. But not in everyone's philosophy, whereas you won't find a single Christian scholar claiming that Saul was divine. He was definitely just a man, by anybody's yardstick.

Foxy,
What purpose has the State got in recording same sex lovers?

Toni,

I'm sure that Suse can stand up and admit her inaccuracies without your help.

//I'm sure that Suse can stand up and admit her inaccuracies without your help.//

I'm sure she can. She seems a clever lass. I just don't like inaccuracies to go uncorrected. I'm a bit 'anal retentive' or OCD or whatever that way. Sorry for butting in.

Dear Josephus,

You ask -
what purpose would the state have in recording
same-sex couples?

The same purpose that it has for recording opposite-sex
couples.

Marriage Certificates are official records that two
people have undertaken a marriage ceremony. The Certificate
serves a dual purpose of granting permission for a
marriage to take place and then endorsing the same document
to record the fact that the marriage has been performed.

The Marriage Certificate serves several purposes.
It may be required as evidence of change of a party's name,
during divorce proceedings, or as part of a genealogical
history to name just a few.

Not at all Is Mise....Toni can prove my point any time he/she likes!
You, on the other hand, have not really addressed any of our comments at all....

Do You think Jesus, or any God at all, personally condemned homosexual people?
If not, why is the suggestion of gay marriage so awful to some religious people?
If they believe in what human Bible story writers wrote 2000 years ago, why do they not still stone all adulterers, or the many other fun stories held in the Bible?

Foxy,
How does name changes apply to same sex who both keep their birth name, or one the name of her children's father for the children's sake?
Why are we talking about divorce? Are same sex couples intending to divorce?
How are same sex couples involved in a persons genealogy? They are not both the genes of any child.

Marriage is not the certificate, the certificate is a State registration of the fact of the reality of marriage between a husband and wife has taken place. Marriage is not even the celebration or feast that usually takes place. The real game is the daily commitment of a life together as husband and wife, registrations and celebrations are not marriage.

You said, "The Marriage Certificate serves several purposes.
It may be required as evidence of change of a party's name,
during divorce proceedings, or as part of a genealogical
history to name just a few".

Josephus, I have been following my own ancestry tree for many years now.
If you are only looking for ancestors or living relatives who 'provide parts of the gene pool' then what do we do with second marriages after one spouse dies or divorces?

Do we just leave that 'unrelated' stepfather or mother off our tree?
How about adopted relatives? There aren't any familiar genes there either.

What does it matter what second names they all may have?
I have had many problems looking up some ancestors from the 1800's because I found one guy who must have had some kiddies out of wedlock too!

So you see it happens whether it is gay couples or whoever.
It all just adds to the fun of genealogy.

I am just relieved that hopefully there will now be far fewer gay people trying to live a life of lies, and denying the sexuality they were born with. Because marrying someone of the opposite sex when you aren't attracted to them at all, must be a tragedy for all involved.

Suse,

"I am just relieved that hopefully there will now be far fewer gay people trying to live a life of lies, and denying the sexuality they were born with. Because marrying someone of the opposite sex when you aren't attracted to them at all, must be a tragedy for all involved."

Never truer words were spoken (even if they're written!)

Those cases are the real tragedies of feeling/needing to hide one's sexuality.

Suse,

"Not at all Is Mise....Toni can prove my point any time he/she likes!
[He can't prove other than that an inaccuracy was inaccurate]

You, on the other hand, have not really addressed any of our comments at all....[other than to point out as above]

Do You think Jesus, or any God at all, personally condemned homosexual people?
[again, you confuse me, do you think that Jesus was God?]

If not, why is the suggestion of gay marriage so awful to some religious people?
[because they consider that it demeans the institution of marriage; they believe that it is indeed an abomination in the eyes of God; that it is unnatural etc., etc.--take your pick.]

If they believe in what human Bible story writers wrote 2000 years ago, why do they not still stone all adulterers, or the many other fun stories held in the Bible?
[probably because State law forbids them to do as thy may well believe that they should, in some parts of the world these things still go on. Islam, in particular, still decrees death for homosexual acts]

Dear Josephus,

I responded to your question of why the state would
register same sex couples.

As for discussing the meaning of marriage.
I see no point in doing so with you.
You have a closed mind on the subject.

The people of this country will eventually decide
what they want. As they did in Ireland, and are
doing elsewhere.

For me this discussion has now run its course.

Note: Jesus welcomed adulterers John 8 [Mary Magdalene], thieves [Matthew a tax collector for Rome], and murderers [Saul murdered Christians on conversion named Paul] into his followers; however they were converted to follow his example of purity, generosity and compassion. Among the Gentile converts were persons who were former homosexuals but were converted to a life of purity. Jesus did not stone adulterers, cut off the hands of thieves, or put to death murderers. The only condemnation he made was to those that offended children, and rebuking Rome for carrying on taxing and exchanging animals for profit at the temple. Homosexual must convert to be considered following God and his laws and design.

It is a pity that the sexuality that homosexuals are actually born with is denied for an emotional attachment of same sex. They can have close friends of the same sex but they are not marriage partners. To call such marriage demeans the exclusive relationship of a man and woman.

It is now evident Foxy has very vague ideas of what marriage means. In her eyes it can mean anything as she constantly says there are many ideas and cultures of what marriage means; but has not been able to give an ancient culture where homosexuality is classed as marriage.

Dear Josephus,

I feel obliged to reply one last time to your
statements about me because they are simply
not true. You should not make assumptions about
people you don't know simply because they don't
want to discuss issues with you any further - due to your
closed mindedness on the subject of same-sex
marriage. I have definite ideas - and they are
not vague. You simply don't accept them. They
don't agree with your view.

Now, as far as same-sex marriage is concerned -
the following website tells us that:

There is a history of same-sex unions in cultures
around the world. Various types of same-sex unions
have existed - ranging from informal, unsanctioned
and temporary relationships to highly ritualised
unions that have included marriage.

Check it for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

Interesting link, Foxy, I liked

"Among the Romans, there were instances of same-sex marriages being performed, as evidenced by emperors Nero who married an unwilling young boy and (possibly - though it is doubted by many historians) the child emperor Elagabalus, who both supposedly married a man, and by its outlaw in 342AD in the Theodosian Code, but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist. [note few examples]

In Greece, the pederastic relationships between Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) were similar to marriage in that the age of the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-teens, though in some city states, as young as age seven), and the relationship could only be undertaken with the consent of the father.[citation needed] This consent, just as in the case of a daughter's marriage, was contingent on the suitor's social standing. The relationship consisted of very specific social and religious responsibilities and also had a sexual component. Unlike marriage, however, a pederastic relation was temporary and ended when the boy turned seventeen.

At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage. This is particularly true in the case of Sparta, where the relationship was intended to further a young boy's military training. While the relationship was generally lifelong and of profound emotional significance to the participants, it was not considered marriage by contemporary culture,[NOTE!!] and the relationship continued even after participants reached age 20 and married women, as was expected in the culture.[citation needed]

Numerous examples of same sex unions among peers, not age-structured, are found in Ancient Greek writings. Famous Greek couples in same sex relationships include Harmodius and Aristogiton, Pelopidas and Epaminondas and Alexander and Bogoas. However in none of these same sex unions is the Greek word for "marriage" ever mentioned.[NOTE again} The Romans appear to have been the first to perform same sex marriages."
(contd.)

(contd)
Meanwhile in ancient Egypt,

"Marriage was the normal and most desirable state for Ancient Egyptians of both genders and all social classes. Athenian men evinced little respect or affection for women and delayed marriage until well into their thirties, but most Egyptian men were eager to follow the advice of the wisdom literature urging them to take a wife while still young so they could found a household and raise a family. Most men were married by the age of twenty to girls who might have been as young as fifteen. There was an age difference, but usually not more than two or three years"
http://www.womenintheancientworld.com/marriage%20in%20ancient%20egypt.htm

You might read,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Egypt for some perspective.

"Homosexuality in Ancient Egypt is a passionately disputed subject within Egyptology: historians and egyptologists alike debate what kind of view the Ancient Egyptians society fostered about homosexuality. Only a handful of direct hints have survived to this day and many possible indications are only vague and offer plenty of room for speculation."

Is Mise :
"[again, you confuse me, do you think that Jesus was God?]"
I am sure you know full well what I mean Is Mise :)

I always thought that if Jesus was supposedly the son of a god, and of a human woman who gave birth to him after not having sex with that God, he would at least have been HALF a god, surely? Not only that, but didn't he amazingly rise from the dead?
I don't know any other humans who have done that?

Sooo....in actual fact, we are relying on other humans from 2000 years ago to tell us that homosexuality is an abomination, and NOT any God, am I right?

And now that the adulterers are not being stoned again because of 'laws', we should surely allow gays to marry once those laws are in effect, right?

//I always thought that if Jesus was supposedly the son of a god, and of a human woman who gave birth to him after not having sex with that God, he would at least have been HALF a god, surely?//

From wikipedia:

//The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (from Latin trinitas "triad", from trinus "threefold") defines God as three consubstantial persons, expressions, or hypostases: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons". The three persons are distinct, yet are one "substance, essence or nature". In this context, a "nature" is what one is, while a "person" is who one is.//

By Christian doctrine, Jesus IS God. And so is God, and the Holy Ghost as well. Confused? Join the club. The Trinity always gave me a headache until I realised it was all made up anyway.

Suseonline,

I suspect Is Mise is just being obtuse now.

You’re right. Jesus was God. He was his own father and his own son at the same time. He sacrificed himself to himself to save us from what he was going to do to us because of his own problems.

The trinity is a ridiculous notion invented to distinguish Christianity from polytheism at a time when polytheism was unpopular.

This Thomas Jefferson quote I think sums up the absurdity of the trinity best:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."

AJPhillips, you are right of course, but at least Is Mise has a sense of humour with his views, whereas Josephus needs to lighten up.

With all my school years listening to the Nuns drone on about the holy trinity, I never really listened.
I think I stopped listening at about the age of 7, when I worked out it was all fiction.

Mind you, they never actually said that homosexuality was a sin, but rather just lumped ALL forms of sex into the one big sinful basket!

Suse,

"And now that the adulterers are not being stoned again because of 'laws', we should surely allow gays to marry once those laws are in effect, right?"

Yes, you are right. Once the law is changed homosexuals will be allowed to marry, that is the whole point of the idea of changing the law.
At the moment however such laws are not in place and same sex couples are not allowed to marry.
I have no objection to people marrying be they sad or happy or in between.

NOTE: Christianity stands out from the ancient practises of sexual debauchery and same gender sexual acts. Many Gentile Christians denounced their former behaviour to follow purity and holiness, some were put to death for speaking out against such unclean acts. That is why Christians uphold purity and sexual integrity within family, in contrast to the debauched society.

How is same sex marriage and less unfair, arbitrary and any less a denial of 'rights' than the traditional marriage that is confirmed by the Marriage Act?

What about Muslims, for instance?

The political 'Progressives' and Gay Pride (along with the occasional stirrer, eh Suseonline?) are showing the arrogance, triumphalism and bullying that they might once have criticised Christian churches for and there is a return of serve from some committed religious persons.

However both sides are and have always been intent on leaving out, disenfranchising, the general population who are wondering just what it all means for the definition and understanding of marriage. The public's view and questions are 'represented' by slanted 'surveys' where the sponsor of the 'survey' gets to get the results he wanted in the first place, too easy!

The mainstays of the political 'Progressives, the feminists and the bulk of International Socialists have been open in their hatred of marriage and will to get rid of it ASAP. Yet the public is not to be informed of what they would have instead. Is the State to assume more direction, raising and control of children in lieu of parents?

LGBT activists, especially the Marxist kind, are unlikely to want to be limited to the expectations of what they insultingly refer to as 'traditional' marriage.

It is unreasonable to expect that the public should continue to be herded by activists and academic (humanities) elitists who are adeptly managing the populist tabloid media.

It is those who push for change who must open the box to describe and give practical examples of what marriage will be. What it is and they are so dissatisfied with, is understood and has stood the test of time, but exactly what is the replacement/s that will 'evolve' and how does it/they work?

Once again folks we get "on the beach" - beating the same old
tired drum. It's the "Progressives," who have to
explain themselves. They're always the ones at fault after all.
Don't you know!

So perhaps the best solution would be to let the country
decide which direction it wants to go - with a Referendum.

Still, I suspect that in "on the beach's eyes" it will still be
the fault of all those dreadful "Progressives," no matter how
the country votes.

BTT

It is those who push for change who must open the box to describe and give practical examples of what marriage will be. What it is and they are so dissatisfied with, is understood and has stood the test of time, but exactly what is the replacement/s that will 'evolve' and how does it/they work?

Ooo... I wanna have a go at this one.

<<It is those who push for change who must open the box to describe and give practical examples of what marriage will be.>>

The same as what it is now, only between two consenting adults instead of a man and a woman specifically.

<<What it is and they are so dissatisfied with, is understood and has stood the test of time, but exactly what is the replacement/s that will 'evolve' and how does it/they work?>>

Nothing needs to be abolished or replaced. You're being melodramatic.

[Damn, now I've got that annoying Chris Rea song stuck in my head again.]

//It is those who push for change who must open the box to describe and give practical examples of what marriage will be.//

I can give you a description, but I'm single and marriage is really not on the cards ATM so I can't furnish you with practical examples.

The description:
So you know how sometimes blokes and sheilas really hit it off together and sometimes decide they want to stay together for the term of their natural lives, or until they get thoroughly sick of each other and petition for divorce? Well, it'll be just like that, except that we'll let two blokes and two sheilas do it as well.

//how does it/they work?//

Same way as it did between a bloke and sheila, mate.