SSM Referendum Spring 2015

wp_rathead

hoodwinked wrote: »

Marriage is related to religion by the fact we are a catholic country, until that changes religion is involved

We are a Republic, not a Catholic State

Daith

hoodwinked wrote: »

it's not so long ago civil marriage was unheard of and done by very little, pre 2013 (wasn't it?)

Er no. When you get married in a church you get "married twice". First under your religion the the priest performs the civil marriage duties.

I really don't get your point though. I mean how many people who get married in a church actually go to Mass?

hoodwinked

Daith wrote: »

Er no. When you get married in a church you get "married twice". First under your religion the the priest performs the civil marriage duties.

I really don't get your point though. I mean how many people who get married in a church actually go to Mass?

the pre 2013 bit (i just found something that said it was 2005 it actually changed) was relating the next sentence beginning after the ,

snaphook

I'm currently not registered to vote. (long story, travel, working abroad blah blah)

I will actually go about getting registered to vote Yes.

Bubbaclaus

I find it pretty disgusting how people can even vote against another persons rights to marry the person they love.


Hopefully Ireland will show how progressive it is next year by providing a large one sided Yes vote in this Referendum.

AtomicHorror

snaphook wrote: »

I'm currently not registered to vote. (long story, travel, working abroad blah blah)

I will actually go about getting registered to vote Yes.

Not the first person I've see expressing this. It's one of those rare times when a vote feel truly worthwhile.

Do it!

denhaagenite

hoodwinked wrote: »

it's not so long ago civil marriage was unheard of and done by very little, pre 2013 (wasn't it?) you simply had a choice of church or registry office room, and as alternatives are slowly becoming more popular but they are still constrained by the rules set down by the religious marriage, (recent no marriages outdoors for example)

see my point above, i mean in Ireland because we are a catholic country (officially although i'd love to see a referendum to end that association) civil marriage is linked to religion by the way our government organises things in a "lets just copy them" mode!

I got married by the civil registrar in a hotel in 2011. It had been going on for a while at that stage. I wouldn't have got married in Ireland if there was an imposed religious affiliation. Most people who get married in a church do so because you can get married on a weekend without the registrar, as the priest can take over those duties AFAIK. My sister had a Humanist ceremony because they can also marry people on weekends.

Civil marriage is by no means linked to religion- people who are divorced can remarry but not in the RCC- and the Irish Government follow what England do now in the "let's just copy them" stakes.

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

Nature and biology is the primary reason for marriage coming about as a stable place to have and rear children.

Same sex marriage is just a modern thing, which we are told we must support and say yes to pollsters or be viewed as a bigot or a homophobe.

Actually marriage came about as a property arrangement. The well being of the women and children wasn't really a concern - they were property after all, not people.

And there is records of same sex marriage going back to pre-Roman times, in cultures all over the world.

So, no, it's not just a modern thing.

hoodwinked

denhaagenite wrote: »

Civil marriage is by no means linked to religion- people who are divorced can remarry but not in the RCC- and the Irish Government follow what England do now in the "let's just copy them" stakes.

i noticed that recently too it does seem to be the new thing copying England, but it wasn't that long ago we had to vote to give people the right to divorce so they could re-marry,thats my point in civil marriage is/was linked BUT we are slowly changing it, i too think copying England is why we are getting this referendum, and i welcome that although it would have been nice to see ireland leading the way and legalising civil marriage for all it's citizens rather than copying the UK

NewCorkLad

I would think the LGBT community would prefer that the Catholic Church did join in the media debate, that way their opinions could be challanged instead of giving them free reign to preach their opinions unchallenged from the pulpit.

Daith

hoodwinked wrote: »

i noticed that recently too it does seem to be the new thing, i think it is why we are getting this referendum, and i welcome that although it would have been nice to see ireland leading the way and legalising civil marriage for all it's citizens rather than copying the UK

Well the UK just legalized equal marriage. They didn't need a referendum.

padd b1975

fran17 wrote: »

I believe that fellow panty spoke about the alarmingly high rate of std's recently in an attempt to highlight it.but unfortunately it went largely ignored

Dude should have taken his own advice.

AtomicHorror

jill_valentine wrote: »

Well, it's just that we feel it would be strange to keep bringing it up. I just don't see what the fact that straight people get more STDs than lesbians has to do with the marriage debate.

It is odd isn't it? If homosexuals were more likely to be smokers, and thus more likely to harm us all by passive smoking, should we bring that into the discussion? Why is that considered off topic but STDs are somehow relevant?

Am I missing something here when I suggest that, since marriage is more likely to limit sexual activity to a single partner or (jaded hat on here) kill sexual activity entirely, doesn't that make STDs even less relevant to this discussion?

hoodwinked

Daith wrote: »

Well the UK just legalized equal marriage. They didn't need a referendum.

they don't have the irish constitution!

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

The referendum is why it is being changed whether people accept the fact or not.

No. The government want it changed before the referendum for political reasons, but they still see it as a right and valid change in of itself.

Once passed, the new adoption laws will be law regardless of whether or not the referendum passes.

Added protection and support for LGBT families is seen as something worthwhile independent of the marriage equality referendum.

The timing may be due to the referendum. The change itself is valid all by itself though.

Daith

NewCorkLad wrote: »

I would think the LGBT community would prefer that the Catholic Church did join in the media debate, that way their opinions could be challanged instead of giving them free reign to preach their opinions unchallenged from the pulpit.

Well there's not going to be a choice. Irish broadcasting law states that all debates must have equal representation.

Daith

hoodwinked wrote: »

they don't have the irish constitution!

There's no reason why the Irish Government need a referendum as marriage is not defined in our constitution.

NewCorkLad

Daith wrote: »

Well there's not going to be a choice. Irish broadcasting law states that all debates must have equal representation.

Which is only right

AtomicHorror

padd b1975 wrote: »

fran17 wrote: »

I believe that fellow panty spoke about the alarmingly high rate of std's recently in an attempt to highlight it.but unfortunately it went largely ignored

Dude should have taken his own advice.

Relevance? Do we need to put it in big ass letters? RELEVANCE?

RELEVANCE?

RELEVANCE?

Can we get some clarity on that please?

floggg

denhaagenite wrote: »

Sorry that my opinion offends you. I could say the same about you but I respect your opinion is yours and I'm not here to change it. As a matter of fact, I also agree with him, just don't agree with his methods and I question if his motives (not just in "The Noble Call" instance) are for the good of the gay community or just for the good of his gay bar.

Again, apologies for my misinformation on what the speech was actually in aid of, but I have seen it numerous times in full. Need to whatsapp my friend and tell her I mistook her and that instead of "The Wind that Shakes the Barley" I thought she was at "Priscilla, Queen of the Desert"

Not offended at all. I'm gay, I've had to grow thick skin.


Just saying your complaints don't seem consistent with the facts and contexts. Doesn't mean you can't make them. Doesn't mean I can't comment on them.

Daith

NewCorkLad wrote: »

Which is only right

Wasn't there an issue where a radio station couldn't interview Alan Shatter about a bill because they couldn't find someone to debate him?

I don't believe in silencing anyone to be honest. Knocking down people's arguments is the best way forward.

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

Can you give me the legal phrasing the Romans, the Mayans and other ancient groups used?
Afterall this is what the state is planning here, a legal change, as we already have civil unions which some choose to say they are getting 'married'.

Homosexuality is natural, I said that already, but while it is natural, nature also has put up boundaries that make the differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality unequal.
I don't see the equality in same sex marriage, I just see people viewing the name as being the same and same legal rights but with still the natural barriers in place if one wants a family, at least a heterosexual couple of child bearing age have the possibility of biological children.
It can never be true equality.

I think it is wrong to attack anyone whether physically or mentally based on how they were born, or for any reason for that matter. We all want to be accepted for who we are.
The thing is I don't see marriage as this right. I would actually get rid of it if I had the power, remove it from the state's control and put it in the power of the people. Marriage shouldn't be a legal thing, it should be a moral union between two people, not a legal union. A person dedicating themselves to the one they love.
Yes this would allow same sex marriage, I just don't view civil marriage as real marriage despite what the law says it is whether it heterosexual or homosexual...
The less state involvement in one's life the better. I am not going to vote for more of something I disagree with.

You really don't understand marriage at all.

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

So when it comes to producing children, we should silence men?

Everyone is entitled to put forward their view whether one agrees or disagrees with it, this is not North Korea.

edited that...

Silence men?

You do know how babies are made, don't you?

Figsy32

Daith wrote: »

There's no reason why the Irish Government need a referendum as marriage is not defined in our constitution.

It mightn't be defined explicitly, but its been interpreted continuously by the Supreme Court that it means marriage between a man and woman.

This is because of the catholic influence set out in the preamble and the link between the family and marriage mentioned in Art 40.3.

Introducing SSM through legislation only will lead to appeals and will more than likely be held unconstitutional as it has so often in the past. (see Zappone and Gilligan for an example)

NewCorkLad

SimonTemplar wrote: »

I would love if the catholic church kept out of all the media debates that will happen between now and Spring 2015. They have absolutely no moral authority left in this country as far a lot of people are concerned.

But no doubt we'll end up hearing some bishop on Prime Time defending the church's archaic and unjustifiable position. I remember Dara O'Briain once said in his standup that priests have as much experience of marriage as they do of submarine captaincy. Why then should they be invited to participate in a debate which has no real effect on the organization to which they belong.

Daith wrote: »

Wasn't there an issue where a radio station couldn't interview Alan Shatter about a bill because they couldn't find someone to debate him?

I don't believe in silencing anyone to be honest. Knocking down people's arguments is the best way forward.

Yes that was my point aswell ;)

MetalDog

Daith wrote: »

I'd say 52. The divorce referendum got through just barely.

The divorce referendum was nearly 20 years ago. Hopefully we've moved on a tad since then. Not enough though.

J_E

padd b1975 wrote: »

Dude should have taken his own advice.

Terrible, terrible comment to make, really gobsmacked that kind of mentality is still around.

fran17 wrote: »

Well the only article in the mainstream media I'm aware of was a small one in the irish times.maybe others picked up on it,i not aware of any though.but in proportion to the media fest when rte paid damages to a man who was defamed by him then it really went unnoticed.of course though it's not politically correct to talk about homosexuality and std's in the same sentence anymore

You have previously made your stance crystal clear on these issues before, so I'm not sure why political correctness would really matter in your posts.

fran17 (from a previous post...) wrote:

this tread is a prime example of how this poison is seeping into the fabric of society nowadays.completely one sided with gay boys and fag hags having a rant about the pillars our society have been built on for thousands of years.why nowadays is anyone who disapproves of homosexuality immediately attacked for being a bigot and a "homophobe"(whatever that means)?


...

listen we could go round and round this roundabout all day and I for one have a life to get on with.bottom line is homosexuality will never be tolerated in mainstream society(sorry guys but this is a fact).I much preferred when ye congregated in public toilets and parks at night and sordid dens

Bubbaclaus

RobertKK, you initially said you were going to vote no because it would cause peado's to get married and adopt kids to abuse them.

Since adoption isn't a part of the Referendum and the vote is a simple yes/no on equal rights for the LGBT community I assume you will now be voting Yes.

Right?

Daith

Figsy32 wrote: »

It mightn't be defined explicitly, but its been interpreted continuously by the Supreme Court that it means marriage between a man and woman.

Yes and the Supreme Court have stated it's not up to them to legislate.

There is no reason why this could be not legislated however I would agree that a referendum is unfortunately the best choice.

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

Well good, I am sick of people from any side having to resort to name calling as it shows their debate is weak.

Calling a bigot a bigot isn't name calling. It's identification