SSM Referendum Spring 2015

I Heart Internet · 09-07-2014 3:53pm

floggg wrote: »

By redefining marriage, being between one man and one woman both over the age of 18, to being between one man and one woman both over the age of 40, you are redefining marriage.

I can play this came all day too you know

You are, but it's a less fundamental redefinition (imho).

Daith · 09-07-2014 3:54pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Age is transient, gender is not.

Change the age of marriage to be adults over 50 and it doesn't matter if the people who want to get married are a man and woman. Age wins over gender.

So no. Marriage will not be redefined even with your little attack on the T in LGBT.

Daith · 09-07-2014 3:55pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You are, but it's a less fundamental redefinition (imho).

So changing the age of who can get married is redefining marriage?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It isn't just about gender, no.

If you change the legal age you are not redefining it (certainly not by much) as it is still a contract between one male and one female.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You are, but it's a less fundamental redefinition (imho).

Make up your mind...

I Heart Internet · 09-07-2014 4:08pm

So, if the referendum in Spring 2015, is defeated (hopefully it won't be), what will be the definition of civil marriage in Ireland post-referendum? How would one define the reality of it then?

Daith · 09-07-2014 4:11pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So, if the referendum in Spring 2015, is defeated (hopefully it won't be), what will be the definition of civil marriage in Ireland post-referendum? How would one define the reality of it then?

Whatever the people of Ireland for the first time have decided what the definition of marriage in Ireland is.

Of course we can't really tell until we see the proposed amendments.

I Heart Internet · 09-07-2014 4:14pm

Daith wrote: »

Whatever the people of Ireland for the first time have decided what the definition of marriage in Ireland is.

Of course we can't really tell until we see the proposed amendments.

But if the referendum fails to pass??

Will civil marriage in Ireland be undefinable?

If a person from Japan (say) asks - "What is civil marriage in Ireland?" How would one answer them?

Would one say, "It is..............empty silence......................."

P_1 · 09-07-2014 4:18pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

But if the referendum fails to pass??

Will civil marriage in Ireland be undefinable?

If a person from Japan (say) asks - "What is civil marriage in Ireland?" How would one answer them?

Would one say, "It is..............empty silence......................."

Well I guess it would depend if anything is put into the constitution to that effect. For all we know a no vote could simply leave things as they are (ie up to interpretation). To be fair it's really a question that we can't answer until we know what the question posed on the ballot paper is.

Daith · 09-07-2014 4:21pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

But if the referendum fails to pass??

Will civil marriage in Ireland be undefinable?

If a person from Japan (say) asks - "What is civil marriage in Ireland?" How would one answer them?

Would one say, "It is..............empty silence......................."

Can't say until we see the proposed amendments can we? Like the way you don't know what way you'll be voting.

Though chances are we won't be voting for what marriage is but who can avail of marriage.

I Heart Internet · 09-07-2014 4:21pm

P_1 wrote: »

Well I guess it would depend if anything is put into the constitution to that effect. For all we know a no vote could simply leave things as they are (ie up to interpretation). To be fair it's really a question that we can't answer until we know what the question posed on the ballot paper is.

That means ignoring the actual reality that currently, and following a negative referendum result, civil marriage may only be between one man and one woman. In order to change that, we must change the definition of it.

Daith · 09-07-2014 4:24pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

That means ignoring the actual reality that currently, and following a negative referendum result, civil marriage may only be between one man and one woman. In order to change that, we must change the definition of it.

No....missing the point. Marriage is between a man and woman over the age of consent and who are not related and are not currently married (among other criteria).

We will be changing who is eligible to get married not what marriage is.

I Heart Internet · 09-07-2014 4:25pm

Daith wrote: »

Can't say until we see the proposed amendments can we? Like the way you don't know what way you'll be voting.

Though chances are we won't be voting for what marriage is but who can avail of marriage.

So wait and see what the proposed redefinition is? Fair point.

Daith · 09-07-2014 4:26pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So wait and see what the proposed redefinition is? Fair point.

You mean the proposed change to the criteria of who can get married? Yes!

I Heart Internet · 09-07-2014 4:28pm

Daith wrote: »

You mean the proposed change to the criteria of who can get married? Yes!

We're like an old married couple Daith!!

P_1 · 09-07-2014 4:33pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

We're like an old married couple Daith!!

Was just going to suggest that

Lads you're really splitting hairs at this stage. You could argue till the cows come home if expanding the availability of something is redefining it.

For example, UPC broadband now becomes available in, let's say, Drogheda. Has UPC broadband been redefined as a result of that? Probably not, bit has the availability of UPC broadband in Drogheda been redefined? Arguably yes.

Daith · 09-07-2014 4:35pm

P_1 wrote: »

For example, UPC broadband now becomes available in, let's say, Drogheda. Has UPC broadband been redefined as a result of that? Probably not, bit has the availability of UPC broadband in Drogheda been redefined? Arguably yes.

Yes but it's still the same UPC Broadband

floggg · 09-07-2014 4:35pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You are, but it's a less fundamental redefinition (imho).

You know what they say about opinions though.

I didn't get the impression you cared whether changes to definitions were fundamental or not - after all most people don't see the "redefinition" resulting from permitting people of the same sex to marry as in any way fundamental.

After all, it wouldn't result in any change to the basic nature of the marital relationship. It would be the exact same, except just open to more couples now.

And yet that's still a redefinition to you - so too therefore must be a change to the age limit.

After all there is actually a big difference in the nature of most relationships between 12 year olds and 20 year olds, and allowing 12 year olds to marry would have a much bigger impact than me marrying another grown man.

So if you are going to pedantic about "redefintions", be pedantic about -"" "redefintions". Sure, people don't like pedants, but it's never about being liked for pedants, is it?

floggg · 09-07-2014 4:37pm

Daith wrote: »

Change the age of marriage to be adults over 50 and it doesn't matter if the people who want to get married are a man and woman. Age wins over gender.

So no. Marriage will not be redefined even with your little attack on the T in LGBT.

Technically I think trans people have a fixed gender but their body parts don't match it.

I Heart Internet · 09-07-2014 4:42pm

floggg wrote: »

So if you are going to be pedantic about "redefintions", be pedantic about -"" "redefintions". Sure, people don't like pedants, but it's never about being liked for pedants, is it?

hehe:D

floggg · 09-07-2014 4:47pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

hehe:D

You missed the extra -"" in there.

What did I tell you about being consistent about this things?

I Heart Internet · 09-07-2014 4:50pm

floggg wrote: »

You missed the extra -"" in there.

What did I tell you about being consistent about this things?

I actually didn't. I put those "cross out lines" through them. But they appear like this "".

old hippy · 09-07-2014 5:01pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

We're like an old married couple Daith!!

Define "married couple"

loh_oro · 09-07-2014 7:17pm

For the people who say they believe marriage is only between a Man and a women can I ask you a question. Were you against interracial marriage? Using the logic some are using you see marriage between a man and a woman but before interracial marriage was allowed people saw marriage between people of the same skin color.

I think that your religious beliefs or any for that matter should not be a factor when your deciding Civil rights of an entire group people who Deserve equal rights

wonderfulname · 09-07-2014 11:26pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Age is transient, gender is not.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You are forgetting about 15 year-olds that want to marry. The current law prevents them from doing so and everyone who isn't 15 years old gets a say in oppressing 15 year olds.

Hmm...

MrPudding · 10-07-2014 11:19pm

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm in favour of SSM and brought up sibling mariage as an example of alternative minority views not catered for in law (despite it being a valid alternative relationship between consenting adults).

I am intrigued though by the way posters are dismissive and, from my point of view, repulsed by sibling marriage. They think it odd and unnatural and presumably "wrong" despite it involving consenting adults.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No it's not. Relationship between consenting adults shouldn't be considered taboo, or linked, as you just have, with the awfulness of paedophillia and child abuse.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Sibling or cousin marriage is not "far more complex". You're just making generalised, vague negative accusations that you can't back up. Same as homophobes do for gay relationships.

Coercion, abuse, manipulation, grooming and abuse of power are all things that can occur in homosexual or hetrosexual relationships aswell.

Seems like everyone wants to exclude someone in this world.

Coercion and grooming are very real risks in this type of relationship. On the phone now so can't find the details, it there was a European case where a German either and sister took Germany to court for their right to marry. The German government's concerns were considered valid and the continued discrimination against incestuous marriage was held to be justified.

The best way, IMHO, to differentiate between ssm and other types of non 'traditional' marrriage is to consider a mind of 'harm principle.' Where there is no harm, then continued discrimination is difficult to justify. Where there is a harm, or serious risk of harm then the discrimination is more likely to be justifiable. There is no 'harm', in a rational sense, with ssm.

And another thing worth considering, if you tell a brother that he can't marry his sister that is prohibiting him from marrying one person on the entire planet. If you tell a person they can't marry someone of the same sex you are telling them they can't marry anyone they might ever want to. Although it is a small point, the scale of the discrimination is also worthy of consideration.

MrP

SpaceTime · 10-07-2014 11:23pm

Just make sure you do actually vote.
The hard right will be very organised in getting their no voters out. So, please do not just sit on the couch and assume it's going to pass regardless.

Check on www.checktheregister.ie

PopePalpatine · 11-07-2014 12:28pm

SpaceTime wrote: »

Just make sure you do actually vote.
The hard right will be very organised in getting their no voters out. So, please do not just sit on the couch and assume it's going to pass regardless.

Check on www.checktheregister.ie

Can we get a mod to add this to the OP, it might end up buried here at page 104.

humanji · 11-07-2014 1:03pm

I've put that in the OP, but we'll be posting it more as the vote approaches.

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments