Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

AlphaRed

Lets remember without distortion what we are really voting about. The Yes Campaign has hijacked the referendum by relabeling it "Marriage equality". They are taking the concept of equality which is of great importance to everyone and like a beer commercial are attaching it to the positive emotions and importance people feel about equality.

If you don't do what they say you are against equality and so, a bad person. This is sheer propaganda. We have seen in history how propaganda has been used to manipulate the masses.

Please take the time to fully analyse what that sentence means "marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex". There is no mention of equality in that sentence. That concept has been added by the yes campaign. They are asking you to make a logical leap, because there is no real connection with equality.

Be a true independent thinker. Think of the implications for society and think about the roots of the yes campaign and what it actually has to do with our society. Don't base your decision on emotional but on a rational and deep understanding of the issue.

Greyian

AlphaRed wrote: »

Think of the implications for society...

Why don't you tell us what some of these implications are?

Sofiztikated

AlphaRed wrote: »

Please take the time to fully analyse what that sentence means "marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex". There is no mention of equality in that sentence.

That sentence is, in essence, the definition of equality. No distinction, no difference, seen as equal.

AlphaRed

Sofiztikated wrote: »

That sentence is, in essence, the definition of equality. No distinction, no difference, seen as equal.

You made an unconnected abstraction. You say "in essence" no, that's a mistake, that's the unconnected logical leap. They have nothing to do with each other.

CramCycle

AlphaRed wrote: »

Be a true independent thinker. Think of the implications for society and think about the roots of the yes campaign and what it actually has to do with our society. Don't base your decision on emotional but on a rational and deep understanding of the issue.

Done, I have decided to vote yes, as there is no reason to vote no if I listen to your view

galljga1

AlphaRed wrote: »

Lets remember without distortion what we are really voting about. The Yes Campaign has hijacked the referendum by relabeling it "Marriage equality". They are taking the concept of equality which is of great importance to everyone and like a beer commercial are attaching it to the positive emotions and importance people feel about equality.

If you don't do what they say you are against equality and so, a bad person. This is sheer propaganda. We have seen in history how propaganda has been used to manipulate the masses.

Please take the time to fully analyse what that sentence means "marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex". There is no mention of equality in that sentence. That concept has been added by the yes campaign. They are asking you to make a logical leap, because there is no real connection with equality.

Be a true independent thinker. Think of the implications for society and think about the roots of the yes campaign and what it actually has to do with our society. Don't base your decision on emotional but on a rational and deep understanding of the issue.

Quite simply adding this simple sentence will extend the right to marriage to all regardless of sex. How can that not be about equality?

oscarBravo

AlphaRed wrote: »

You made an unconnected abstraction. You say "in essence" no, that's a mistake, that's the unconnected logical leap. They have nothing to do with each other.

You're just blithely stating that, but if you're going to claim that being able to do something without distinction as to sex doesn't mean equality - a perfectly reasonable reading of the words - you'll have to explain that claim.

Well, of course you won't have to, but you'll need to if you want your argument to be taken seriously.

shruikan2553

AlphaRed wrote: »

You made an unconnected abstraction. You say "in essence" no, that's a mistake, that's the unconnected logical leap. They have nothing to do with each other.

Just like the no side with children then?

Equality - the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, or opportunities.

Currently same sex couples can't marry while opposite sex couples can. With the referendum same sex couple will be able to avail of the same rights, status and opportunities as opposite sex couples.

galljga1

AlphaRed wrote: »

You made an unconnected abstraction. You say "in essence" no, that's a mistake, that's the unconnected logical leap. They have nothing to do with each other.

Extending the right to marry to a group currently excluded has nothing to do with equality? Please explain.

johnnyskeleton

AlphaRed wrote: »

Please take the time to fully analyse what that sentence means "marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex". There is no mention of equality in that sentence. That concept has been added by the yes campaign. They are asking you to make a logical leap, because there is no real connection with equality.

They were going to call it the "Modify Article 41 to ensure that the family remains the primary unit of society while respectfully and fairly removing any suggestion that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, thus ensuring that the law can provide for two men or two women to marry each other should they wish" campaign, but "marriage equality" is a bit snappier.

The marketing department is to blame I suspect.

Be a true independent thinker. Think of the implications for society and think about the roots of the yes campaign and what it actually has to do with our society. Don't base your decision on emotional but on a rational and deep understanding of the issue.

I think the implications for society are positive. Marriage will move towards a union of love and away from the idea that two people get together to have kids and are stuck with each other.

I also dont think that there is anything wrong with applying a bit of emotion to it as well as rational analysis. I wouldnt deprive friends of mine happiness in the real world because their union doesnt fit into the idealised one.

Mark Tapley

AlphaRed wrote: »

Lets remember without distortion what we are really voting about. The Yes Campaign has hijacked the referendum by relabeling it "Marriage equality". They are taking the concept of equality which is of great importance to everyone and like a beer commercial are attaching it to the positive emotions and importance people feel about equality.

If you don't do what they say you are against equality and so, a bad person. This is sheer propaganda. We have seen in history how propaganda has been used to manipulate the masses.

Please take the time to fully analyse what that sentence means "marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex". There is no mention of equality in that sentence. That concept has been added by the yes campaign. They are asking you to make a logical leap, because there is no real connection with equality.

Be a true independent thinker. Think of the implications for society and think about the roots of the yes campaign and what it actually has to do with our society. Don't base your decision on emotional but on a rational and deep understanding of the issue.

Its all semantic games and smoke and mirrors with you. Tell us all about your rational understanding of the issue.

FixdePitchmark

I think people should look at article 41

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/en/constitution/index.html#article41

Whilst most reasonable people agree with equality - the article of the constitution it is going into - the change is actually in breach of the concept of the article.

This idea - is totally flawed.

It will be passed. But this idea that people are bigoted and homophobic if evening voicing concern, has seriously been damaging to the cause.

shruikan2553

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I think people should look at article 41

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/en/constitution/index.html#article41

Whilst most reasonable people agree with equality - the article of the constitution it is going into - the change is actually in breach of the concept of the article.

This idea - is totally flawed.

It will be passed. But this idea that people are bigoted and homophobic if evening voicing concern, has seriously been damaging to the cause.

Considering this has made it this far you will have to assume nobody has any idea what your discovery is unless you tell them.

FixdePitchmark

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Considering this has made it this far you will have to assume nobody has any idea what your discovery is unless you tell them.

Well it is under The Family to start.

Read 41.

It protects female in The Family role.
It protects The Family
The State must protect this - yet is entering a modification to the article not compatible with "natural" family.


All a bit flawed. (IMO)

shruikan2553

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Well it is under The Family to start.

Read 41.

It protects female in The Family role.
It protects The Family
The State must protect this - yet is entering a modification to the article not compatible with "natural" family.


All a bit flawed. (IMO)

It is a bit flawed, plenty about mothers, nothing about fathers. Highlights how much updating the constitution needs to be brought up with today.

It doesnt define the "natural family". The only thing it says about natural is

The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society

There are families which include same sex couples. Families which arent getting protection as stated here.

The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

This bit is just outdated. Men and women can be within the home to provide support. I bet this one was used as why women shouldnt be allowed to work once married.

In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.

Very vague, how does one attack marriage? Im sure some people will claim letting same sex couples get married but for it to be an attack wouldnt proof of damage be required? Marriage will be the same with just a more open admission policy. Anyone who is currently married or will get married won't notice a difference.

And the rest is just divorce, which is a bit strange as couldn't divorce be seen as an attack on marriage? I bet that one was used for the divorce referendum.

FixdePitchmark

Yes totally out of date.

That is why it doesn't fit in with constitution at all.

The Family - to me anyway , what the family means here is clear to most. Anyone who wants to be truthful about this , understands the intention of 41.

If you want to redefine family - go for it. But - this referendum does not fit in with The Family - as article 41 is clearly intending.

Would be amazed if a good legal brain , makes this amendment unconstitutional.

Daftness of the higher order. A male couple can not be considered equal as to what is described in 41.

All a bit foolish.

Anyway.

Will be passed.

shruikan2553

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Yes totally out of date.

That is why it doesn't fit in with constitution at all.

The Family - to me anyway , what the family means here is clear to most. Anyone who wants to be truthful about this , understands the intention of 41.

If you want to redefine family - go for it. But - this referendum does not fit in with The Family - as article 41 is clearly intending.

Would be amazed if a good legal brain , makes this amendment unconstitutional.

Daftness of the higher order. A male couple can not be considered equal as to what is described in 41.

All a bit foolish.

Anyway.

Will be passed.

Hence a referendum to mention that a marriage can be 2 people of any gender. The reason this is being made a referendum is because it could be contested that what they meant was a man and a woman getting married if added as legislation. .

Neither do unmarried couples and yet nobody questions considering them as family.

oscarBravo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

A male couple can not be considered equal as to what is described in 41.

Just so we're clear: you're saying that the sexism enshrined in the constitution is so important that we should deny same-sex couples the right to marry in order to avoid diluting that sexism in any way?

If that's not your argument, perhaps you could explain exactly what it is.

FixdePitchmark

oscarBravo wrote: »

Just so we're clear: you're saying that the sexism enshrined in the constitution is so important that we should deny same-sex couples the right to marry in order to avoid diluting that sexism in any way?

If that's not your argument, perhaps you could explain exactly what it is.

But this is a vote on our consititution.
If you think all the consititution needs updating, I agree. But if you agree with it or not - The Family as described in Article 41 - is not compatible with this referendum.

This is the wrong referendum (IMO)

Two men can not have a child "naturally".

The family is the support of this reality , it requires a unique position. For legal - taxation - housing and protection issues.

Anyway - will pass , but flawed.

Yet, if you vote no - you are homophobic, a biggot, a right win religious nut

CelticRambler

AlphaRed wrote: »

Be a true independent thinker. Think of the implications for society and think about the roots of the yes campaign and what it actually has to do with our society. Don't base your decision on emotional but on a rational and deep understanding of the issue.

Watching from the sidelines, without a vote, I've been increasingly irritated by the inclusion of the word "equality" in this debate. The fundamental concept of marriage is and always has been about inequality.

If the two parties are "equal" there's no point in marriage because they can happily co-exist without any legal framework telling them what to do. The social construct was developed as a way of formalising a partnership between individuals/families/tribes that were different not the same.

Listening to the recent debates as a non-participant, though, I find myself rolling my eyes considerably more at the "Yes" arguments, most of which seem to be based on being "able to express love in the most profound way possible".

As the song says, what's love got to do with it? Feck all, if you can get a divorce whenever you want, so why the desperation to join that unhappy club?

bopper

CelticRambler wrote: »

Listening to the recent debates as a non-participant, though, I find myself rolling my eyes considerably more at the "Yes" arguments, most of which seem to be based on being "able to express love in the most profound way possible".

As the song says, what's love got to do with it? Feck all, if you can get a divorce whenever you want, so why the desperation to join that unhappy club?

Why would somebody wanting to get married because they're in love make you roll your eyes though? That sounds like quite a cynical point of view if you genuinely think that love has little to do with marriage.

Timberrrrrrrr

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

But this is a vote on our consititution.
If you think all the consititution needs updating, I agree. But if you agree with it or not - The Family as described in Article 41 - is not compatible with this referendum.

This is the wrong referendum (IMO)

Two men can not have a child "naturally".

The family is the support of this reality , it requires a unique position. For legal - taxation - housing and protection issues.

Anyway - will pass , but flawed.

Yet, if you vote no - you are homophobic, a biggot, a right win religious nut

There are couples all over Ireland (man married to a woman) who due to differing circumstances cannot have a child naturally, should they be forced to separate? Should couples be forced to take fertility tests before a wedding to ensure they are able to have kids?

sydthebeat

"Without distinction" means the inability to distinguish

Which means must be treated equal.


I cannot fathom why it's difficult to comprehend that

Ave Sodalis

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

But this is a vote on our consititution.
If you think all the consititution needs updating, I agree. But if you agree with it or not - The Family as described in Article 41 - is not compatible with this referendum.

This is the wrong referendum (IMO)

Two men can not have a child "naturally".

The family is the support of this reality , it requires a unique position. For legal - taxation - housing and protection issues.

Anyway - will pass , but flawed.

Yet, if you vote no - you are homophobic, a biggot, a right win religious nut

The article clearly states family but there is no definition of what family is. Therefore it can be assumed, for not only this purpose but childless straight couples and other adopted children, that family is open to interpretation and includes a range of scenarios. Two men nor two women can't have a child with each other naturally. That doesn't necessarily mean that any adopted children aren't family, or that they themselves are not a family unit.

OP, did you just make an account specifically to make these types of threads in every forum you can?

CelticRambler

bopper wrote: »

Why would somebody wanting to get married because they're in love make you roll your eyes though? That sounds like quite a cynical point of view if you genuinely think that love has little to do with marriage.

Because it doesn't. Marriage is a legal contract - it's all about rights, responsibilities, finance, inheritance, etc. Love is an (irrational) emotion - you can't draw up any law or constitution that "protects" it, so anyone who uses that as a justification for their decision doesn't understand what they're voting for.

On the flip side, if you sincerely love someone, you don't need any priest, registrar or Jedi Master to authorise it. There are too many people these days - mostly the younger generations - who seem completely indoctrinated with the Hollywood/celebrity version of romantic love - quick infatuation, then rush off to married and hope it lasts more than a couple of years.

FWIW, I think the Catholic Church (and all the quasi-church "No" campaigners) are just as bad as the "Yes" camp, allowing couples pretend they're practising Catholics, paying lip service to the pre-marriage course, just so they can have a nice setting for their service.

desertcircus

AlphaRed wrote: »

Lets remember without distortion what we are really voting about. The Yes Campaign has hijacked the referendum by relabeling it "Marriage equality". They are taking the concept of equality which is of great importance to everyone and like a beer commercial are attaching it to the positive emotions and importance people feel about equality.

If you don't do what they say you are against equality and so, a bad person. This is sheer propaganda. We have seen in history how propaganda has been used to manipulate the masses.

Please take the time to fully analyse what that sentence means "marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex". There is no mention of equality in that sentence. That concept has been added by the yes campaign. They are asking you to make a logical leap, because there is no real connection with equality.

Be a true independent thinker. Think of the implications for society and think about the roots of the yes campaign and what it actually has to do with our society. Don't base your decision on emotional but on a rational and deep understanding of the issue.

Was it really too much to ask that having asked people to think about the meaning of the words " without distinction", you'd do the same yourself? Or bother explaining anything beyond "the word equality isn't in the amendment so it's definitely not about equality and I'm definitely not just desperately flinging random garbage at the Yes side in the hope that it confuses and frightens enough of the electorate to prevent gay marriage"?

oscarBravo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

But this is a vote on our consititution.
If you think all the consititution needs updating, I agree. But if you agree with it or not - The Family as described in Article 41 - is not compatible with this referendum.

You avoided the question.

Article 41 (specifically and solely 41.2) enshrines sexism in the constitution. I'll accept that there is a tension between this embedded sexism and the proposed equality amendment, but your argument appears to be that it's more important to preserve the sexism than to introduce equality.

Again: can you either explain why this is important to you, or explain how I'm misunderstanding your position?

This is the wrong referendum (IMO)

What would the right referendum be?

Two men can not have a child "naturally".

Nor can an infertile couple. The referendum has nothing to do with children.

Yet, if you vote no - you are homophobic, a biggot, a right win religious nut

...or just someone who appears to be unable to clearly articulate his argument against the proposal.

oscarBravo

CelticRambler wrote: »

Marriage is a legal contract - it's all about rights, responsibilities, finance, inheritance, etc. Love is an (irrational) emotion - you can't draw up any law or constitution that "protects" it, so anyone who uses that as a justification for their decision doesn't understand what they're voting for.

Basically, what you're saying is that there is no connection between love and marriage; the two are completely orthogonal concepts with no relationship between them.

As "no" side arguments go, that's got to take some sort of award.

FixdePitchmark

There seems to be a dishonesty from the yes side.

They fail to acknowledge - that a man and a women in a union is the intention of The Family. Expecting people to throw the baby out with the bathwater - because love is great. Is all a bit flawed for me.

If it is necessary to change the definition of Family - go do that. But the entire thing is daft.

Anyway - drive on with your referendum. But , your not fooling some with this "equality - you homophobe line "

A family as intended in constitution is protected - rightly for the benefit of society. This should be respected by all equally. Not undermined for a personal cause
.

Ave Sodalis

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

There seems to be a dishonesty from the yes side.

They fail to acknowledge - that a man and a women in a union is the intention of The Family. Expecting people to throw the baby out with the bathwater - because love is great. Is all a bit flawed for me.

If it is necessary to change the definition of Family - go do that. But the entire thing is daft.

Anyway - drive on with your referendum. But , your not fooling some with this "equality - you homophobe line "

A family as intended in constitution is protected - rightly for the benefit of society. This should be respected by all equally. Not undermined for a personal cause
.

But where is family defined?

seamus

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

They fail to acknowledge - that a man and a women in a union is the intention of The Family.

According to the constitution, "The Family" is based on marriage. It doesn't mention the words "man", "woman", or "intention" anywhere in relation to marriage.

The intention of marriage according to the constitution is to create a family. The Irish constitution does not define "The Family" as a married couple and their children.
A married couple with or without children are "The Family" as far as the constitution is concerned, so claiming that there's any kind of impact or link with children is at best ignorant and at worst deliberate dishonesty on your part.

The purpose of this referendum is to ensure that all couples can avail of marriage and create a family (consisting of two people united), regardless of gender.

Nothing more.

In your opinion perhaps marriage is about having babies, but constitutionally it's not.

shruikan2553

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

There seems to be a dishonesty from the yes side.

They fail to acknowledge - that a man and a women in a union is the intention of The Family. Expecting people to throw the baby out with the bathwater - because love is great. Is all a bit flawed for me.

If it is necessary to change the definition of Family - go do that. But the entire thing is daft.

Anyway - drive on with your referendum. But , your not fooling some with this "equality - you homophobe line "

A family as intended in constitution is protected - rightly for the benefit of society. This should be respected by all equally. Not undermined for a personal cause
.

The constitution only says that the family is based on marriage. The referendum is to add a part that says a marriage can be made up of two people of any gender. Then it will be part of the constitution.

Your problems with the referendum is why there is a referendum so it specifically states marriage can be between 2 people of any gender.

You have yet to say what the flaw in this is other than it is not in there already, which makes sense as we are having a referendum. If the constitution already said this there wouldnt be a referendum.

You are telling someone they can't go to the shop to get milk because they're out of milk.

FixdePitchmark

sup_dude wrote: »

But where is family defined?

There is the dishonesty.

If people are trying to muddy the waters, what a family is in a constitution that was formed in 1937 and covers the overwhelming majority of families.

They really have a weak position.

I guess you had a mum and dad.

You will struggle if honest - to find a poster on here that didn't come from a mum and dad. And had a family.

Does this have to change ? perhaps. But that is not what we are voting on.

Ave Sodalis

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

There is the dishonesty.

If people are trying to muddy the waters, what a family is in a constitution that was formed in 1937 and covers the overwhelming majority of families.

They really have a weak position.

I guess you had a mum and dad.

You will struggle if honest - to find a poster on here that didn't come from a mum and dad. And had a family.

Does this have to change ? perhaps. But that is not what we are voting on.

I have a mother and a biological father. My father isn't my family. Does this mean that, without my father being there, I'm not part of a family?

Family isn't defined as mammy, daddy and baby. Family may or may not include children, and it may or may not include both or all biological parents.

seamus

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Does this have to change ? perhaps. But that is not what we are voting on.

If that's not what we're voting on, then why are you bringing it up?

oscarBravo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

There seems to be a dishonesty from the yes side.

There seems to be an aversion to answering questions on your side.

They fail to acknowledge - that a man and a women in a union is the intention of The Family.

You're stating that axiomatically, but refusing to back it up.

Who says that a man and a woman in a union is the intention of the family?

Anyway - drive on with your referendum. But , your not fooling some with this "equality - you homophobe line "

Nobody has called you a homophobe. I'm calling you out on your evasiveness, however.

CramCycle

sup_dude wrote: »

But where is family defined?

I am not sure if it is defined in the constitution but my understanding from observation is the family is defined (to me) as the following.

A family is a unit/collective of people, minimum of two, consisting of one or more adults, who may or may not have children in their care, who are committed to looking after and loving each other for as long as they possibly can.

There are many marriages in Ireland today that do not constitute a family by my definition, including ones where children are involved. There are also alot of families in my definition who are not married.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

There is the dishonesty.

You are making a statement without anything to back it up

If people are trying to muddy the waters, what a family is in a constitution that was formed in 1937 and covers the overwhelming majority of families.

But they haven't, the referendum is changing nothing in regarsds to families or their definition

I guess you had a mum and dad.

I do but in my years I have met many who do not, I know many who have no parents, I know many who have two dads (parents split up, step dad/long term boyfriend becomes a defacto dad, homosexual couple who are looking after a child/children (be they fostered, passed into their care through family, surrogacy etc.)), some with two mums (similar to before).

You will struggle if honest - to find a poster on here that didn't come from a mum and dad. And had a family.

I doubt that.

Does this have to change ? perhaps. But that is not what we are voting on.

At least there is something to agree on, we are not voting on the definition of family, we are voting on the definition of marriage and the Yes side are voting to have this definition become more open to include everyone who wishes to marry, the No side are voting that they like things the way they are.

Please don't muddy the waters by claiming it is anything else.

SpaceTime

The constitution doesn't actually define a family at all, all it does is vaguely link the concept to marriage which is actually more of a danger to unmarried couples with kids than anyone else.

Also some of the provisions in that section are quite bizarre, particularly around women's rights.

It'd be interesting if a group of women took a class action lawsuit against the state based on their rather shockingly sexist and very patriarchal sounding constitutional rights here :

2 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

I mean, one could interpret that if say for example you had a large mortgage or high rent, that the state would have a constitutional obligation to pay some of it to prevent the women from having to "neglect their duties in the home".

Could get interesting and very expensive and might need an urgent referendum to modernise.

MrWalsh

SpaceTime wrote: »

I mean, one could interpret that if say for example you had a large mortgage or high rent, that the state would have a constitutional obligation to pay some of it to prevent the women from having to "neglect their duties in the home".

Count me in!

FixdePitchmark

Look - I'll leave it off.

The amendment is under The Family in constitution.

I understand what the majority of people think a family is - If people get together to have children to form a family - I think it deserves special support and recognition.

It is totally flawed (in my eyes) - To try define yourself as this when biologically you are not.

So - I just can't get this.

I'll join the intellectually weak, right wing nuts and the homophobes.

For a movement that has been all about "The Love" - they have really run a nasty campaign - putting the movement back 20 years in my eyes.

The right approach was a fully recognised legal union.

To me the amendment is unconstitutional and should be challenged if possible.

Ave Sodalis

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Look - I'll leave it off.

The amendment is under The Family in constitution.

I understand what the majority of people think a family is - If people get together to have children to form a family - I think it deserves special support and recognition.

It is totally flawed (in my eyes) - To try define yourself as this when biologically you are not.

So - I just can't get this.

I'll join the intellectually weak, right wing nuts and the homophobes.

For a movement that has been all about "The Love" - they have really run a nasty campaign - putting the movement back 20 years in my eyes.

The right approach was a fully recognised legal union.

To me the amendment is unconstitutional and should be challenged if possible.

You were accused on none of the bolded part?

MrWalsh

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I understand what the majority of people think a family is - If people get together to have children to form a family - I think it deserves special support and recognition.

Are you trying to say that myself and my heterosexual husband are not a family because we dont want to have children? Offensive and archaic.

Or that his sister and her daughter are not a family because she is a single mother? Again, offensive and archaic.

His parents are divorced, so are they not not a part of the wider family also?

shruikan2553

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Look - I'll leave it off.

The amendment is under The Family in constitution.

I understand what the majority of people think a family is - If people get together to have children to form a family - I think it deserves special support and recognition.

It is totally flawed (in my eyes) - To try define yourself as this when biologically you are not.

So - I just can't get this.

I'll join the intellectually weak, right wing nuts and the homophobes.

For a movement that has been all about "The Love" - they have really run a nasty campaign - putting the movement back 20 years in my eyes.

The right approach was a fully recognised legal union.

To me the amendment is unconstitutional and should be challenged if possible.

You are the person who keeps saying homophobe.

Something can't be unconstitutional if it's in the constitution. It may contradict something else but you have yet to show anything that says a man and a man or a woman and a woman can't be married.

seamus

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I understand what the majority of people think a family is - If people get together to have children to form a family - I think it deserves special support and recognition.

It is totally flawed (in my eyes) - To try define yourself as this when biologically you are not.

You're pointing out the exact flaw in your thinking yourself really. That "family" is a social construct, not a biological one, therefore to try and restrict it to purely biological terms makes no sense.

So there is no reason why a "family" must consist of a mother, father and their genetic offspring.

In reality the definition of "family" needs to be massively overhauled - as pointed out, it leaves single-parent families in constitutional limbo and fails to recognise many valid types of families which form part of the greater social good.

Marriage and family need to be completely decoupled in the constitution.

To me the amendment is unconstitutional and should be challenged if possible.

By definition, if an amendment is made to the constitution it cannot be unconstitutional.

johnnyskeleton

sydthebeat wrote: »

"Without distinction" means the inability to distinguish

Which means must be treated equal.


I cannot fathom why it's difficult to comprehend that

Not quite. Arguably, the phrase "without distinction" means that a marriage can be contracted between two people without distinction as to their gender, but that does not mean that a marriage of two men or two women is "equal" to a marriage of a man and a woman. So there is equality as regards ability to marry from a sexual orientation point of view, but the article does not necessarily mean that a homosexual marraige and a heterosexual marriage are to be treated equally in all respects.

If anything, one could criticise it for not going far enough.

daithi84

Why do you have the have children to be considered a family. If i get married i would consider my new family that of me and my spouse. Children can be added to the family. Can you only be considered a family if there are children involved? If marriage is the foundation of the family then I would interpret that as to mean me and my spouse are legally a family.

CramCycle

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

It is totally flawed (in my eyes) - To try define yourself as this when biologically you are not.

I will inform everyone I know who have loved and supported their step children as their own for years that they are not in fact family, I dare say one of my own children will be unhappy when they find out

MrWalsh wrote: »

Are you trying to say that myself and my heterosexual husband are not a family because we dont want to have children? Offensive and archaic.

Or that his sister and her daughter are not a family because she is a single mother? Again, offensive and archaic.

His parents are divorced, so are they not not a part of the wider family also?

Not to mention my neighbours who took in a child 50 years ago, hate to inform them they are not family.

Or my mother who was raised by a family in the community, as my Granddad died of a broken heart when his wife passed away just after child birth.


Seriously though, it shocks me at the lack of though some people put into the meaning of words before they let them flow from their mouth.

Also the fact that this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REFERENDUM but as the referendum commission pointed out, there is nothing they can do about people lying or attempting to mislead people.

FixdePitchmark

MrWalsh wrote: »

Are you trying to say that myself and my heterosexual husband are not a family because we dont want to have children? Offensive and archaic.

Or that his sister and her daughter are not a family because she is a single mother? Again, offensive and archaic.

His parents are divorced, so are they not not a part of the wider family also?

Of course there are exceptions - this amendment is the ultimate bizarre exception.

People who get together and try to form families - successfully and unsuccessfully, deserve special support of the state. Be that housing , child benefit , tax status , health service support.

Just because relationship breaks down. Doesn't mean a family unit that raises children together - doesn't deserve special recognition. If this relationship breaks down, support will be provided.

If people are trying to say procreation is not an important element of social structure - best of luck when we all grow old.

The Family unit is an important part of society. It also protects the state from exposure of fully supporting children.

We can't change the entire structure of society for the exception.

We can provide support - we can provide equality , but we can't call two men getting together in a relationship a marriage or a family in my eyes.

So - they say it is about equality this thing. It isn't, it is about trying to redefine family (as it is what we are voting on) and redefining marriage.

It is an extraordinary lofty ambition, with a tiny amendment. Considering these structures are 1000s of years old.

There are people honestly posting a family is not defined.
I'll leave it there so.

Ave Sodalis

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Of course there are exceptions - this amendment is the ultimate bizarre exception.

People who get together and try to form families - successfully and unsuccessfully, deserve special support of the state. Be that housing , child benefit , tax status , health service support.

Just because relationship breaks down. Doesn't mean a family unit that raises children together - doesn't deserve special recognition. If this relationship breaks down, support will be provided.

If people are trying to say procreation is not an important element of social structure - best of luck when we all grow old.

The Family unit is an important part of society. It also protects the state from exposure of fully supporting children.

We can't change the entire structure of society for the exception.

We can provide support - we can provide equality , but we can't call two men getting together in a relationship a marriage or a family in my eyes.

So - they say it is about equality this thing. It isn't it is about trying to redefine family (as it is what we are voting on) and redefining marriage.

It is an extraordinary lofty ambition, with a tiny amendment. Considering these structures are 1000s of years old.

There are people honestly posting a family is not defined.
I'll leave it there so.

A family isn't defined though.

And your post is a very good reason to vote Yes. Gay couples can adopt. Surely, you want to offer them the protection that marriage brings?

Maximus Alexander

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I understand what the majority of people think a family is - If people get together to have children to form a family - I think it deserves special support and recognition.

I think that this statement completely ignores the way that human beings form collectives and develop bonds. This is an 'idealised' version of the family that is generally promoted in Christianity, but doesn't reflect the reality of how vast swathes of people live, love and interact.

FixdePitchmark

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I think that this statement completely ignores the way that human beings form collectives and develop bonds. This is an 'idealised' version of the family that is generally promoted in Christianity, but doesn't reflect the reality of how vast swathes of people live, love and interact.

And that is why we have civil partnerships.

Go for it - I'd vote for anything.