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

MrWalsh

pwurple wrote: »

Don't forget about the new reproductive technology, with three gametes!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11432058/Three-parent-babies-House-of-Lords-approves-law-despite-fears-children-could-be-sterile.html

Be fun to see how they handle the birth certs for those!

BoatMad

gk5000 wrote: »

No, I do not think they shall be fixed by this new law.

The point is we should not change the constitution until we are sure of the consequences of that change, and make sure we fix all when we are doing it.

If that was the attitude of the electorate, then we would have seen no amendments to the constitution

The constitution provides a framework for legislation, too many people , like you , in effect want it to be a legislative document. we have so much trouble as a result.

gk5000

BoatMad wrote: »

If that was the attitude of the electorate, then we would have seen no amendments to the constitution

The constitution provides a framework for legislation, too many people , like you , in effect want it to be a legislative document. we have so much trouble as a result.

No, the proposed ammendment would cause a conflict within this framework.
It's crazy to create unneeded problems.

The drafters and legislators should get this right before sending it to the people, and it should be sent back with a NO vote until its right.

I am not a bad person to want this fully clarified before the ammendment.

MrWalsh

gk5000 wrote: »

The drafters and legislators should get this right before sending it to the people, and it should be sent back with a NO vote until its right.

Eh, voting no doesnt say "send it back until its right", it says "no to same sex marriage".

If you are so concerned about these minor issues I presume you have raised the matter with your local politicians? What have they said in response to your queries?

BoatMad

gk5000 wrote: »

No, the proposed ammendment would cause a conflict within this framework.
It's crazy to create unneeded problems.

The drafters and legislators should get this right before sending it to the people, and it should be sent back with a NO vote until its right.

I am not a bad person to want this fully clarified before the ammendment.

I dont see this referendum creating any specific new problems , that arnt already there. Connecting children to this debate for example is a completely disingenuous tactic by the "No" side. It mirrors similar disgraceful attempts to side track the issue in the divorce and abortion referendum

You cannot have certainly of legislation, rulings by courts, amendments etc , mean that legislation is a changing process, adapting as it goes to the situations at hand. A constitution however is supposed to change relatively infrequently, primarily because it embodies principles rather then specifics.

What legislation appears as a result of this amendment is in itself irrelevant to the referendum. we have many ways to influence legislation in this state.

BoatMad

The drafters and legislators should get this right before sending it to the people, and it should be sent back with a NO vote until its right.

I am not a bad person to want this fully clarified before the ammendment.

This referendum is a simple act to enable the LGBT community to access civil marriage. It does no more or less than that


everything else is a smoke screen

What you want " clarified " is a situation that in effect exists today and will continue to exist after the referendum.

The " NO" side have argued most disingenuously, because they know the simple fact is they cant argue against gender and sexual equality, so the debate is side tracked into intellectual cup-de-sacs, unconnected topics and emotional distractions

LippyCollins

But it is about equality. Where's the equality as it stands? Voting yes will mean LGBT people can be seen as equal. The civil partnership was a good step towards but with marriage they will have the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. Is that not equality. The only thing the referendum stands for is equality!

Also it shouldn't even need to be up for a vote. it should just be!

uck51js9zml2yt

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

My question would be, why do you believe that their way of life should be subject to your approval?

They don't need my approval but neither do I have to accept sin as being normal.

What I do beieve is that its righteousness which exhaults a nation and sin brings reproach on any people.
In my view and the Bibles, God cannot bless a nation or an individual who exhaults sin. Probably more suited to the Christianity forum but you did ask

BoatMad

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

They don't need my approval but neither do I have to accept sin as being normal.

What I do beieve is that its righteousness which exhaults a nation and sin brings reproach on any people.
In my view and the Bibles, God cannot bless a nation or an individual who exhaults sin. Probably more suited to the Christianity forum but you did ask

indeed you are entitled to your religious beliefs. You are also, one presumes , a member of what professes to be a secular state. Therefore you must set your religion aside and consider the secular perspective,, since the law does not have the concept of "sin"

when you next vote on changes to cannon law, you can of course vote entirely as per your religious convictions:)

uck51js9zml2yt

BoatMad wrote: »

indeed you are entitled to your religious beliefs. You are also, one presumes , a member of what professes to be a secular state. Therefore you must set your religion aside and consider the secular perspective,, since the law does not have the concept of "sin"

when you next vote on changes to cannon law, you can of course vote entirely as per your religious convictions:)

I didnt realise we were a secular state!!!!
As far as I know we haven't gone down that road yet.
Sin is nothing but a transgression of the law. We see that all the time in our courts and the penalties for it.
As for canon law. I'll never get to vote as I'm not roman catholic nor a cleric.:)

K-9

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It isn't, really. It's just typically how it's done. Here, and in other jurisdictions.

It would actually be ridiculous if we got to the stage of expressing amazement that a married woman had just given birth to her husband's child.

I'd like to see them try to win a referendum using that line.

Mmmmmm, nobody would express amazement because nobody questioned it, that's some leap in logic for referendum debates and I've seen a few in my time!

Family law is long due a tidy up and a move forward, no reason to vote no IMO. There's areas that need addressed that have nothing to do with the referendum because it needs root and branch reform tbh.

Bannasidhe

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

I didnt realise we were a secular state!!!!
As far as I know we haven't gone down that road yet.
Sin is nothing but a transgression of the law. We see that all the time in our courts and the penalties for it.
As for canon law. I'll never get to vote as I'm not roman catholic nor a cleric.:)

We do not have a State or 'Established' religion - we are a Republic whose Constitution guarantees Freedom of Religion.

We are a Secular State.

BoatMad

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

I didnt realise we were a secular state!!!!
As far as I know we haven't gone down that road yet.
Sin is nothing but a transgression of the law. We see that all the time in our courts and the penalties for it.
As for canon law. I'll never get to vote as I'm not roman catholic nor a cleric.:)

sorry , we are most assuredly a secular state, the special position of the catholic church having been removed.

Furthermore Sin is not a transgression of the law. Civil law has no concept of sin. for example I can quite legally " covet" my neighbours wife, its a sin but I break no law.

sin might be compared to " thought crimes", a concept , thankfully our legislature have not introduced here ( yet!)

uck51js9zml2yt

We have a secular society that doesnt make us a secular state.

Bannasidhe

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

We have a secular society that doesnt make us a secular state.

We have no State religion - that does make us a secular state actually.

beeno67

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

They don't need my approval but neither do I have to accept sin as being normal.

What I do beieve is that its righteousness which exhaults a nation and sin brings reproach on any people.
In my view and the Bibles, God cannot bless a nation or an individual who exhaults sin. Probably more suited to the Christianity forum but you did ask

The bible is all in favour of homosexuality. Adam and Eve had two male children and from them the rest of the human race is descended. Now that is some serious hard core homosexuality that all 7 billion of us are descended from 2 men.

BoatMad

do not turn this into a debate on homosexuality and its relation to religion, against a cul-de-sac

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We have no State religion - that does make us a secular state actually.

Yes, and the preamble to the Constitution goes like this:

"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,...."

BoatMad

Godge wrote: »

Yes, and the preamble to the Constitution goes like this:

"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,...."

in itself , the constitution is not 100% secular, it certainly acknowledges the existence of a " God", it is not atheist

However it clearly gives no advantage to any religion nor professes any such advantage , in that it is secular. Our law is equally secular.

uck51js9zml2yt

beeno67 wrote: »

The bible is all in favour of homosexuality. Adam and Eve had two male children and from them the rest of the human race is descended. Now that is some serious hard core homosexuality that all 7 billion of us are descended from 2 men.

If you read the bible you would know that Cain killed Abel. Cain it says also made love to his wife and they had children (genesis 2v17)

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

Yes, and the preamble to the Constitution goes like this:

"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,...."

2 1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.

2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.




The point being we do not frame civil legislation in accordance with religious doctrine - at least not any more.

3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

ush

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

We have a secular society that doesnt make us a secular state.

Render unto Caesar

uck51js9zml2yt

ush wrote: »

Render unto Caesar

Absolutely.. Pay your water charge. Glad to see you agree:)

oscarBravo

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Cain it says also made love to his wife...

...who was, necessarily, his sister.

galljga1

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

If you read the bible you would know that Cain killed Abel. Cain it says also made love to his wife and they had children (genesis 2v17)

Who was his wife? Where did she come from?

galljga1

oscarBravo wrote: »

...who was, necessarily, his sister.

Quite possibly his mother since there is no previous mention of sister.

sydthebeat

galljga1 wrote: »

Who was his wife? Where did she come from?

Had to have been his mother !!

Eeeewwwwwwww

Timberrrrrrrr

So by biblical sense

Gay sex BAAAAAAD

Incest GOOOOOOD

galljga1

gk5000 wrote: »

No, the proposed ammendment would cause a conflict within this framework.
It's crazy to create unneeded problems.

The drafters and legislators should get this right before sending it to the people, and it should be sent back with a NO vote until its right.

I am not a bad person to want this fully clarified before the ammendment.

Yet you have not even read the recent act. How can you discuss this without having a rudimentary knowledge of the changes that this act invokes.

galljga1

gk5000 wrote: »

But two women could get married and have babies without surrogacy, so how is that covered?

Why are you so lazy?
Read the goddamned act.