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

SireOfSeth

CramCycle wrote: »

So what you are saying is, your main issue with this constitutional change is that it doesn't cover other issues or it doesn't change enough. Can't disagree with that, there are a whole raft of changes needed within the constitution but not only are some of them politically difficult to push for, there is the real fear that as fearful as people are of little changes, more people are afraid of big changes. It becomes harder to follow, harder to focus on whether you agree or not. Put out a ballot paper with 60 different boxes to tick and you are going to have one poor turnout or one confused electorate, neither of which is really a positive for democracy.

And that's another referendum, not a reason to vote against this one. Politicians won't hear a no vote and then say, well they voted no, what the public want is more wide spread reform. What they will do is say, they don't want change, therefore we won't put any forward for awhile.

What I was talking about may be an issue, but it has nothing to do with this referendum. It's a change that might happen in the future or be put forward in the future but this referendum is on one change and not the one you are on about.

If you want to vote no because you believe the reforms are not wide sweeping enough, that is your choice to make. My opinion is that makes for poor policy making in future.

A step in the right direction, no matter how small, is still better than standing still.

Very true, very true indeed.

BoatMad

kikidelvin wrote: »

God made Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve nuff said.

a post at 4:40 am , nuff said

GCU Flexible Demeanour

CramCycle wrote: »

A step in the right direction, no matter how small, is still better than standing still.

Change involves risks. The benefits need to be substantial to justify the risks. Otherwise, standing still is the better option.

SireOfSeth

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Change involves risks. The benefits need to be substantial to justify the risks. Otherwise, standing still is the better option.

But the benefit is massive. Not only for the current gay population, but for future generations too.

traprunner

SireOfSeth wrote: »

But the benefit is massive. Not only for the current gay population, but for future generations too.

Exactly. I have no gay friends, nor relatives (as far as I know), I don't have kids either (might do some day) but I can see a huge benefit if I ever have kids and they are gay or if they have kids that are gay.....

MrWalsh

SireOfSeth wrote: »

But the benefit is massive. Not only for the current gay population, but for future generations too.

The benefit is not only that same sex marriage will be legal, but it will lead to a far more general acceptance of homosexuality within our society, and this in turn will hopefully lead to more general acceptance for people who are transgender, people who are asexual, etc..... Creating a more tolerant society can only be a good thing. We have all seen the horrific outcome of a society intolerant of differences in ISIS videos.

SireOfSeth

MrWalsh wrote: »

The benefit is not only that same sex marriage will be legal, but it will lead to a far more general acceptance of homosexuality within our society, and this in turn will hopefully lead to more general acceptance for people who are transgender, people who are asexual, etc..... Creating a more tolerant society can only be a good thing. We have all seen the horrific outcome of a society intolerant of differences in ISIS videos.

Yeah. It's hard to summarise all the benefits. Like I said: massive. I have a dream...

GCU Flexible Demeanour

SireOfSeth wrote: »

But the benefit is massive. Not only for the current gay population, but for future generations too.

I don't see it. Really, nothing of substance is yielded. There isn't really anything much in the marriage framework that meaningfully adds benefit, and a few features that just don't apply.

oscarBravo

Isn't the definition of privilege (in the current usage sense of the word) the belief that a problem doesn't exist because you yourself are unaffected by it?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

You misunderstand me. I've never suggested the Yes campaign is privileged because they don't want to entertain the possibility that they might be creating a problem for someone else.

MJohnston

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't see it. Really, nothing of substance is yielded. There isn't really anything much in the marriage framework that meaningfully adds benefit, and a few features that just don't apply.

Normalisation is a non-quantifiable benefit - undermining the idea of homosexuality being "other"

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MJohnston wrote: »

Normalisation is a non-quantifiable benefit - undermining the idea of homosexuality being "other"

Well, then I expect its a non-quantifiable loss, too.

MJohnston

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, then I expect its a non-quantifiable loss, too.

You can expect whatever you want to, but you don't get to quantify how it will affect other people.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MJohnston wrote: »

You can expect whatever you want to, but you don't get to quantify how it will affect other people.

But, sure, you've just said no-one can quantify it, so we might as well flick a coin to decide how to vote.

Heads or tails?

BoatMad

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, you've just said no-one can quantify it, so we might as well flick a coin to decide how to vote.

Heads or tails?

as it affects hetrosexuals , on the face of it , yes, flip a coin. However tolerance is a virtue we should practice and the tyranny of the majority is something we should strive to avoid , so on balance , those unaffected should vote Yes.

MJohnston

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, you've just said no-one can quantify it, so we might as well flick a coin to decide how to vote.

Heads or tails?

Difference between being able to measure "how much" and measure "if". The latter is most certain, the former is the unknown.

Also "Heads or tails?" sounds like a good name for a gay nightclub.

NewDirection

MJohnston wrote: »

Normalisation is a non-quantifiable benefit - undermining the idea of homosexuality being "other"

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, then I expect its a non-quantifiable loss, too.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, you've just said no-one can quantify it, so we might as well flick a coin to decide how to vote.

Heads or tails?

A non-quantifiable benefit does not equal a non-quantifiable loss. You don't have to be able to quantify something to determine weather its a benefit or not.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MJohnston wrote: »

Difference between being able to measure "how much" and measure "if". The latter is most certain, the former is the unknown.

NewDirection wrote: »

A non-quantifiable benefit does not equal a non-quantifiable loss. You don't have to be able to quantify something to determine weather its a benefit or not.

I know I've been complaining about the lack of depth in the Yes case, but this might be a little too deep?

MJohnston wrote: »

Also "Heads or tails?" sounds like a good name for a gay nightclub.

And you said I didn't understand?

MJohnston

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I know I've been complaining about the lack of depth in the Yes case, but this might be a little too deep?

Not really, no.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MJohnston wrote: »

Not really, no.

Oh, OK then. Equal may imply quantity, so it would be meaningless to say a non-quantifiable benefit equals a non-quantifiable loss. That's different, incidently, to saying that it's not equal to a non-quantifiable loss, as that's also a meaningless statement.

However, if we say a non-quantifiable benefit is absent, that has the same meaning as saying we have a non-quantifiable loss. Because, while it's meaningless to talk about them in terms of equality, the non-quantifiable benefit and the non-quantifiable loss are the same thing.

If it's non-quantifiable benefit, it may be intangible. If it's intangible, it may simply not exist. In fact, there's no way of telling if it exists or not, a bit like unicorns.

I think the benefits of SSM can be quantified in terms of unicorns.

suzanne.

I don't know where my message went! Basically a lot of people are confused. the civil partnerships homosexual people sign are they different to the civil papers we sign in the church??Please enlighten me. I think the church needs to advertise that the civil/legal ceremony can be carried out separately , the church ceremony is religious. There will be many a no voter due to confusion. I am so confused I have no idea at the moment. OK so adoption is there already and civil partnerships with homosexual couples. So please tell me what is going to change?? genuinely, I have read the refer comm info on its website it wouldn't fill a napkin. I am genuinely confused,many more are and I feel many will abstain or vote no due to lack of knowledge .What difference will it make to a homosexual person to have this changed??? I am genuinely asking this. If you want a yes vote ....

oscarBravo

suzanne. wrote: »

the civil partnerships homosexual people sign are they different to the civil papers we sign in the church??

Yes. The former is civil partnership; the latter is civil marriage.

Think of it as "marriage", and "I can't believe it's not marriage".

CramCycle

suzanne. wrote: »

I don't know where my message went! Basically a lot of people are confused. the civil partnerships homosexual people sign are they different to the civil papers we sign in the church??Please enlighten me

A church wedding is a religious act, often, on the same day, people will also sign legal documents that means they are married in the eyes of the state. They do not have to be done on the same day, but often are. You can get married in a registry office, which means you are married in the eyes of the state, in fact there are alot of people who get married in a variety of places that the state accepts, they just need a registrar and the paperwork as well as notifying Lombard St. many months in advance. If you want the religious one, you do not need the state one, you can just fufill the requirements of that religion and partake in their ceremony. you will be married in their eyes, your eyes but not the states and you will not be entitled to any of the benefits associated with state marriage.

ceremony can be carried out separately , the church ceremony is religious.

They really shouldn't have too, it is quite clear, the state will tell you and if you ask for a religious one, they will often tell you as well.

There will be many a no voter due to confusion. I am so confused I have no idea at the moment.

There is not much that can be done if people will not listen. It has been quite clear that this vote has nothing to do with religious ceremonies in way way shape or form.

OK so adoption is there already and civil partnerships with homosexual couples. So please tell me what is going to change?? genuinely, I have read the refer comm info on its website it wouldn't fill a napkin. I am genuinely confused,many more are and I feel many will abstain or vote no due to lack of knowledge .What difference will it make to a homosexual person to have this changed??? I am genuinely asking this. If you want a yes vote ....

It will mean that same sex couples will be entitled to state marriage, they will be entitled to the same legal benefits and protections that a heterosexual couple are entitled too. Civil partnership is different for a variety of reasons, many of which have been addressed in this thread and the 100 other referendum threads on boards and various other discussion forums.

The refcom leaflet is short because there is not much to say. It is one sentence, legislation will be enacted to accept this change if it is passed. Refcom are neutral and are not allowed give a view or present one that could be seen to sway a voter, unlike the yes and no campaigns which will present a biased view.

It is up to you, and no one else to review the information provided, discard the lies and misdirection by either side and say, I understand the amendment, I think it is a good one, vote yes, I think it is a bad one, vote no, or admit that you still do not understand it and spoil your vote.

My opinion, the biggest issue with this referendum has been the tying in of unrelated issues. There is no need for this. You either believe that same sex couples have a right to marriage and all its associated benefits or you don't.

kikidelvin

BoatMad wrote: »

a post at 4:40 am , nuff said

I did not know you could tell the time. Well done.:p

suzanne.

What does a civil partnership give that a marriage doesn't in brief? genuine question.

CramCycle

suzanne. wrote: »

What does a civil partnership give that a marriage doesn't in brief? genuine question.

In brief, can't be done, protection of the family home would be one that sticks out, inheritance rights etc.

List here, I think its been updated as the list was longer, it was 168 differences before recent legal reform, it is now 160 but i have not checked the document thoroughly and it does not take into account other issues associated with the social aspect of partnership vs. marriage and how that leads to differing perceptions of people.

http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/mythbusters.html#X-201106301525050

SireOfSeth

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't see it. Really, nothing of substance is yielded. There isn't really anything much in the marriage framework that meaningfully adds benefit, and a few features that just don't apply.

You don't see it because you are happy for some couples to be treated as better than others. The quest for equal human rights for all inherently has great substance. Often people can't see this though, especially if they are the ones being treated better.

Not a NSA agent

If these issues were actually issues why isn't the whole no campaign using them?

Instead we have 1 person on boards who has discovered something that nobody else has.

SireOfSeth

suzanne. wrote: »

What does a civil partnership give that a marriage doesn't in brief? genuine question.

Really it's more like: What does a *marriage give that a civil partnership doesn't?

What I mean is that civil partnership is the lesser of the two. Also, you probably aren't finding too much info of the Ref website, as the change to Article 41 is just a one liner - that is, to give couples the right to get married regardless of their gender.

So, what it really boils down to is:
Vote Yes, if you feel that gay couples should be allowed to get married*.
Vote No, if you feel that gay couples shouldn't be allowed to get married*.

*marriage in the referendum means civil marriage, it has nothing to do with the religious ceremony. So the church will not have to marry gay couples (regardless of which vote wins).

Hotblack Desiato

suzanne. wrote: »

What does a civil partnership give that a marriage doesn't in brief? genuine question.

The two biggest ones as I understand it are -

- Civil partnership does not protect children's relationship with a non-biological parent, they are strangers in law, cannot act as next-of-kin and cannot inherit without heavy taxation.

Whatever the no side say about surrogacy, adoption etc - these are largely red herrings, and the objections the No side raise to them apply to heterosexual couples just as much.

There are already children being raised by gay couples where one member was previously in a heterosexual relationship. The 'other' parent of these children is, in law, a stranger to them. There are many unmarried heterosexual couples in this situation too, bringing up children of previous relationships, but they have the option of getting married if they choose to.


- Civil partnership has no constitutional protection, a future conservative government could abolish it with a Dail vote and render all civil partnerships null and void.

Marriage is recognised by the constitution, if we vote Yes then the right of two people of any gender to marry is protected, and can't ever be withdrawn unless there is a successful referendum to reverse it.