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

FixdePitchmark

Because they can not naturally have children - and that is what the spirit , actual intention , natural intention , constitutional intention of Article 41 is.

This is a confusion of the reality.

shruikan2553

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Equally, nobody has given a good enough reason why a gay couple need to marry. Not to mention it is flawed.

As was said earlier - If they couldn't marry it would have no impact on the world or their world. They would continue as they are.

If a gay couple was to get full rights inside a civil partnership - would they be happy ? I feel the answer is no - this is an aggressive action of flawed imposition.

The constitution is set up to be protective of the traditional family unit. The traditional family unit - is within the best interest of the state. All other variants of this can be supported , but requires state support , adoptive services, additional child care support. The family unit is in a far superior position to support children. And to create children.

The traditional family unit provides an important role in the state. It deserves recognition. It is totally incompatible with two people getting together with no natural way to reproduce.

Whilst homosexual couples feel their relationship is undervalued - this referendum is an attack on the family unit.

It is not about equality - It is about trying to redefine family.

As it is about redefining family and marriage - we are not being sold what it says on the tin.

How will marriage between a man and women be changing?

Timberrrrrrrr

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Equally, nobody has given a good enough reason why a gay couple need to marry. Not to mention it is flawed.

As was said earlier - If they couldn't marry it would have no impact on the world or their world. They would continue as they are.

If a gay couple was to get full rights inside a civil partnership - would they be happy ? I feel the answer is no - this is an aggressive action of flawed imposition.

The constitution is set up to be protective of the traditional family unit. The traditional family unit - is within the best interest of the state. All other variants of this can be supported , but requires state support , adoptive services, additional child care support. The family unit is in a far superior position to support children. And to create children.

The traditional family unit provides an important role in the state. It deserves recognition. It is totally incompatible with two people getting together with no natural way to reproduce.

Whilst homosexual couples feel their relationship is undervalued - this referendum is an attack on the family unit.

It is not about equality - It is about trying to redefine family.

As it is about redefining family and marriage - we are not being sold what it says on the tin.

So should a couple be allowed to marry if it is found out that either the man or woman cannot reproduce? After all they will be "two people getting together with no natural way to reproduce"

Ave Sodalis

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Because they can not naturally have children - and that is what the spirit , actual intention , natural intention , constitutional intention of Article 41 is.

This is a confusion of the reality.

Neither can many straight couples. There are also couples who marry without having children. As asked earlier, why is it only a problem when it comes to gay people?

OldNotWIse

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Because they can not naturally have children - and that is what the spirit , actual intention , natural intention , constitutional intention of Article 41 is.

This is a confusion of the reality.

I am sure my parents will be devastated to learn that they and my adopted brother are not a family.

OldNotWIse

Are there actually people who think that the only reason to get married is to have kids??

FixdePitchmark

so we should reshape our whole society for exceptions.

Great country.


Exception can be handled outside of marriage.

Timberrrrrrrr

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

so we should reshape our whole society for exceptions.

Great country.


Exception can be handled outside of marriage.

Bow will society be reshaped? Give one example please.

OldNotWIse

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

so we should reshape our whole society for exceptions.

Great country.


Exception can be handled outside of marriage.

What does that even mean? Quite the expert with the vague, subjective, buzz lingo aren't we? Saying a lot without actually saying anything.

ForstalDave

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

so we should reshape our whole society for exceptions.

Great country.


Exception can be handled outside of marriage.

What reshaping? This changes nothing for anyone bar those who cant get married currently due to an outdated concept that marriage is for having kids or for religious belief

bopper

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

so we should reshape our whole society for exceptions.

Great country.


Exception can be handled outside of marriage.

With all due respect, I honestly have no idea what your argument is? People have pointed out many flaws with what you're saying but you keep ignoring them and repeating the same stuff.

sydthebeat

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Because they can not naturally have children - and that is what the spirit , actual intention , natural intention , constitutional intention of Article 41 is.

.

Says who?

the 'ability' to have children is mentioned nowhere in article 41 of the constitution

Hyzepher

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Equally, nobody has given a good enough reason why a gay couple need to marry. Not to mention it is flawed.

As was said earlier - If they couldn't marry it would have no impact on the world or their world. They would continue as they are.

If a gay couple was to get full rights inside a civil partnership - would they be happy ? I feel the answer is no - this is an aggressive action of flawed imposition.

The constitution is set up to be protective of the traditional family unit. The traditional family unit - is within the best interest of the state. All other variants of this can be supported , but requires state support , adoptive services, additional child care support. The family unit is in a far superior position to support children. And to create children.

The traditional family unit provides an important role in the state. It deserves recognition. It is totally incompatible with two people getting together with no natural way to reproduce.

Whilst homosexual couples feel their relationship is undervalued - this referendum is an attack on the family unit.

It is not about equality - It is about trying to redefine family.

As it is about redefining family and marriage - we are not being sold what it says on the tin.

Genuine Question.

Is it your opinion that same sex couples should not marry because they can't have kids or because they are gay?

desertcircus

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

so we should reshape our whole society for exceptions.

Great country.


Exception can be handled outside of marriage.

Three different people shot down the only actual point you made, so now you're just jamming a bunch of words together in the hope they form a new point. How will society be reshaped? Will that actually be a bad thing? What's with your obsession with "exceptions"? What makes this referendum different to any of the other ones that dealt with exceptions?

What people do you think will be worse off if the referendum passes, and in what clear and definable way do you think they'll be worse off?

oscarBravo

I'm going to ask you questions, but mostly as an exercise in watching you avoid them.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Equally, nobody has given a good enough reason why a gay couple need to marry.

Why does any couple "need" to marry?

Not to mention it is flawed.

What is flawed?

As was said earlier - If they couldn't marry it would have no impact on the world or their world. They would continue as they are.

If a hetero couple couldn't marry, would that have an impact on their world?

The constitution is set up to be protective of the traditional family unit.

What's a traditional family unit?

The traditional family unit - is within the best interest of the state.

Why?

The family unit is in a far superior position to support children. And to create children.

Why are you still talking about children, when the referendum wording doesn't mention children?

The traditional family unit provides an important role in the state. It deserves recognition.

How and why?

It is totally incompatible with two people getting together with no natural way to reproduce.

So an infertile couple isn't a family?

Whilst homosexual couples feel their relationship is undervalued - this referendum is an attack on the family unit.

How?

It is not about equality - It is about trying to redefine family.

You keep saying that, but you refuse to explain why.

When you keep repeating points, but refuse to answer clarifying questions, it's very, very hard to escape the conclusion that you're soapboxing a viewpoint that isn't particularly well supported by facts or reasoning.

If there's a rational basis for your objections, please spell it out. If you can't provide such a rational basis, you can hardly object if they are perceived as irrational.

seamus

desertcircus wrote: »

By the way: "love" is a perfectly normal component of marriage, and remains the same between a gay couple as between a straight couple.

Interestingly you could also argue that it's one of the primary components recognised by the state:

If you married a Thai woman and she applied for citizenship here, they wouldn't consider your marriage legitimate on the basis that you're a man and she's a woman or on the basis that you plan on having (or have!) children.

They would examine the authenticity of the relationship; in short establishing whether or not you're actually genuinely in a loving relationship and not just faking it.

None of the raw definitions of "family" that the No side seem to espouse would be sufficient evidence that a marriage is genuine in the eyes of the INIS.

CelticRambler

desertcircus wrote: »

That's a remarkably contorted opposition. Would it not be simpler and more appropriate, if we accept your logic, to just abolish marriage? After all, you haven't explained any actual reason why heterosexual but not homosexual couples should be allowed to marry.

By the way: "love" is a perfectly normal component of marriage, and remains the same between a gay couple as between a straight couple.

Indeed it is - but it has no place in the law, and marriage is a legal construct. In the current debate, the word "love" has no place in the discussion, and any argument that includes it is inherently flawed.

I haven't given "any actual reason why heterosexual but not homosexual couples should be allowed to marry" because this thread is not about that. It's about the wording of the referendum and associated debate. Marriage is a civil partnership that reconciles inequality for an ulterior benefit to society.

The debate at this time should be about deciding what that benefit is and whether there's any reason to continue with the institution of marriage. As it is, "we" in the western world have already effectively abolished marriage - there are thousands of couples in Ireland living together without being married, gay and straight, with and without children.

If the traditional definition of marriage - a man and a woman bound together, till death does them part, for the purposes of raising a family and supporting their older relatives - is no longer valid, what good does it do anyone to extend "equality" to any other arrangement?

CramCycle

CelticRambler wrote: »

Two people pledging to live their lives together is a civil partnership, and the mechanism for formalising that is already in place.

But legally there are benefits to being married that are not included in a civil partnership, alot of people tend to argue they are the same, or it's just a word difference but it's not. You should google the protections to the family home in marriage and in civil partnerships. This is only one of many legal differences between the two

This referendum is pointless because it's trying to adapt the constitution to the lowest common denominator amongst the wide variety of behaviours exhibited by the populace

Which is what a constitution should do for the good of it's people.

instead of projecting an ideal that uniquely defines the country

If you want to go down that road, Ireland is hardly a place that historically can refer to its protection of family as ideal.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Equally, nobody has given a good enough reason why a gay couple need to marry. Not to mention it is flawed.

Legally there are several benefits, including but not limited to changes in taxation, immigration, fees on land assets etc.

As was said earlier - If they couldn't marry it would have no impact on the world or their world. They would continue as they are.

Legally it does

If a gay couple was to get full rights inside a civil partnership - would they be happy ? I feel the answer is no - this is an aggressive action of flawed imposition.

Well at least there is an acknowledgement that they don't have the same rights within a civil partnership. I can't answer. If they became equal then the obvious thing would be to scrap one as it would be redundant, so either civil partnerships or marriages.

The traditional family unit provides an important role in the state. It deserves recognition. It is totally incompatible with two people getting together with no natural way to reproduce.

So people with impotency issues or ovarian issues should not be allowed get married? Should there marriage dissolve if either of these occur. Once you are of an age that reproduction is not somthing you are capable of and your children are reared, do you get a letter from Lombard St. to tell you that your marriage is over?

Whilst homosexual couples feel their relationship is undervalued - this referendum is an attack on the family unit.

and you have not explained why?

It is not about equality - It is about trying to redefine family.

In no way does this referendum redefine family, anywhere, ever.

As it is about redefining family and marriage - we are not being sold what it says on the tin.

Well no to the first part and yes to the second, with double speak at the end, interesting.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Because they can not naturally have children - and that is what the spirit , actual intention , natural intention , constitutional intention of Article 41 is.

This is a confusion of the reality.

I think this has been done to death but are you saying that people who cannot reproduce should not be allowed marry? Because thats a whole different argument.

CelticRambler wrote: »

I haven't given "any actual reason why heterosexual but not homosexual couples should be allowed to marry" because this thread is not about that. It's about the wording of the referendum and associated debate. Marriage is a civil partnership that reconciles inequality for an ulterior benefit to society.

While not ulterior, I am glad you realise it is for the benefit of society

The debate at this time should be about deciding what that benefit is and whether there's any reason to continue with the institution of marriage. As it is, "we" in the western world have already effectively abolished marriage - there are thousands of couples in Ireland living together without being married, gay and straight, with and without children.

From a legal perspective it saves the high courts alot of time and issues where the rights of civil partnerships are not equivocal to marriage (there are many lists out there, please google), but if they became equivalent then why would we have both?

If the traditional definition of marriage - a man and a woman bound together, till death does them part, for the purposes of raising a family and supporting their older relatives - is no longer valid, what good does it do anyone to extend "equality" to any other arrangement?

Surely the argument should be to remove marriage altogether from the constitution, not ban a number of people from taking part.

SpaceTime

If anything voting Yes actually strengthens the concept of marriage by opening it to more couples.

I can't really understand why a % of the population is so hung up on this.

Some people are gay, that's nothing new. It's just simply a case that it was something hidden in the conservative eras of the past because of homophobic laws that ignored the reality of life.

I would rather live in the real world where there are gay couples rather than some conservative make belief where they're oppressed and hidden away.

Ireland spent a lot of time off in a conservative make belief world where single mothers didn't exist and were carefully locked away out of sight and out of mind. We pretended we didn't need contraception, we pretended we didn't need divorce ... How many disastrous marriages rolled on for decades with dire consequences for all involved? How many divorcees were basically exiled? England was full of loads of Irish people whose marriages broke down ...

This referendum is largely about accepting or rejecting reality.

Hotblack Desiato

CelticRambler wrote: »

Two people pledging to live their lives together is a civil partnership, and the mechanism for formalising that is already in place.

Only if they're gay.
'Civil partnership' only exists because of homophobes and cowardly politicians - who want 'back of the bus' status for homosexuals.

Rosa Parks did not accept that a seat at the back of the bus was 'separate but equal' and neither should anyone else accept discrimination under the law on the basis of sexuality.

Are they a family? I would say no, the same as in France, a single parent with one child is not a family (even with two parents, having a single child doesn't entitle you to any "family allowance")

Well this is some pretty offensive nonsense, and demonstrably false, and in the Irish context a child is entitled to child benefit no matter how many adults are bringing it up, what their relationship to each other or the child is, or what their sexual orientation is.

This referendum is pointless because it's trying to adapt the constitution to the lowest common denominator amongst the wide variety of behaviours exhibited by the populace,

That's shamefully and needlessly offensive, you should withdraw this.

instead of projecting an ideal that uniquely defines the country. All that will achieve is to leave space for the growth of a movement that does define itself with ideals. In France, it's called Islam ...

The ideal is that children are cared for by people who love them. Only crazy people think that they know what is best for everyone else in society and everyone else should conform to what they think, you reference Islam, anyone who thinks that western society should conform to islamic practices is, similarly, crazy.

Hotblack Desiato

CelticRambler wrote: »

I haven't given "any actual reason why heterosexual but not homosexual couples should be allowed to marry" because this thread is not about that. It's about the wording of the referendum and associated debate. Marriage is a civil partnership that reconciles inequality for an ulterior benefit to society.

Marriage is not civil partnership. Civil partnership is a distinctly lesser status of legal relationship, exclusively reserved for homosexuals, who are currently prohibited from marrying.

The debate at this time should be about deciding what that benefit is and whether there's any reason to continue with the institution of marriage. As it is, "we" in the western world have already effectively abolished marriage - there are thousands of couples in Ireland living together without being married, gay and straight, with and without children.

What utter nonsense.
We have not abolished marriage, but we do recognise that it is increasingly a civil, legal, pledge with nothing to do with religion.
As religious marriage continues to decline in relevance, we need no longer accept the prejudiced religious restrictions on who is allowed marry.

If the traditional definition of marriage - a man and a woman bound together, till death does them part, for the purposes of raising a family and supporting their older relatives - is no longer valid, what good does it do anyone to extend "equality" to any other arrangement?

It is valid. By allowing more people to marry, we protect and enhance the importance of marriage in society.
If you want marriage to disappear, keep it to heteros only, and even better keep it to churches only.

FixdePitchmark

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Only if they're gay.
'Civil partnership' only exists because of homophobes and cowardly politicians - who want 'back of the bus' status for homosexuals.

Rosa Parks did not accept that a seat at the back of the bus was 'separate but equal' and neither should anyone else accept discrimination under the law on the basis of sexuality.




Well this is some pretty offensive nonsense, and demonstrably false, and in the Irish context a child is entitled to child benefit no matter how many adults are bringing it up, what their relationship to each other or the child is, or what their sexual orientation is.




That's shamefully and needlessly offensive, you should withdraw this.



The ideal is that children are cared for by people who love them. Only crazy people think that they know what is best for everyone else in society and everyone else should conform to what they think, you reference Islam, anyone who thinks that western society should conform to islamic practices is, similarly, crazy.

What are you on about.

This is a referendum - we need to explore every aspect of a change of a constitution.

A man and a man can not have a child.

All people are saying is accept that reality . Don't expect everything you want - because you want it.

Hotblack Desiato

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

What are you on about.

It is explained in my post. Read it.

This is a referendum - we need to explore every aspect of a change of a constitution.

Go on...

A man and a man can not have a child.

So what. As has been explained to you numerous times already, that is not currently a requirement for marriage.

All people are saying is accept that reality .

I think I've a good grip on reality, but thanks for your concern.

Don't expect everything you want - because you want it.

I just want people to be treated fairly under the law, it seems that you don't so please justify this - if you can.

FixdePitchmark

A man and a man trying to have a child is not this.

Pathetic.

Greyian

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

A man and a man can not have a child.

Do you believe we should prevent women who have gone through menopause or men who have had vasectomies from being allowed to marry?

FixdePitchmark

Ok - if there is a need to redefine marriage.

Would it be ok to redefine a couple who get together to procreate to make a meaningful contribution to society ?

Or - perhaps this other thing could come up with a name for themselves.

Spoilt Childless debate is what it is.

Greyian

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

A man and a man trying to have a child is not this.

Pathetic.

A) This referendum isn't about having children.

Why do you always say "a man and a man"? Why not "a woman and a woman"? It's almost like there is some other reason you're opposed to this referendum.

C) As things stand, people of certain sexual preferences are denied rights that are available to people of other sexual preferences. Defending the status quo is the same as defending inequality.

FixdePitchmark

Greyian wrote: »

A) This referendum isn't about having children.

Why do you always say "a man and a man"? Why not "a woman and a woman"? It's almost like there is some other reason you're opposed to this referendum.

C) As things stand, people of certain sexual preferences are denied rights that are available to people of other sexual preferences. Defending the status quo is the same as defending inequality.

Man + Man = 2

Man + Woman = > 2

The yes side - if ignoring the contribution of reality

May have to answer the reality of maths.

Man + Woman = a greater need and contribution to society - why piss on it for your own spoilt needs.

FixdePitchmark

Greyian wrote: »

A) This referendum isn't about having children.

Why do you always say "a man and a man"? Why not "a woman and a woman"? It's almost like there is some other reason you're opposed to this referendum.

C) As things stand, people of certain sexual preferences are denied rights that are available to people of other sexual preferences. Defending the status quo is the same as defending inequality.

EMMMMM - because they can't have kids.

Greyian

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Ok - if there is a need to redefine marriage.

Would it be ok to redefine a couple who get together to procreate to make a meaningful contribution to society?

Why should anyone get special treatment just because of the way in which they intend on using their genitalia?

Hell, the world is overpopulated, maybe we should give special treatment to people who don't want to have children.

Also, is procreation the only meaningful contribution that someone can make to society?

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Or - perhaps this other thing could come up with a name for themselves.

What lovely language to use to refer to your fellow human beings.