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

Greyian

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

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

And if the child turns out to be a mass murdered, or a rapist, are they still a great contribution to society?

I notice you still haven't answered anyone when you've been asked about preventing heterosexual people who can't have children (and there's a whole raft of possible causes for their inability to have children) from getting married...

Hotblack Desiato

You torpedo your own argument, pathetic as it is.

We all agree people should not be treated as lesser beings on account of their race.

Why should they be treated as lesser beings under the law on account of their sexual orientation?

The opponents of equal marriage object strongly to being compared with racists, but all the parallels are there. Slave ownership was, once upon a time, perfectly acceptable in law in many countries and its apologists looked to Christianity to justify it.

FixdePitchmark

Greyian wrote: »

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?



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

:rolleyes:

If you think continuation of our society is not important - you just don't get it.

Maybe you think - your life is just about you.

Perhaps you will not understand the sacrifice it takes to raise a child.

But - once your happy.

That is why this debate is so flawed

It is about me me versus - others.

Greyian

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

:rolleyes:

If you think continuation of our society is not important - you just don't get it.

Do you think that heterosexual couples are suddenly going to make the decision to stop having children, because homosexual couples can get married?

Or, do you think we should force homosexual people to be in heterosexual relationships, so we can just pump out more children.

By denying homosexual people the right to marry, you don't encourage them to have children, you just reduce their quality of life.
By granting homosexual people the right to marry, you don't discourage them from having children, and you don't affect their life in any way whatsoever.

Hotblack Desiato

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

If you think continuation of our society is not important - you just don't get it.

Maybe you think - your life is just about you.

Perhaps you will not understand the sacrifice it takes to raise a child.

But - once your happy.

That is why this debate is so flawed

It is about me me versus - others.

My wife and I - married in the eyes of the law, but no church - are raising two.

Don't you dare talk down to and condescend us.

Don't you dare do the same to people who are good and loving parents, who just happen to be gay.

Shame on you.

bee06

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

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.

Hmm, can't say we covered this in my Maths degree.

FixdePitchmark

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You torpedo your own argument, pathetic as it is.

We all agree people should not be treated as lesser beings on account of their race.

Why should they be treated as lesser beings under the law on account of their sexual orientation?

The opponents of equal marriage object strongly to being compared with racists, but all the parallels are there. Slave ownership was, once upon a time, perfectly acceptable in law in many countries and its apologists looked to Christianity to justify it.

Is this angle actually serious.

Are we going down the persecution route.
Because - that is so wrong it is a joke.
The position homosexuals maintain in modern life - way outweighs their position proportionally (TV - Media - etc)


This - we are persecuted line is gone too far.

This is a case of misjudgement and over stepping the mark to be honest.

FixdePitchmark

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

My wife and I - married in the eyes of the law, but no church - are raising two.

Don't you dare talk down to and condescend us.

Don't you dare do the same to people who are good and loving parents, who just happen to be gay.

Shame on you.

Well that is the same way I feel.

This debate has tried to make a mockery of the Article it is trying to amend.

So - I agree - time to fight - don't they dare condescend us.

Greyian

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Well that is the same way I feel.

This debate has tried to make a mockery of the Article it is trying to amend.

So - I agree - time to fight - don't they dare condescend us.

Please quote where in Article 41 that the intention of marriage is to bear children.

As far as I can see, the only mention of children in Article 41 is in relation to divorce.

FixdePitchmark

Greyian wrote: »

Please quote where in Article 41 that the intention of marriage is to bear children.

As far as I can see, the only mention of children in Article 41 is in relation to divorce.

Ok, a family has no kids.

We should all run out and vote Yes so.


It is clear to a reasonable person what a family is - trying to re-invent that, is a joke.

Making a joke of a constitution is not a good reason to vote yes.


It will be passed - but - honestly a challenge in any reasonable eyes will be successful.

endacl

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Well that is the same way I feel.

This debate has tried to make a mockery of the Article it is trying to amend.

So - I agree - time to fight - don't they dare condescend us.

I've been reading your posts on this thread, and I really have to ask.....

What the hell are you talking about? On the off chance you actually know what you're talking about?

bee06

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

This debate has tried to make a mockery of the Article it is trying to amend.

Maybe your interpretation of the article but realistically the article is open to all kinds of interpretation. Without a specific definition of "the family" then the family is different things to different people and in my opinion no one had the right to impose their definition onto anyone else.

FixdePitchmark

I'm beginning to think that the Yes side - did not understand where this was going into the constitution.

They couldn't be that daft ?

Hotblack Desiato

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Is this angle actually serious.

Are we going down the persecution route.
Because - that is so wrong it is a joke.
The position homosexuals maintain in modern life - way outweighs their position proportionally (TV - Media - etc)


This - we are persecuted line is gone too far.

This is a case of misjudgement and over stepping the mark to be honest.

Pathetic. You are doing the so-called argument of the No side a grave disservice!

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Well that is the same way I feel.

This debate has tried to make a mockery of the Article it is trying to amend.

So - I agree - time to fight - don't they dare condescend us.

You clearly have a hierarchy in your own mind about what couples are 'good', what parents are 'good', I'm telling you now it's all based upon prejudice.

scary

FixdePitchmark,

Is your issue that the constitution change is under article 41 or are you actually against same sex marriage because you dont agree with it?

Timberrrrrrrr

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

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.

And in quite a few cases a man and a woman can't have a child, what is your point? Marraige is not about having children so why do the no side insist on bringing this up?

CramCycle

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

[/B]

EMMMMM - because they can't have kids.

Will you ever answer the repeated question, are you saying all infertile couples have no right to be married?

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Perhaps you will not understand the sacrifice it takes to raise a child.

I presume you don't, maybe best to leave that unrelated insult or misdirection to another thread.

is about me me versus - others.

It's about society making a choice to change the document that defines them as a nation. Some people think it's fine the way it is, others think it is not. It's not about you vs anyone. It's about Irish society making a choice. It is irritating when some try to confuse what this vote is about be bringing in points that are not related. I haven't resorted to such behaviour as far as I know, it would be nice if everyone, yourself included, could do the same.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

They couldn't be that daft ?

I don't think you know what the changes mean in regards the constitution as you keep talking about things that are not being changed

shruikan2553

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I'm beginning to think that the Yes side - did not understand where this was going into the constitution.

They couldn't be that daft ?

Is this the same constitution that mentions nothing about having children being a requirement for marriage?

bopper

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I'm beginning to think that the Yes side - did not understand where this was going into the constitution.

They couldn't be that daft ?

Well explain to us what you're trying to say if it's that easy to understand. Seems like the majority of people in this thread have no idea what your point is.

sydthebeat

bopper wrote: »

Well explain to us what you're trying to say if it's that easy to understand. Seems like the majority of people in this thread have no idea what your point is.

I don't think he has himself, he's bounced off more walls than a pin ball.

The clear point remains.
Article 41 makes absolutely no mention of the ability to have children as part of a marriage. Therefore the viewpoint being put forward here that it has, is a misguided prejudicial view / definition purported by the Catholic church.

Which is absolutely NOT what we are being asked to vote upon.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I'm beginning to think that the Yes side - did not understand where this was going into the constitution.

They couldn't be that daft ?

I think it's clear the change is being made without any critical analysis of what it entails.

I think the first issue with this referendum is actually not about SSM as such. It's that we're being asked to give the Oireachtas the explicit power to regulate marriage. That would look to me to be something that undermines the right to marital privacy, which guarantees (for example) that married couples currently have Constitutional protection of their right to contraception.

On the substantial issue, there would seem to be very little examination of the impact of prohibiting any distinction in marriage because of gender. Does this mean that the concept of the presumption of paternity has to go, on grounds that no SSM is capable of conceiving a child? Will marriages still be voidable on grounds of non - consummation? If so, does this mean that all SSM will be voidable?

More fundamental than that, the Yes campaign hasn't actually given any significant convincing reason for making this change. Providing a framework for gay couples seems reasonable. But marriage may simply be the wrong model for that, as concepts like the presumption of paternity are clearly ludicrous when we apply them to the lives that gay couples are capable of having. Yet, they are necessary concepts for hetero marriages.

sydthebeat

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Will marriages still be voidable on grounds of non - consummation? If so, does this mean that all SSM will be voidable?

i assume you havent actually checked the definition of "consummation"

GCU Flexible Demeanour

sydthebeat wrote: »

i assume you havent actually checked the definition of "consummation"

Yup, I have. A single sex marriage cannot be consummated.

Ave Sodalis

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I think it's clear the change is being made without any critical analysis of what it entails.

I think the first issue with this referendum is actually not about SSM as such. It's that we're being asked to give the Oireachtas the explicit power to regulate marriage. That would look to me to be something that undermines the right to marital privacy, which guarantees (for example) that married couples currently have Constitutional protection of their right to contraception.

On the substantial issue, there would seem to be very little examination of the impact of prohibiting any distinction in marriage because of gender. Does this mean that the concept of the presumption of paternity has to go, on grounds that no SSM is capable of conceiving a child? Will marriages still be voidable on grounds of non - consummation? If so, does this mean that all SSM will be voidable?

More fundamental than that, the Yes campaign hasn't actually given any significant convincing reason for making this change. Providing a framework for gay couples seems reasonable. But marriage may simply be the wrong model for that, as concepts like the presumption of paternity are clearly ludicrous when we apply them to the lives that gay couples are capable of having. Yet, they are necessary concepts for hetero marriages.

As been pointed out to you numerous times, the referendum is only about SSM. Heterosexual couples still have a right to contraception. How do they not?

See below for consummation.

One very good reason is that it allows homosexuals to get married to the people they love. The problem you have is with the Bill, not the referendum.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yup, I have. A single sex marriage cannot be consummated.

Consummation actually means to begin so technically, they can. However, I'm going to assume that you mean to attempt to produce a child. It has been pointed out to you that neither can those who cannot have children. Why is it only relevant for gay people?

Timberrrrrrrr

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yup, I have. A single sex marriage cannot be consummated.

If a couple (man & woman) get married with full knowledge that they will never be able to reproduce are you honestly claiming that their marriage is null and void? Should they be allowed marry in the first place?


Awaits the usual duck and dodge when this question gets asked.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

If a couple (man & woman) get married with full knowledge that they will never be able to reproduce are you honestly claiming that their marriage is null and void? Should they be allowed marry in the first place?


Awaits the usual duck and dodge when this question gets asked.

The factual position is, at present, a person who is impotent cannot contract an unvoidable marriage.

scary

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Yup, I have. A single sex marriage cannot be consummated.

of course it can, do you know what the definition of sexual intercourse is?

Timberrrrrrrr

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

The factual position is, at present, a person who is impotent cannot contract an unvoidable marriage.

I never mentioned impotent, if a woman or man had an accident that left them unable to conceive a child should they be allowed marry? Are you claiming that their marriage would be void due to them being unable to conceive?

GCU Flexible Demeanour

sup_dude wrote: »

As been pointed out to you numerous times, the referendum is only about SSM. Heterosexual couples still have a right to contraception. How do they not?

You are not addressing the point I made, which is that the amendment gives the Oireachtas the power to regulate marriage. That reason Mrs McGee won the freedom to access contraception is (put simply) because the Constitution currently doesn't allow the Oireachtas to interfere with the reproductive choices of married couples.

Ave Sodalis

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You are not addressing the point I made, which is that the amendment gives the Oireachtas the power to regulate marriage. That reason Mrs McGee won the freedom to access contraception is (put simply) because the Constitution currently doesn't allow the Oireachtas to interfere with the reproductive choices of married couples.

No, the amendment allows for same sex couples to marry. There is still nothing in it about contraception.