Referendum time again! This time, it's divorce

Wanderer78

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Your god says lots of unusual things, thankfully I don't believe in him/her/it

Also, from what I can see (I looked it up). There may be a loophole, a man can give a woman a certificate of divorce. AND it seems a sin is only committed if you remarry once you get divorced, so... Don't get remarried (aka make the same mistake twice)

smacl

Cabaal wrote: »

Some people prefer to use god in this manner, it means they don't have to think as much and make their own decisions. No need to even attempt to logically think about something and how it effects people they meet day to day in their lives.

The sheep / flock analogy does seem rather apt by times.

Hotblack Desiato

realitykeeper wrote: »

As a conservative, I cannot in good conscience vote to either ease or maintain divorce because I am against divorce.

You can be against lots of things without making them illegal.
You can be against alcohol abuse, that doesn't give you the right to enforce prohibition on everyone else.

Really it is an unconstitutional referendum

The constitution, or an amendment to it, cannot by definition be unconstitutional.

as it assumes every citizen approves of of something that was introduced following a corrupted referendum to introduce divorce some years ago

Polls show next to no support for reversing the 1995 referendum.

There are precedents for this, e.g. in 1992 we had votes on amending the 8th amendment, when what I wanted to do was delete it. Reversing the 1983 result was not then on offer - it was not politically possible at that time.

Support for the legal availability of divorce has grown in Ireland over time and continues to grow, there is no prospect of a future referendum to ban divorce again.

Being against divorce, it is not an option for me to vote to either retain or change the kind or divorce available in Ireland. Divorce is a sin because God said people should not get divorced.

Irrelevant whether you are against it or not, other people's private lives are none of your business whatsoever.

Other things are "sins" but are legal. Are you looking to make sex outside marriage illegal?

Let's call this what it is. It is not mere conservativism, it's religious fundamentalism seeking to enforce a theocracy on society. Fine when it's not muslims doing it, is it? :rolleyes:

lawred2

Can not see how your religious (sigh) teachings on divorce have any bearing on this referendum... Divorce is legal in Ireland. This is about the technicalities of that process. The 'good' fight has been lost. Voting against this amendment on religious grounds is being a sore loser and amounts to nothing short of seeking to punish others for the sad situation in life they find themselves in.

Sometimes the compassionate religious can ironically be very short of compassion.

Bannasidhe

Odhinn wrote: »

Don't be silly.





It's obviously the gays.

Oh don't. I accidentally summoned one this morning while brushing my teeth. :mad:
It's a nightmare trying to keep the little blighters occupied. If anyone knows of a good Demon Daycare PM me!

As for divorce - I'm not married so I have no skin in the game - I think the current laws are far too restrictive. I also think a year should be long enough - I mean it only takes 3 months prior notice to get married...

On the topic of pre-nups I am neither for nor agin them but I think if a couple have a such contract it should be legally binding. I would be of the general opinion that people should be able to 'leave' with what they brought (or assets equivalent) and what was gathered during the marriage split 50/50, however -factored into that should be protections ring-fenced for any children.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As for divorce - I'm not married so I have no skin in the game - I think the current laws are far too restrictive. I also think a year should be long enough - I mean it only takes 3 months prior notice to get married...

To be honest I’m not bothered either way whatever the outcome of the referendum as it’s proposed because it would still have no effect on the law regarding the outcome of a divorce- ie maintenance, property and succession rights would all remain the same as they are now.

On the topic of pre-nups I am neither for nor agin them but I think if a couple have a such contract it should be legally binding. I would be of the general opinion that people should be able to 'leave' with what they brought (or assets equivalent) and what was gathered during the marriage split 50/50, however -factored into that should be protections ring-fenced for any children.

Prenups aren’t necessary under Irish law, we have civil annulment already which would achieve exactly the outcome above -


Consequences of a civil annulment of marriage

Hotblack Desiato

lawred2 wrote: »

Sometimes the compassionate religious can ironically be very short of compassion.

Sometimes...? It's what they do best.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

On the topic of pre-nups I am neither for nor agin them but I think if a couple have a such contract it should be legally binding.

Provided they both got independent legal advice before signing the pre-nup, then fine.

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

On the topic of pre-nups I am neither for nor agin them but I think if a couple have a such contract it should be legally binding. I would be of the general opinion that people should be able to 'leave' with what they brought (or assets equivalent) and what was gathered during the marriage split 50/50, however -factored into that should be protections ring-fenced for any children.

That seems about right - it would do something to prevent gold-diggers for a start.

All the more so if these were default terms for marriage - ie, that if somebody wanted to ensure that they'd get 50% of their partner's pre-existing wealth in the event of a divorce, that they'd have to agree this at the time of the marriage.

smacl

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I would be of the general opinion that people should be able to 'leave' with what they brought

What, like youth, happiness and a cute if somewhat naive sense of optimism :pac:

Myself and herself were 18 years together before finally getting talked into marriage by our solicitor, primarily in order to look after the best interests of the kids. Ten years on and I can't say it may the blindest bit of difference to our relationship either way.

Marriage is an institution and not everyone wants to be institutionalised. I think if two people decide they don't want to be married any more and can settle sensibly there should be no impediment. If one does and the other doesn't there should still be no impediment other than a fair settlement.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

What, like youth, happiness and a cute if somewhat naive sense of optimism :pac:

Myself and herself were 18 years together before finally getting talked into marriage by our solicitor, primarily in order to look after the best interests of the kids. Ten years on and I can't say it may the blindest bit of difference to our relationship either way.

Marriage is an institution and not everyone wants to be institutionalised. I think if two people decide they don't want to be married any more and can settle sensibly there should be no impediment. If one does and the other doesn't there should still be no impediment other than a fair settlement.

Back when I was doing my thesis I read Gráinne Ní Mháille's (aka Gráinne Mhaol) take on the Gaelic laws around divorce/widowhood (same laws applied as they were both considered the ending of the marriage contract) and distribution of assets. She had a fine old rant about the fact that she got to leave with assets to the exact value of what she brought (in her case ships/cattle/mares) but didn't get the benefit of any accrued value deriving from those assets. Under Gaelic law a woman brought a considerable dowry with her and this remained hers but her husband got to 'enjoy' the benefits . Any other 'portable property' she owned prior to the marriage remained hers to control (most of the 'portable property' in the country was thus eventually controlled by women). Same for men. At the end of the marriage women returned to their own clan as they no longer had a legal interest - or right - to remain with their husband's clan.
The second time she was widowed she applied both Gaelic and English laws at the same time so went home with the considerable assets she brought to the marriage and the 1/3 of her husband's property English law said she was entitled to - in other words she got the tower house and surrounding lands as well

smacl

I think it is the joint and severally owned debts rather than assets that hamper break-ups as often these days. I know of a few people who would dearly love to be rather more distantly separated than they are but the mortgage is more binding that the wedding vows and funds don't stretch to a second abode.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

I know of a few people who would dearly love to be rather more distantly separated than they are but the mortgage is more binding that the wedding vows and funds don't stretch to a second abode.

Given rising property prices, I'd have thought that a reasonable number of unhappy people would have had the option to sell up and buy two flats, albeit possibly smaller combined floor area than the original house, and possibly not in the vicinity.

If that's not an option, then, well, if it's a two-storey house, then install a fire-escape and seal off the internal stairs.

There's one house I know which used to be owned by a feuding family who'd essentially divided it into two - two kitchens, two living rooms, four bedrooms. One front door can't have been fun though.

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Given rising property prices, I'd have thought that a reasonable number of unhappy people would have had the option to sell up and buy two flats, albeit possibly smaller combined floor area than the original house, and possibly not in the vicinity.

If that's not an option, then, well, if it's a two-storey house, then install a fire-escape and seal off the internal stairs.

There's one house I know which used to be owned by a feuding family who'd essentially divided it into two - two kitchens, two living rooms, four bedrooms. One front door can't have been fun though.

Back in the bad old days before divorce I had an uncle and aunt who did that.
Divided the house in half and lived there together for 20 odd years.
It was like a Greek tragedy.
She died in Spain crossing the road to the hospital where he was in ICU after a heart attack, she was summoned as she was still his next of kin - he being on holiday with the latest in a long list of girlfriends - and after her death he basically climbed into a whiskey bottle and never emerged again.

I always thought they would have been better off to just make a clean break and get on with their lives.

realitykeeper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If you’re going to suggest a referendum is unconstitutional, the least you could do is point to the part of the Constitution you believe the referendum is in conflict with. Otherwise your reasoning so far is just sounding like “Because I (not God), because I say so”.

Under the constitution, everyone is to be treated equally. In the original divorce referendum, the government spent everyone`s tax money on their side of a divorce referendum. Why should I vote to change something I do not think should exist and which was introduced by a biased government via mis-allocated tax money.


Mathew 19:9 Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife ... and marries another woman, commits adultery.

Jesus did explain that the reason Moses said divorce was ok was because the people were so ignorant back then. So, perhaps ignorance is the reason liberal people want divorce.

realitykeeper

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You can be against lots of things without making them illegal.
You can be against alcohol abuse, that doesn't give you the right to enforce prohibition on everyone else.

Let me stop you there. Drunk people are a menace to society. So, either we should get rid of alcohol or drunk people. Being the humanitarian I am, I think it would be kinder to get rid of alcohol and substitute it with dummies (soothers/pasifiers) for adults.

One eyed Jack

realitykeeper wrote: »

Under the constitution, everyone is to be treated equally. In the original divorce referendum, the government spent everyone`s tax money on their side of a divorce referendum. Why should I vote to change something I do not think should exist and which was introduced by a biased government via mis-allocated tax money.

You’re conflating a couple of very different things there, none of which means the original referendum on divorce was itself unconstitutional.

Mathew 19:9 Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife ... and marries another woman, commits adultery.

And? Divorce isn’t a sin, adultery is.

Jesus did explain that the reason Moses said divorce was ok was because the people were so ignorant back then. So, perhaps ignorance is the reason liberal people want divorce.

Nope, you’ve got that wrong (again, but I’m not going to call you ignorant for it). Jesus explained that Moses (speaking God’s words) permitted divorce, not because of people’s ignorance, but because God is regarded as compassionate and forgiving and doesn’t seek to punish people for making a mistake like some people whose hearts are hardened do -


Jesus’ answer is that it is “because of your hardness of heart” (Matthew 19:8), that Moses (speaking God’s words) permitted divorce. It is important to remember at this point that between Genesis 1 and 2 and Deuteronomy 24 that Genesis 3 has occurred: that Adam and Eve disobeyed God’s command and that as a result God has judged them and that they are no longer in the Garden of Eden. As a result people’s hearts are now hardened. Therefore, although a man and women still become “one flesh” when they are married, God now permits divorce in certain situations. (Another way of looking at this is that in Genesis 1 and 2 divorce would have never been an issue, since a husband and wife would never have sinned against each other in any way, but that after Genesis 3 sin and divorce do become issues.)

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote:

Let me stop you there. Drunk people are a menace to society. So, either we should get rid of alcohol or drunk people. Being the humanitarian I am, I think it would be kinder to get rid of alcohol and substitute it with dummies (soothers/pasifiers) for adults.

Please tell me, you're not an addiction counselor, as you don't seem to know much about it

Pherekydes

realitykeeper wrote: »

Mathew 19:9 Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife ... and marries another woman, commits adultery.

Why did you omit a piece?

I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.

So divorce is ok in certain circumstances.

What's the story if a woman divorces her husband? Is that ok with 2000 year dead Jesus?

Cabaal

Pherekydes wrote: »

What's the story if a woman divorces her husband? Is that ok with 2000 year dead Jesus?

Nope, not according to the bible.

Corinthians 7:39

39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.

But its grand for men to divorce

Matthew 1:19

19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

Peregrinus

Nitpick: It's a common error of critics of Christianity (and of simplistic biblical literalists) to assume that anything which is mentioned in the Bible is implicitly approved by the Bible. Mt only says that Joseph had it in mind to divorce Mary; no judgment is made about the morality of this.

(This it not the only error which is often shared by critics of Christianity and simplistic biblical literalists.)

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Nitpick: It's a common error of critics of Christianity (and of simplistic biblical literalists) to assume that anything which is mentioned in the Bible is implicitly approved by the Bible. Mt only says that Joseph had it in mind to divorce Mary; no judgment is made about the morality of this.

(This it not the only error which is often shared by critics of Christianity and simplistic biblical literalists.)

It is an interesting point and one I'd tend to agree with. By implication, in your opinion, does this in turn imply that what it means to be a Christian is to a significant extent subjective?

robindch

smacl wrote: »

[...] what it means to be a Christian is to a significant extent subjective?

Not only significant, but I'd contend that it's entirely subjective.

People read the bible and decide for themselves, perhaps with guidance, what's metaphor and what's not metaphor, what to pay attention to and what to ignore, what bits are important and what bits are not. There's enough material of all kinds in there that one can prop up just about any kind of personal beliefs by one's own selective reading. That's why people's personal deities rarely, if ever, disagree with the believer.

The excellent Jerry Coyne expanded on this point, wittily, precisely and somewhat brutally, in this rather excellent video from a few years back - Coyne starts at about 24 minutes in and talks for about thirty minutes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRa4OrSe8TY

realitykeeper

Wanderer78 wrote: »

Please tell me, you're not an addiction counselor, as you don't seem to know much about it

I know that addiction counselors generally rely on state funding so the song they sing is about as impartial as glory glory man united.

realitykeeper

smacl wrote: »

It is an interesting point and one I'd tend to agree with. By implication, in your opinion, does this in turn imply that what it means to be a Christian is to a significant extent subjective?

Not every "subjective" opinion is based on that person`s true beliefs. False prophets claim to believe things they do not necessarily believe.

realitykeeper

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nope, you’ve got that wrong (again, but I’m not going to call you ignorant for it).

I did not call anyone ignorant. I merely speculated that ignorance was a factor in the behaviour of a particular cartel.

Cabaal

realitykeeper wrote: »

I know that addiction counselors generally rely on state funding so the song they sing is about as impartial as glory glory man united.

Utter nonsense,

But lets go with it anyway, many religions receive state funds or receive special exceptions by the state, so they are not subjective either eh?

Hotblack Desiato

realitykeeper wrote: »

Under the constitution, everyone is to be treated equally. In the original divorce referendum, the government spent everyone`s tax money on their side of a divorce referendum. Why should I vote to change something I do not think should exist and which was introduced by a biased government via mis-allocated tax money.

The original text of the constitution was brought in with plenty of measures pandering to the catholic church which I don't think should exist, and which violate human rights.

Should I vote no, or fail to vote yes, to the current referendum just because it does nothing to remove the bits I find offensive - such as the preamble, "due homage to almighty god" and the religious oaths of office?

No, if I did that would be stupid of me.

We are not going to be offered an entirely new constitution, incremental change is all we are going to get. The idea of "taking god out of the constitution" as the PDs proposed 30 years ago was openly ridiculed at that time, it does not look at all ridiculous today.

So I will take the incremental changes which I regard as beneficial, and campaign in my own way for more of them.

Mathew 19:9 Now I tell you that whoever divorces his wife ... and marries another woman, commits adultery.

Knock yourself out if you want to believe in it.

Scripture is a dreadful basis for law. Theocracies are invariably hellish places to live in. We gave it a good go here and caused endless needless suffering.

Jesus did explain that the reason Moses said divorce was ok was because the people were so ignorant back then. So, perhaps ignorance is the reason liberal people want divorce.

Or maybe people were still extremely ignorant 2000 years ago - keeping slaves was accepted, women were treated dreadfully, etc etc.

Since then we have developed and refined the rule of law, established enlightenment values (although the enlightenment effectively passed Ireland by...) and developed the principles of human rights.

Third-hand (being generous) mistranslated embellished hearsay in a 2000 year old book makes a nice book of fables but that's about it.

Hotblack Desiato

realitykeeper wrote: »

Let me stop you there. Drunk people are a menace to society. So, either we should get rid of alcohol or drunk people. Being the humanitarian I am, I think it would be kinder to get rid of alcohol and substitute it with dummies (soothers/pasifiers) for adults.

That's insane.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

That's insane.

Don't think Jesus would be a fan of this either what with the auld turning water into wine when the occasion required.

Plus, would priests have to resort to Ribena at mass time :pac:

nozzferrahhtoo

Hah yea, wasn't it some priests asking for special exemption to drink driving laws too?