SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Daith · 07-07-2014 03:27PM

P_1 wrote: »

Article 41-3

1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack. The state considers the institution of marriage open to any two consenting adults, capable of making such a decision, irrespective of gender

My attempt, the italics are my proposed amendment.

So brothers and sisters?

I think the other amendment "irrespective of gender" works better in terms of LGBT marriage.

P_1 · 07-07-2014 03:30PM

Daith wrote: »

So brothers and sisters?

I think the other amendment "irrespective of gender" works better in terms of LGBT marriage.

Fair point, take 2 so:

Article 41-3

1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack. The state considers the institution of marriage open to any two non related, consenting adults, capable of making such a decision, irrespective of gender.

I think that covers all bases, now it might need another line to cover citizenship and whatnot unless that's already covered elsewhere in the constitution.

Although I'd have thought that the 'capable of making such a decision' line would implicitly rule out incest.

Muise... · 07-07-2014 03:33PM

P_1 wrote: »

Fair point, take 2 so:

Article 41-3

1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack. The state considers the institution of marriage open to any two non related, consenting adults, capable of making such a decision, irrespective of gender.

I think that covers all bases, now it might need another line to cover citizenship and whatnot unless that's already covered elsewhere in the constitution.

I wonder if they will use the referendum to help raise the marriage age to 18 regardless of parental consent - this was recently discussed in the Oireachtas.

Daith · 07-07-2014 03:36PM

Muise... wrote: »

I wonder if they will use the referendum to help raise the marriage age to 18 regardless of parental consent - this was recently discussed in the Oireachtas.

Hopefully there would be more items on referendum day than this.

P_1 wrote: »

Fair point, take 2 so:

Article 41-3

1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack. The state considers the institution of marriage open to any two non related, consenting adults, capable of making such a decision, irrespective of gender.

I think that covers all bases, now it might need another line to cover citizenship and whatnot unless that's already covered elsewhere in the constitution.

Although I'd have thought that the 'capable of making such a decision' line would implicitly rule out incest.

How can I prove I'm not related to someone? Where do you draw the line.

Not trying to be nitpicky here just wondering what the amendment would be.

P_1 · 07-07-2014 03:37PM

Muise... wrote: »

I wonder if they will use the referendum to help raise the marriage age to 18 regardless of parental consent - this was recently discussed in the Oireachtas.

Wouldn't that require a second ballot though? To be honest I'm not all that keen on anything that has the potential to confuse voters at the ballot box. It needs to be watertight to prevent the conservative dinosaurs from even having a fleeting thought at a legal challenge.

VinLieger · 07-07-2014 03:39PM

P_1 wrote: »

Wouldn't that require a second ballot though? To be honest I'm not all that keen on anything that has the potential to confuse voters at the ballot box. It needs to be watertight to prevent the conservative dinosaurs from even having a fleeting thought at a legal challenge.

Agreed if there is going to be more than one adjustment in terms of marriage there needs to be two ballots, to avoid any confusion or muddying of the waters by the No vote and to avoid any possibility of a legal challenge afterwards

Solid_Shepard · 07-07-2014 03:42PM

fran17 wrote: »

I've made them very clear in many many posts.but ok i'll humour you:

1 its not marriage.by calling it marriage is an untruth.marriage has always been a covenant between a man and a woman.the name alone maritare is latin for to provide a husband or wife.ie male and female.
2 if there is children involved in this then it denies them the natural right to have a mother and father.nobody can deny that this is the appropriate environment for a child to develop.its there natural right
3 it does not create a family.the overwhelming majority of families are such to conceive children to continue there blood line and the future generation of our country.i believe any legalisation of anything to the contrary would weaken this and should be opposed.
4 it enforces the views of a very small minority on all of society.by legalising this all citizens of the state must comply with this.public servants are forced to officiate in this and public schools are forced to teach it to children.
5 its against nature.a mam to lie with another man or a woman to lie with another woman is not the natural law of things hence is unnatural.
6 its against god himself.Gen 1:28-29,19:24-25 Mark 10:6-7

but of course because very few on this thread don't recognise either religion or morality or natural law then let the insults begin...

I know this has been quoted already, but I would like to direct you all the way back to this post I have already made right here (boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91106362&postcount=874) which already refutes 2, 3, and 5, this post (boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91109302&postcount=881) which refutes 6 by quoting the biblical passages themselves (rather than Flogg's list without references so you cannot try and deny the statements).

Regarding 1, unfortunately, this is an etymological fallacy (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy), and has no relevance to modern society. If you are living a few hundred years in the distant past you will have greater success using this claim.

Regarding 4, again, I'm afraid you're simply incorrect. It is an overwhelming majority of individuals in Ireland who are in favour of same-sex marriage according to the most recent polls (rte.ie/news/2014/0220/505702-same-sex-marriage/). Ironically, you have argued against your position by being uninformed.

EDIT: It seems I missed this post earlier in the thread:

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Solid Shepard - you have very long posts. Very long...

For too long this thread had consisted of claims of surveys, facts, and evidence of certain views, without any actual provision provision of these alleged supporting documents. Anybody can make any claims they want, but unless you actually can support your claims they're, ultimately, irrelevant and dismissible. I believe everybody sane is capable of rational, logical thinking when presented with indisputable and overwhelming evidence, and as a result I don't mind typing considerable replies to people who are actually willing to consider certain topics; this isn't necessarily just to people posting, but to any readers who are undecided and genuinely wish to inform themselves upon certain topics.

P_1 · 07-07-2014 03:42PM

Daith wrote: »

How can I prove I'm not related to someone? Where do you draw the line.

Not trying to be nitpicky here just wondering what the amendment would be.

I think the Punishment of Incest Act 1908 covers it. Forgive the wikipedia source but I'd imagine that the chart in it would be where you draw the line (seeing as the act is inherited from the UK system) and that proving that you're not related to your intended would be part of the paperwork regarding marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibited_degree_of_kinship#United_Kingdom

Also, I don't think you're being nitpicky for a second

Daith · 07-07-2014 03:44PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Agreed if there is going to be more than one adjustment in terms of marriage there needs to be two ballots, to avoid any confusion or muddying of the waters by the No vote and to avoid any possibility of a legal challenge afterwards

I'm just thinking more about a higher vote turnout.

old hippy · 07-07-2014 03:49PM

fran17 wrote: »

Men? Why does that make a difference?

Because most religions are conceived, curated and carried out to tune of men. Of course, whether its a patriarchal or matriarchal religion - the myths are still churned out. Why do you see religion as "factual"?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The usual chatter about religion on here ain't gonna win a single vote in favour of SSM.

And the usual uber-pious contributors here already made their minds up about gay marriage a long, long time ago. Do you really think that someone who takes the Bible as er, gospel is going to change their minds anytime soon?

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 03:50PM

P_1 wrote: »

Fair point, take 2 so:

Article 41-3

1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack. The state considers the institution of marriage open to any two non related, consenting adults, capable of making such a decision, irrespective of gender.

I think that covers all bases, now it might need another line to cover citizenship and whatnot unless that's already covered elsewhere in the constitution.

Although I'd have thought that the 'capable of making such a decision' line would implicitly rule out incest.

You're opening a can of worms with all these additional clauses. I would suggest we keep it simple.

Your text doesn't define "adult", "non-related" or doesn't specify what "capable" means. This is all stuff that can (and is) be handled in legislation, becasue it is already in place - not in the constitution.

Keep it simple.

P_1 · 07-07-2014 03:55PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You're opening a can of worms with all these additional clauses. I would suggest we keep it simple.

Your text doesn't define "adult", "non-related" or doesn't specify what "capable" means. This is all stuff that can (and is) be handled in legislation, becasue it is already in place - not in the constitution.

Keep it simple.

Are they not defined (albeit implicitly) elsewhere in the constitution though?

Daith · 07-07-2014 03:57PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Your text doesn't define "adult", "non-related" or doesn't specify what "capable" means. This is all stuff that can (and is) be handled in legislation, becasue it is already in place - not in the constitution.

Though it is depressing that the constitution doesn't define marriage as that is handled in legislation.

What is interesting is that this will be the first time the people of Ireland decide what the definition of marriage should be.

P_1 wrote: »

Are they not defined (albeit implicitly) elsewhere in the constitution though?

More in the Civil Registration act about who and who can't marry.

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 03:57PM

P_1 wrote: »

Are they not defined (albeit implicitly) elsewhere in the constitution though?

"non-related"? I doubt it. It is set out in legislation though (you get a list of people you can't marry when completing the civil paperwork - your father's cousin's aunt, etc

I Heart Internet · 07-07-2014 04:00PM

Daith wrote: »

Though it is depressing that the constitution doesn't define marriage as that is handled in legislation.

What is interesting is that this will be the first time the people of Ireland decide what the definition of marriage should be.

The first time they decide explicitly, yes. Previously it was defined by implicit agreement. When the constitution was written, almost no-one would ever have envisaged the notion that two people of the same sex could (or would want to) get married.

P_1 · 07-07-2014 04:00PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

"non-related"? I doubt it. It is set out in legislation though (you get a list of people you can't marry when completing the civil paperwork - your father's cousin's aunt, etc

True and the constitution can't refer specifically to legislation can it? Which would rule out an "in accordance with X Act 19xx, irrespective of gender" line?

Annasopra · 07-07-2014 04:24PM

Daith wrote: »

Though it is depressing that the constitution doesn't define marriage as that is handled in legislation.

What is interesting is that this will be the first time the people of Ireland decide what the definition of marriage should be.

More in the Civil Registration act about who and who can't marry.

No.

Its not depressing at all. The constitution should NOT be specific in its definitions as otherwise we would have to keep having referenda. Take for example the fact that the constitution states a definite time line for divorce - tgats outrageous and shouldnt be in the constitution. We need a constitution thLovely poem from an activist in Ireland http://spunout.ie/opinion/article/aim-and-igniteat is broad enough to allow legislators change things not keep having to amend the constitution.

Daith · 07-07-2014 04:34PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No.

Its not depressing at all. The constitution should NOT be specific in its definitions as otherwise we would have to keep having referenda.

It doesn't even define marriage and we are having a referendum on it!

I agree with you. There shouldn't be specific definitions in the constitution.

fran17 · 07-07-2014 04:44PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

It condones stoning homosexuals to death. This is supposedly "God's law", by the way.

The real question now pope is why is the post where you insulted Islam in response to my question #1703 after mysteriously disappearing???

VinLieger · 07-07-2014 04:49PM

fran17 wrote: »

The real question now pope is why is the post where you insulted Islam in response to my question #1703 after mysteriously disappearing???

Look who's tallking about mysteriously disappearing, you still are refusing to address this

floggg wrote: »

Another thing - you're arguing that i should be denied the right to marry because it's against your book. But your book says let he without sin cast the first stone.

So what right have you to impose our judgement on me? You are allowed sin as you wish as its not the States business, and I'm sure you have. Are you going to tell me you have never done any of the following:

* masturbated;
* had non-marital sex;
*had non procreative sex;
* used contraception;
* given or received oral sex of any variety;
* gotten divorced;
* coveted or lusted after your neighbours wife;
* had sexually impure thoughts;
* committed adultery;
* failed to beat your wife when required to do so by the bible.

And that's just in the sexual/marital realm. I won't get into all the other things that you should be doing per the words of your book.

If you're going to try to impose the morality of your book on me, you should tell us what gives us the right to do so. If you can and do violate your book, then why can't I?

I look forward to your answer.

Edit - you might also kindly address whether or not you think doing (or failing to do as applicable) those things should also be made illegal. If you don't think some or all should be made illegal, please explain why since unlike same sex marriage, those are expressly prohibited by god (don't think god (or his ghost writes) has ever actually said anything about same sex marriage).

Well any reply or are you gonna ignore it like the previous times its been asked off you to reply on it?

Do note everytime you ignore it your digging your hole deeper and proving you really are just using religion and the bible to hide your irrational dislike of homosexuality that you can't justify without quoting a thousand year old book you obviously have not read much of

Corkfeen · 07-07-2014 04:54PM

fran17 wrote: »

The real question now pope is why is the post where you insulted Islam in response to my question #1703 after mysteriously disappearing???

Wouldn't it be great if you actually tried to address refutations of your very weak points? Rather than going the route of anti-catholic claims. You accuse us of not answering questions when every single one of your insane points have been destroyed at this stage.

old hippy · 07-07-2014 05:08PM

fran17 wrote: »

The real question now pope is why is the post where you insulted Islam in response to my question #1703 after mysteriously disappearing???

Are you going to answer flogg's question or are you going to mysteriously disappear?

floggg · 07-07-2014 05:11PM

fran17 wrote: »

The real question now pope is why is the post where you insulted Islam in response to my question #1703 after mysteriously disappearing???

Answer the questions put to you before you go asking for answers from others.

Solid_Shepard · 07-07-2014 05:44PM

fran17 wrote: »

The real question now pope is why is the post where you insulted Islam in response to my question #1703 after mysteriously disappearing???

This is an ad-hominem. Trying to attack an individual to avoid dealing with an argument itself is not a sound argumentative technique. The post has been quoted repeatedly for the last few pages and there is little possibility that you could have actually avoided it.

NuMarvel · 07-07-2014 07:47PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Agreed if there is going to be more than one adjustment in terms of marriage there needs to be two ballots, to avoid any confusion or muddying of the waters by the No vote and to avoid any possibility of a legal challenge afterwards

The change to the age of marriage doesn't need a referendum. It's already been changed twice by legislation: in 1972 when it was raised to 16, and in 1995 when it was raised to 18 (with some exemptions). The proposed change is to get rid of those exemptions.

P_1 wrote: »

True and the constitution can't refer specifically to legislation can it? Which would rule out an "in accordance with X Act 19xx, irrespective of gender" line?

It theoretically can, but it means a referendum needs to be held to update the Constitution any time any part of the Act is changed.

krudler · 07-07-2014 07:58PM

Quoting this again just in case Fran has missed the last dozen or so times it's been asked :pac:

Originally Posted by floggg View Post
Another thing - you're arguing that i should be denied the right to marry because it's against your book. But your book says let he without sin cast the first stone.

So what right have you to impose our judgement on me? You are allowed sin as you wish as its not the States business, and I'm sure you have. Are you going to tell me you have never done any of the following:

* masturbated;
* had non-marital sex;
*had non procreative sex;
* used contraception;
* given or received oral sex of any variety;
* gotten divorced;
* coveted or lusted after your neighbours wife;
* had sexually impure thoughts;
* committed adultery;
* failed to beat your wife when required to do so by the bible.

And that's just in the sexual/marital realm. I won't get into all the other things that you should be doing per the words of your book.

If you're going to try to impose the morality of your book on me, you should tell us what gives us the right to do so. If you can and do violate your book, then why can't I?

I look forward to your answer.

Edit - you might also kindly address whether or not you think doing (or failing to do as applicable) those things should also be made illegal. If you don't think some or all should be made illegal, please explain why since unlike same sex marriage, those are expressly prohibited by god (don't think god (or his ghost writes) has ever actually said anything about same sex marriage).

Well? you've abstained from all the other stuff your book of makey uppy nonsense and fairy tales has a beef with? Hmmm?

PopePalpatine · 07-07-2014 08:02PM

fran17 wrote: »

The real question now pope is why is the post where you insulted Islam in response to my question #1703 after mysteriously disappearing???

What are you trying to say?

krudler · 07-07-2014 08:11PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

What are you trying to say?

If you think it was just Jeebus who was a mentally unsound trickster or do the other religious leaders get a pass.

fran17 · 07-07-2014 08:25PM

could a moderator please clarify for me why a poster who submitted a post which insulted islam,and this post was deemed to be of a certain nature as to be removed immediately,has not received an infraction for this post?
if this is not the correct place to ask this question then please instruct me how to.i would flag the post but it has been removed

krudler · 07-07-2014 08:32PM

fran17 wrote: »

could a moderator please clarify for me why a poster who submitted a post which insulted islam,and this post was deemed to be of a certain nature as to be removed immediately,has not received an infraction for this post?
if this is not the correct place to ask this question then please instruct me how to.i would flag the post but it has been removed

Oh good jesus, just answer the questions you were asked. At least be honest about it.

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Comments