Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

SSM Referendum Spring 2015

Options
1…6364656668

Comments

  • Options
    #2012
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Daith wrote: »
    By being defined

    Show me the definition of marriage in our constitution.

    It's not in our constitution. It's defined in our laws (age, genders, process, divorce, etc).

    The constitutional amendment is to ensure the change od definition in law will stand up to constitutional challenge.


  • Options
    #2013
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    old hippy wrote: »
    It is not being redefined. This has been pointed out to you again and again.

    But that's wrong. No matter how many times it's pointed out.


  • Options
    #2014
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    There is of course a definition of marriage. It isn't written in our constitution, but it is defined by the limits, rules and regulations in our legislation (age, gender, process of solemnising, etc).

    Yes it is not written into our constitution. So we are not voting next year on an ammendemnt to change marriage in our constitution but to define what marriage is in it.

    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Why else would we be having a referendum, if marriage is something we are just going to define in Spring 2015?

    We don't need a referendum allow same sex marriage. Legislation change to the Civil Registration act would do the same thing.


  • Options
    #2015
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Daith wrote: »
    We don't need a referendum allow same sex marriage. Legislation change to the Civil Registration act would do the same thing.

    And it would fail a constitutional test.


  • Options
    #2016
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    And it would fail a constitutional test.

    That's to be decided. You don't know it would.

    Especially as marriage isn't you know defined in our constitution. Not until next year of course


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2017
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    But that's wrong. No matter how many times it's pointed out.

    You're wrong & you're derailing the thread. Again.

    It's about equality. Nit picking and willful obfuscation adds nothing to the debate.


  • Options
    #2018
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    You know of he wants to play the "changing the definition" game let him.

    It will change the definition in the civil registration act only.

    It won't however chane the meaning or purpose of marriage. It won't have an impact whatsoever on existing or future marriages. It won't devalue, or increase the value of any marriage.

    It will just mean that two men or two woman can marry.

    If he chooses to see that as a fundamental shift in marriage let him. If he believes marriage is defined by the anatomy of the spouses rather than the love and shared mutual commitment that's great.

    I hope he isn't married though because if I was his wife I would be pissed that he sees their marriage being defined by the presence of a penis and vagina, rather than any love, affection, or commitment.

    He cannot however make any claim that it changes what marriage is - because it will remain the same. The thing that binds two people together will be the same before and after the referendum is (hopefully) passed, and the love and commitment between a straight married couple and a gay married couple will always be the same.


  • Options
    #2019
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    floggg wrote: »
    It won't however chane the meaning or purpose of marriage. It won't have an impact whatsoever on existing or future marriages. It won't devalue, or increase the value of any marriage.

    He cannot however make any claim that it changes what marriage is - because it will remain the same. The thing that binds two people together will be the same before and after the referendum is (hopefully) passed, and the love and commitment between a straight married couple and a gay married couple will always be the same.

    Of course!
    It's a redefinition. But the only change will be that, for the first time in Ireland, a marriage can be between two people of the same gender. Everything else stays the same (I never said it wouldn't!!)

    That's the change in definition people seem to want and that's what they'll (most likely) get.


  • Options
    #2020
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    And it would fail a constitutional test.

    Again, please tell why exactly?

    Not even the AG would say definitively - no lawyer would.

    There is no basis for saying it on a plain reading of the text, and the intention of the drafters aren't relevant to the meaning of the words in 2014.


  • Options
    #2021
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    It's odd that the Yes side (with which I'm inclined to vote) wants change but claims that there is no change.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2022
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Of course!
    It's a redefinition.

    When the people of Ireland vote in the referendum next year will they

    A) Change the wording of an existing definition in our constitution
    B) Create a definition to our constitution.

    I'm only talking about the constitution here because that is what a referendum is for.


  • Options
    #2023
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Of course!
    It's a redefinition. But the only change will be that, for the first time in Ireland, a marriage can be between two people of the same gender. Everything else stays the same (I never said it wouldn't!!)

    That's the change in definition people seem to want and that's what they'll (most likely) get.

    Yes, it is, a very technical one.

    Marriage equality will redefine the word "marriage" to about the same extent hybrid and electric engines redefined the word "car."

    I have never heard anybody get too excited about a Prius redefining words though.


  • Options
    #2024
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    It's odd that the Yes side (with which I'm inclined to vote) wants change but claims that there is no change.

    There will be a change to our constitution. Not to a definition of marriage in our constitution.


  • Options
    #2025
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    "Redefinition of marriage" is a red herring anyway.

    There's no good reason why it can't or shouldn't be redefined/expanded/more inclusive/whatever.

    Claims that it shouldn't/can't be changed are appeals to tradition which have no bearing in logic or reality.


  • Options
    #2026
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    seamus wrote: »
    "Redefinition of marriage" is a red herring anyway..

    Especially as the No side are redefining marriage to mean a man, woman and their biological children anyway....


  • Options
    #2027
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    It's odd that the Yes side (with which I'm inclined to vote) wants change but claims that there is no change.

    Did allowing women to vote redefine or otherwise change the nature of what a vote was?

    Did allowing black people to use a water fountain redefine or change the nature of the water fountain?

    Did allowing single gay people adopt redefine or change the nature of what adoption was?


  • Options
    #2028
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    floggg wrote: »
    Did allowing women to vote redefine or otherwise change the nature of what a vote was?

    Did allowing black people to use a water fountain redefine or change the nature of the water fountain?

    Did allowing single gay people adopt redefine or change the nature of what adoption was?

    No

    No

    and No.

    But redefining a marriage, which is a civil union between one man and one woman, to a civil union between one man or woman and one man or woman is a redefinition.

    It is a redefinition that will be explicitly allowed for by constitutional amendment.


  • Options
    #2029
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    No

    No

    and No.

    But redefining a marriage, which is a civil union between one man and one woman, to a civil union between one man or woman and one man or woman is a redefinition.

    It is a redefinition that will be explicitly allowed for by constitutional amendment.

    So? That's the big deal?


  • Options
    #2030
    Otacon
    Registered Users Posts: 6,721 ✭✭✭Otacon


    To 'redefine' something implies that whatever existed before which met that definition has changed in some way.

    I think a better phrase would be that the referendum will amend the scope of the word marriage.


  • Options
    #2031
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    But redefining a marriage, which is a civil union between one man and one woman, to a civil union between one man or woman and one man or woman is a redefinition.

    It will not be redefined but the privilege of marriage will be given to more people.

    If you change the age at which you can marry to 21 are you redefining marriage or limiting it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2032
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    No

    No

    and No.

    But redefining a marriage, which is a civil union between one man and one woman, to a civil union between one man or woman and one man or woman is a redefinition.

    It is a redefinition that will be explicitly allowed for by constitutional amendment.

    Redefining a vote, which was the right of a man to input into the making of a decision or to have a say, to a right of a person regardless of gender to input into the making of a decision or to have a say, was a redefinition.

    Redefining the water fountain, which was a device which provided hydration for the exclusive use of members of the public of the Caucasian race, to a device which provided hydration for the use of any member of the public regardless of race, was a redefinition.

    Redefining adoption, which was the right of a married couple or single heterosexual to assume the parenting of a child, to the right of a married couple or a single person (regardless of sexual orientation) to assume the parenting of a child, was a redefinition.

    We can all play pedantics of we wish. You can dress up any change to the law as a redefinition of some right, institution or concept.

    The nature and purpose of the institution of marriage won't change - only the eligibility criteria. Same as the right to vote, same as adoption, same as the water fountain. If it's defining for one, it's redefining for all.


  • Options
    #2033
    VinLieger
    Registered Users Posts: 17,779 ✭✭✭✭VinLieger


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    Your just being silly now.

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #2034
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    _Redzer_ wrote: »
    So? That's the big deal?

    No big deal.

    I used the word referred to marriage being redefined and people weren't happy with me.
    old hippy wrote: »
    Marriage is not being redefined - this has been pointed out umpteen times.


  • Options
    #2035
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    No big deal.

    I used the word referred to marriage being redefined and people weren't happy with me.

    They just debated your point
    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    But redefining a marriage, which is a civil union between one man and one woman

    A marriage isn't just about gender. A marriage is a civil union between two people of different gender who are of the legal age (among other criteria)

    If you change the legal age of who can get married are you redefining marriage?


  • Options
    #2036
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Daith wrote: »
    A marriage isn't just about gender. A marriage is a civil union between one man and one woman who are of the legal age (among other criteria)

    If you change the legal age of who can get married are you redefining marriage?

    It isn't just about gender, no.

    If you change the legal age you are not redefining it (certainly not by much) as it is still a contract between one male and one female.


  • Options
    #2037
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    No

    No

    and No.

    But redefining a marriage, which is a civil union between one man and one woman, to a civil union between one man or woman and one man or woman is a redefinition.

    It is a redefinition that will be explicitly allowed for by constitutional amendment.

    By your own logic, it was redefining the vote. The vote had always been patriarchal up until women had the right to vote. So try and be consistent.


  • Options
    #2038
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    It isn't just about gender, no.

    If you change the legal age you are not redefining it (certainly not by much) as it is still a contract between one male and one female.


    Why say that changing gender is redefining marriage but not changing age? Why is gender more important than age?

    Both are criteria for being eligible to get married. I don't see why one is more important than the other?


  • Options
    #2039
    _Redzer_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,056 ✭✭✭_Redzer_


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    No big deal.

    I used the word referred to marriage being redefined and people weren't happy with me.

    Well they're right, it's not being redefined considering there's actually nothing in the constitution that omits same sex couples from marrying because it doesn't even specify gender of any sort.

    They're just amending it to clarify that it's open to anyone. Had it specifically stated one man and one woman, there might be something to be said, but it's still an amendment, an addition, not a reevaluation like you're painting it to be.


  • Options
    #2040
    floggg
    Registered Users Posts: 5,820 ✭✭✭floggg


    I Heart Internet wrote: »
    It isn't just about gender, no.

    If you change the legal age you are not redefining it (certainly not by much) as it is still a contract between one male and one female.

    By redefining marriage, being between one man and one woman both over the age of 18, to being between one man and one woman both over the age of 40, you are redefining marriage.

    I can play this came all day too you know


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2041
    I Heart Internet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,678 ✭✭✭I Heart Internet


    Daith wrote: »
    Why say that changing gender is redefining marriage but not changing age? Why is gender more important than age?

    Both are criteria for being eligible to get married. I don't see why one is more important than the other?

    Age is transient, gender is not.


Advertisement