How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Zubeneschamali · 28-01-2015 10:01PM

reprise wrote: »

Because the biological children of marriage are a significant consideration of the raison d'etre of marriage.

French? Really? When making up legal nonsense, it's traditional to use Latin.

Bannasidhe · 28-01-2015 10:01PM

reprise wrote: »

Because the biological children of marriage are a significant consideration of the raison d'etre of marriage.

Nope.

Marriage is a mechanism which makes two people who are not biologically related legally 'family' and next of kin so property and the like can be easily transferred with minimal taxation, medical decisions can be made etc etc.

Marriage used to be a way for women to lose all of their property to their new husbands hence why so many aristocrats married rich Americans (as in Downtown Abbey) but it got redefined.

The legal contract of marriage is not contingent on there being children although marriage legislation does have clauses which deal with children should any exist.

Ave Sodalis · 28-01-2015 10:02PM

Nodin wrote: »

Why?

We are never going to get an answer.

K4t · 28-01-2015 10:05PM

mickstupp wrote: »

Usually says it on my screen, whether it's public or private. Might be the theme you're using?

Yeah maybe I didn't look in my hurry to click yes.

COYVB · 28-01-2015 10:06PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Nope.

Marriage is a mechanism which makes two people who are not biologically related legally 'family' and next of kin so property and the like can be easily transferred with minimal taxation, medical decisions can be made etc etc.

Marriage used to be a way for women to lose all of their property to their new husbands hence why so many aristocrats married rich Americans (as in Downtown Abbey) but it got redefined.

The legal contract of marriage is not contingent on there being children although marriage legislation does have clauses which deal with children should any exist.

apparently we're only going by the church's definition

reprise · 28-01-2015 10:07PM

COYVB wrote: »

Why are you taking marriage ONLY on the church's definition of it? Are you very religious? That'd at least give people understanding of your unwavering dedication to a definition thousands of years younger than recorded history, and hundreds of thousands of years younger than humanity

Not particularly.

Being married myself with kids, I find a perspective that was not their before kids. I kind of "get" marriage more now than I ever did and I have a respect for the ideals now, more so than ever before.

For all that, I think the referendum will pass, but I think the result is being taken for granted and it could very well fail for that reason.

COYVB · 28-01-2015 10:09PM

reprise wrote: »

I kind of "get" marriage more now than I ever did and I have a respect for the ideals now

So imagine that same feeling you've got now, but not being allowed to call it marriage, and losing out on all the legal benefits of marriage because of it. That's what you're happy to have continue for gay folk

Zen65 · 28-01-2015 10:12PM

reprise wrote: »

Remind me, what did she change?

Not wishing to derail this thread, but since you asked . . .

She changed

the international perception of Ireland by becoming the first female president
the perception that only Fianna Fáil could choose Ireland's presidency, by garnering support from multiple parties, and in opposition to FF
the perception of a country which was ruled over by the church. Mary was denounced by the Catholic church across Ireland for her work in promoting family planning through artificial contraception. Her appointment marked a shift in women's rights.
the traditional stance taken by the Irish Presidency on homosexual law. She was known for her work in promoting the decriminalisation of homosexuality, and during her tenure signed into law the repeal of these laws
the reputation of Irish President as being little more than a retirement position for prominent (FF) politicians.
the climate of Anglo-Irish relations, being the first serving Irish president to visit the United Kingdom and meet Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace, paving the way for Mary McAleese's visits in later years.
and again when she welcomed the Prince of Wales to Áras an Uachtaráin
she was publicly photographed shaking the hand of Gerry Adams, an act that had been considered politically unacceptable, but which is now seen as being one of the drivers which prompted and supported dialogue for peace in the North
the role of Áras an Uachtaráin, using it to invite maginalised groups (including GLEN) for meetings
the international importance of the Irish Presidency when she visited Rwanda after their civil war and brought a focus to the plight of people there
the perception of Irish President forever by demonstrating that a holder of the office could command the respect of the wider international community when she was offered and accepted the role as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Do you recall any other Irish President being offered anything like this role on the international stage?

I think it's fair to say that internationally she was regarded in greater esteem than any previous Irish President.

reprise · 28-01-2015 10:16PM

COYVB wrote: »

So imagine that same feeling you've got not, but not being allowed to call it marriage, and losing out on all the legal benefits of marriage because of it. That's what you're happy to have continue for gay folk

I don't see the biological equivalence.

Bannasidhe · 28-01-2015 10:18PM

COYVB wrote: »

apparently we're only going by the church's definition

Well, the RCC had no problem marrying small children to each other, or very young girls to very old men (who were expected to wait to consummate until puberty started but they were 'legally' married so you know yourself - what God had joined and all that...) or granting annulments on tenuous grounds as long as it suited the Vatican's purpose (thereby rendering 'legitimate' children 'illegitimate' at the stroke of a pen) so I'm not sure those who extol the Church's view are really aware of the Church's actual view.

Alzo - the Church no longer gets to decide what it a legal marriage - that is the sole preserve of the State so their view has been consigned to the dustbin of history and they are left only as the window dressing.

All things considered, the RCC's view of marriage is about as relevant as their views about people reading the Bible.

reprise · 28-01-2015 10:19PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

French? Really? When making up legal nonsense, it's traditional to use Latin.

Tu noli dicere

COYVB · 28-01-2015 10:20PM

reprise wrote: »

I don't see the biological equivalence.

Marriage has nothing to do with biology. It's not natural, it's not biological. It's a human construct.

A human construct that existed LONG before it was banned by the church between same sex couples - something you've now ignored multiple times when I've raised it.

Same sex marriage is ONLY not accepted because the church banned it. That's the only reason, not biology, not anything.

Zen65 · 28-01-2015 10:21PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Marriage is a mechanism which makes two people who are not biologically related legally 'family' and next of kin so property and the like can be easily transferred with minimal taxation, medical decisions can be made etc etc.

+1

Also, in fairness, marriage is a means of establishing the inheritance rights of children and the guardianship rights of parents. It does not, however, protect the children in any other way other than establishing legitimacy over guardianship etc. New laws being passed ahead of the referendum sort this out for adopted children, but for children whose parents (natural or adoptive) are unmarried these rights do not automatically exist.

Voting 'no' in the referendum will not protect children, it will mean that non-biological parents who cannot marry their partner will have no guardianship rights in the event of the biological parent dying.

Ave Sodalis · 28-01-2015 10:22PM

Zen65 wrote: »

Voting 'no' in the referendum will not protect children, it will mean that non-biological parents who cannot marry their partner will have no guardianship rights in the event of the biological parent dying.

Ironically causing more damage to children

hurlsey · 28-01-2015 10:22PM

Firstly I'm straight Secondly I'll be voting YES

I can see no logical reason why a same sex couple should not be afforded the benefits of being legally married that I can have, moreover the CHOICE

I don't see how we can have an "equal" society if we discriminate against people for any reason, and something as trivial as sexual orientation seems laughable to me

Mr.Frame · 28-01-2015 10:27PM

To those who say "I think the referendum will pass" and maybe might not vote.

I would firstly say NO ONE knows that it will pass ,it is not a certainty and therefore I would ask that you use your vote.

To those that say "it doesn't affect me ",so I am not going to vote.

I would say ,it might not affect YOU, but it could affect someone you know, a family member, a neighbour, a relative or one of your children that may grow up to be gay/lesbian.

"Traditional" marriage will not be affected in any way if this referendum is passed, and life will continue on.

It just means that marriage will now be extended to same sex couples, something I long for.

Please vote YES.

Thanks

Bannasidhe · 28-01-2015 10:27PM

COYVB wrote: »

Marriage has nothing to do with biology. It's not natural, it's not biological. It's a human construct.

A human construct that existed LONG before it was banned by the church between same sex couples - something you've now ignored multiple times when I've raised it.

Same sex marriage is ONLY not accepted because the church banned it. That's the only reason, not biology, not anything.

They took their time banning it too as Yale historian John Boswell discovered the Church was perfectly happy to officiate at the union of two men

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

Boswell's 1979 article can be found here: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.asp

reprise · 28-01-2015 10:29PM

COYVB wrote: »

Marriage has nothing to do with biology. It's not natural, it's not biological. It's a human construct.

As is society, education etc etc

COYVB wrote: »

A human construct that existed LONG before it was banned by the church between same sex couples - something you've now ignored multiple times when I've raised it.

I haven't ignored it. I'm just not interested. There are plenty of things banned by the church and society in thousands of years of human history.

COYVB wrote: »

Same sex marriage is ONLY not accepted because the church banned it. That's the only reason, not biology, not anything.

You are entitled to your opinion, you may even be right.

floggg · 28-01-2015 10:32PM

COYVB wrote: »

You can't expect a letter that attempts to push nature as a defense for marriage to be taken seriously. Marriage is a human construct, and absolutely not a "nature" thing - conversely, gay couples are found throughout the animal kingdom, if one were to go that particular route.

It seems to me that a lot of people on the no side are getting caught up on the word marriage. I don't think gay couples care if it's called marriage or "superfab lifelove" - they want the same rights, as they rightly should. Let us straighties keep the word marriage, who gives a crap, but give gay couples a direct equivalent in every single way, if that'll stop the no side getting their knickers in a twist.

The word doesn't matter; it's a made up human word for a relatively recent concept.

No, I dont want to settle for a separate but equal arrangement.

The only reason for doing so would be to maintain the notion that gay relationships were not quite equal, or that the need to be marked out as different in some way.

I don't care what any private citizen wants to think of my relationship, but I want my State to recognise it equal in all regards.

COYVB · 28-01-2015 10:32PM

reprise wrote: »

As is society, education etc etc

neither are human constructs

reprise wrote: »

I haven't ignored it. I'm just not interested. There are plenty of things banned by the church and society in thousands of years of human history.

And none of those things banned by the church should factor into a secular state such as Ireland is supposed to be

reprise wrote: »

You are entitled to your opinion, you may even be right.

First sensible thing you've said all thread

COYVB · 28-01-2015 10:33PM

floggg wrote: »

No, I dont want to settle for a separate but equal arrangement.

The only reason for doing so would be to maintain the notion that gay relationships were not quite equal, or that the need to be marked out as different in some way.

I don't care what any private citizen wants to think of my relationship, but I want my State to recognise it equal in all regards.

that's what i was getting at though, it's the private citizen's perspective of it. marriage is still seen as a religious thing by too many people. guess what religious people, you've banned gay people - they, for the most part, don't want to be part of your little club, but they DO want you to butt the hell out of their lives and let them marry should they choose to

floggg · 28-01-2015 10:35PM

reprise wrote: »

I think he was referring the the possibility of procreation. Don't let that stop you.

Oh some I'm sub-human if I don't pro-create?

Nice. I hope he tells that to all childless people he meets.

floggg · 28-01-2015 10:36PM

reprise wrote: »

Can we put this to bed? My marriage will be unchanged by the referendum. I am focused on the wisdom of changing that which makes marriage what it is.

Again, where is it said that gender is what makes marriage what it is?

Married straight people - do you honestly list being of the opposite gender to your spouse as high on the list of what's important to your relationship?

COYVB · 28-01-2015 10:39PM

floggg wrote: »

do you honestly list being of the opposite gender to your spouse as high on the list of what's important to your relationship?

i think most people will say yes. if my wife was the same gender as me, she'd not be my wife, since I'm not gay

reprise · 28-01-2015 10:40PM

floggg wrote: »

Oh some I'm sub-human if I don't pro-create?

Nice. I hope he tells that to all childless people he meets.

You could always respond to his letter if you feel so strongly. I suspect it's a far more effective platform than this.

floggg · 28-01-2015 10:41PM

reprise wrote: »

I often find one or two worded posts haughty, arrogant and dismissive and indicative of the person posting.

reprise wrote: »

Life.

reprise wrote: »

You may go.

You must not have a very positive self image then...

UCDVet · 28-01-2015 10:41PM

I still think it's amazing that so many people support gay marriage, but so few support polygamy.

http://www.csectioncomics.com/csectioncomics/comics/2013-05-09-freedom-of-marriage.png

"The government shouldn't dictate who we can and can't marry, so long as we only want to marry one person. Either gender is okay....but only one person! I mean, the government has no business telling people who they can and can't love, it is the choice of individuals. As long as they do it in the way that I approve of, that is to say marriage has always been, and should always be, one person loving one other person. Anything else is wrong and shouldn't be allowed."

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 28-01-2015 10:42PM

spikeS wrote: »

It's a private poll, if anyone boards is going to vote no they would as we wouldn't know who they are.

With over 75% yes I got it's going to be a white wash the poll is an extremely positive thing to see

Oh you sweet summer child...

This is not a lock, not by a long shot. While I'd say by and large there are more people in Ireland who support SSM than not, generally that support is of the common sense/who cares variety than anything passionately felt (apart from us lgbt folks and our families). The no voters on the other hand seem to feel more passionately, and the figures in the opinion polls mean that they're going to be very aware that their vote counts. If this doesn't pass it'll be down to low turnout rather than an accurate reflection of public opinion. Not, mind you, that Iona and the like won't be citing it in 30 years in declarations about how the Irish people don't want SSM.

COYVB · 28-01-2015 10:42PM

UCDVet wrote: »

I still think it's amazing that so many people support gay marriage, but so few support polygamy.

http://www.csectioncomics.com/csectioncomics/comics/2013-05-09-freedom-of-marriage.png

"The government shouldn't dictate who we can and can't marry, so long as we only want to marry one person. Either gender is okay....but only one person! I mean, the government has no business telling people who they can and can't love, it is the choice of individuals. As long as they do it in the way that I approve of, that is to say marriage has always been, and should always be, one person loving one other person. Anything else is wrong and shouldn't be allowed."

Polygamy isn't allowed because of the absolute red tape nightmare that surrounds it, more than anything else

Bannasidhe · 28-01-2015 10:45PM

UCDVet wrote: »

I still think it's amazing that so many people support gay marriage, but so few support polygamy.

http://www.csectioncomics.com/csectioncomics/comics/2013-05-09-freedom-of-marriage.png

"The government shouldn't dictate who we can and can't marry, so long as we only want to marry one person. Either gender is okay....but only one person! I mean, the government has no business telling people who they can and can't love, it is the choice of individuals. As long as they do it in the way that I approve of, that is to say marriage has always been, and should always be, one person loving one other person. Anything else is wrong and shouldn't be allowed."

Absolutely. I shouldn't be allowed to have one wife because my brother isn't allowed two.

Is there some reason those who want polygamy can't campaign for it?
Are they too tired or something?

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Comments