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

floggg wrote: »

Those questions should be directed at Fran "if I don't acknowledge the question I can't be shown up as wrong" 17, not me.

You're right, sincere apologies. I knew they related to Fran17, but when I went looking for the post where he pretended he would answer questions I mistakenly quoted yours. I do feel foolish.

One person posted earlier about legislation being passed that would prevent a child having a mother and a father. This was challenged twice and not answered. It was (IMO) an attempt to equate the outcome of the referendum vote with Oireachtas legislation and failed. Let's tie this lie down, the referendum is NOT legislation, it is an actual free vote by the people on the content of our constitution and is superior to legislation. The basis of the future Irish family is being set in actual Oireachtas legislation completely separate from the referendum.

I have been annoyed about some posters claiming that Christians have been attacked merely for saying they will vote No. That is a false story. Most of the adverse comments made about the Christians statements are because their statements claim the traditional Irish Christian family (Mum, Dad & Kids) is the base on which the referendum decision must be decided.

I have no problem with any Christians making a decision to vote NO, as long as it includes a prior honest consideration of the reason for it and an awareness that their decision will affect the present, the next and other generations (straight and gay) of our country, regardless of religion. As a Christian, I do have a problem with people claiming Christian beliefs are the basis on which to decide a matter of civil law here. It is NOT a matter of Christian family dogma being decided on in the referendum. It is the future of constitutional marriage rights for the present, the next generation and further generations we are on about here. If they cannot be honest about the reason the vote is being called for, I would hope my fellow Christians would keep quiet.

kylith wrote: »

The sort of attitude you describe* would mean that anyone not paying lip-service to the RCC wouldn't be able to be legally married in this country.

Well RobertKK was actually suggesting to abolish the concept of legal marriage altogether. I think elsewhere he proposed it would be replaced by a legal contract of some sort. What RobertKK may not understand is that

(a) legal marriage is a contract, between the married parties and the state, to afford the couple a level of protection regarding property rights, taxation, inheritance, power of attorney, guardianship etc.

(b) religious marriage alone is not recognised by the state, regardless of religion.

(c) in fact in Ireland currently every religious marriage ceremony also involves a civil (legal) marriage, which happens when the couple sign the civil registration forms.

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek by suggesting that the reason RobertKK wanted to throw the baby out with the bathwater is because it looks like 'marriage' as he now understands it will include SSM.

Sorry. I already have dibs on 'plongle'. Stop oppressing me please.

Zen65 wrote: »

Well RobertKK was actually suggesting to abolish the concept of legal marriage altogether. I think elsewhere he proposed it would be replaced by a legal contract of some sort. What RobertKK may not understand is that

(a) legal marriage is a contract, between the married parties and the state, to afford the couple a level of protection regarding property rights, taxation, inheritance, power of attorney, guardianship etc.

(b) religious marriage alone is not recognised by the state, regardless of religion.

(c) in fact in Ireland currently every religious marriage ceremony also involves a civil (legal) marriage, which happens when the couple sign the civil registration forms.

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek by suggesting that the reason RobertKK wanted to throw the baby out with the bathwater is because it looks like 'marriage' as he now understands it will include SSM.

That proposal is some illogical that I can't really believe it is a serious proposal. It would be completely pointless without accompanying legal rights and obligations, and unenforceable without a legal means of enforcing it - which would requires a legal definition of what constitutes a marriage.

We are therefore left with "playground marriages" which mean as much as the one you entered into as a 5 year old with an onion ring crisp on your finger, or we have a system which sets out paramters on which types of marriages will be recognised, the grounds on which they may be effectively terminated as a matter of law and which carries certain legal rights and obligations - which is exactly what we have today.

RobertKK wrote:

Yet not every country has civil marriage.

Perhaps you might illuminate us on who type of "marriage" these countries have, and whether they have the force of law?

You might also clarify what type of legal system they have, and whether they might be some form of theocracy as I suspect.

RobertKK wrote: »

Yet not every country has civil marriage.

Yet, we're not other countries. We're talking about Ireland.

As it stands, marriage is a legal matter between a citizen and the state, and employees of the Church have the legal right to legally marry two people. It is devoid of anything to do with religion.

A wedding ceremony is nothing more than that, a ceremony. It's a sparkles and song a dance parade where people dress up and two of them profess their love for each other. The couple isn't actually married until the legal document is signed after the ceremony is complete.

The -only- requirement to marry two people in Ireland is to be a certified Registrar of the State, the persons position within a particular is entirely irrelevant.

The only thing that will change come the Referendum, is that a Registrar can perform the same duties with two people of the same gender, and their partnership will be legally recognized by the State. It has -nothing- to do with religion.

Zen65 wrote: »

It depends on what your motivation is. Perhaps RobertKK is not married and has no comprehension of the important benefits of a civil marriage to the surviving spouse? Perhaps as I suggested tongue-in-cheek earlier RobertKK merely despairs that there may one day exist a marriage status available equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples?

Well even the countried mentioned recognise marriage as a matter of law, and resulting rights and obligations* - they just outsource responsibility for determining what marriages should be recognised to religion.

*Granted most mentioned are Islamic countries, and on the stricter side of Islamic at that, so the rights probably only apply to husbands and may involve the right to beat and rape their wife ad they wish. But the marriage still has legal force and effect.

floggg wrote: »

Eerily quiet from Robert. Shall we file this whole thing under "bull****" then?

No, I am not quiet, have been having a private conversation over PM with a member here, and I am going to leave it at that.
I am not saying anymore. It is not worth getting into trouble for.

I don't care what the result of the vote is, I will vote as how I want and others will do the same.
There will be no further comment from me in this thread. I expect others to respect that decision, or simply use it for pot shots knowing they will not get a response, which would be cowardly.

RobertKK wrote: »

No, I am not quiet, have been having a private conversation over PM with a member here, and I am going to leave it at that.
I am not saying anymore. It is not worth getting into trouble for.

I don't care what the result of the vote is, I will vote as how I want and others will do the same.
There will be no further comment from me in this thread. I expect others to respect that decision, or simply use it for pot shots knowing they will not get a response, which would be cowardly.

Lol. So complete and utter unsubstantiated bull****.

And a bit rich for the guy who left the conversation once he was challenged to explain his statements to throw the word coward around (and in a rather transparent attempt to shut down any commentary on his claims).

Mod note:If a user doesn't wish to reply, they don't have to. Trying to force someone to reply merely drags the thread off topic. Please stop attempting to force others to reply and/or being uncivil.

Brutal Deluxe wrote: »

Mod note:If a user doesn't wish to reply, they don't have to. Trying to force someone to reply merely drags the thread off topic. Please stop attempting to force others to reply and/or being uncivil.

Just to be clear, wasn't trying to force, or even expecting, Robert to reply.

I was just making it clear I saw through his passive aggressive attempt at shutting down criticism of a sham argument he himself introduced on more than one occasion on this thread (and others).

I heard on the radio that it is really going to depend on the turnout how the vote will go. Over 65s were more likely to vote no apparently, and more in rural ireland, farming community to go towards a no vote. Don't quote me but it sort of makes obvious sense the types of people who will vote against. I guess educating is the best way forward.although you can always be surprised by who is forward thinking and who is not. SMM is nothing to be feared, in every walks of life you will have good and bad people but we should always give a minority a chance to be allowed rights.