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

Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

1…2021232526…34

Comments

  • #662
    Benny_Cake
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,205 ✭✭✭Benny_Cake


    a postere wrote: »
    But Christiany doesn't teach Christians follow "your own conscience" as adam and eve, it explicitly requires you not follow your own authority. Did you never hear of the Kingdom of God ? So it's hypocritical to claim to be a Christian, while claiming to be your own authority instead on moral matters.

    Well, what is your authority? Do you pray before making moral choices?

    If you're a Catholic I'd suggest you read what Newman wrote on conscience, it's very worthwhile.


  • #663
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    but that is exactly what it does. who do you think it excludes?

    Show me where it does this ? Since when can three people who want to get married do so ? Or two brothers ? or two children, or two psychiatric patients without mental capacity, all these people are also full "citizens of the state". It extends civil marriage to certain and very specific couples who meet certain criteria only. Let's not pretend it's something its not.


  • #664
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    a postere wrote: »
    Show me where it does this ? Since when can three people who want to get married do so ? Or two brothers ? or two children, or two psychiatric patients without mental capacity, all these people are also full "citizens of the state". It extends civil marriage to certain and very specific couples who meet certain criteria only. Let's not pretend it's something its not.


    ...


  • #665
    humanji
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,976 ✭✭✭✭humanji


    MOD: This isn't about Christianity or polygamy. Please stick to the actual topic.


  • #666
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    Well, what is your authority? Do you pray before making moral choices?

    If you're a Catholic I'd suggest you read what Newman wrote on conscience, it's very worthwhile.

    Why exactly would I be doing what you tell me to do instead ?
    Was he an advocate of same sex marriage ? "Surely you will not die, your eyes will be opened" and all that jazz, lol the old ones are the best eh ;)


  • Advertisement
  • #667
    Clandestine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭Clandestine


    I felt he made some decent points to be honest, but I still don't agree with the "marriage is about having children" point. What about old or infertile couples?


  • #668
    omnithanos
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 710 ✭✭✭omnithanos


    Benny_Cake wrote: »
    Well, what is your authority? Do you pray before making moral choices?

    If you're a Catholic I'd suggest you read what Newman wrote on conscience, it's very worthwhile.

    Paul Newman?


  • #669
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,190 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    a postere wrote: »
    Show me where it does this ? Since when can three people who want to get married do so ? Or two brothers ? or two children, or two psychiatric patients without mental capacity, all these people are also full "citizens of the state". It extends civil marriage to certain and very specific couples who meet certain criteria only. Let's not pretend it's something its not.
    Aside - two brothers getting married is less of an issue than a brother and sister...

    But any road, I think it can be taken for granted here that we're discussing equality in regards to sexuality. That is, that people are not treated differently by the state because of their sexuality.
    There are many other forms of inequality, but we're not discussing them and it would be disingenuous to pretend you thought otherwise.


  • #670
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    omnithanos wrote: »
    Paul Newman?

    cardinal newman. But i'm sure you knew that already.

    http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.net/theology.html


  • #671
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,705 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    a postere wrote: »
    I haven't decided yet and the vote isn't to give "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State" as you've just tried to claim, its to slightly expand, to only certain types of relationships, the right to marry. A little bit of honesty regarding your campaign would go a lot further.


    For someone who hasn't decided yet, you seem particularly resistant to being informed by the facts?

    - There is no such right defined in the Irish constitution as the right to marry. Nobody, has "the right to marry". It doesn't exist.

    - As it stands, the State recognises the family (undefined) as the fundamental unit of society. It offers protection to the family by the institution of marriage (undefined).

    - Families in which both parties are of the same sex, while they are recognised by the State as a family under the Children and Family Relationship Bill, they are denied the equal protection of the State as a family in which both parties are of opposite sex, because same sex families are denied the opportunity to marry, and are therefore not provided with the equal protection of the State.

    - This referendum is about marriage equality, not simply giving people a day out. The institution of marriage means a hell of a lot more than that - it is an institution recognised by society and protected by the State on behalf of society.

    The civil wedding ceremony isn't the same as the institution of marriage either btw. Many couples are already currently in same sex relationships and denying those couples the right to equal protection of the State is failing to acknowledge that they are equal citizens in society. Rejection of this referendum doesn't mean that these relationships will cease to exist. It simply means they will not have the equal protection of the State as relationships that are already recognised and protected by the State.


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    seamus wrote: »
    Aside - two brothers getting married is less of an issue than a brother and sister...

    But any road, I think it can be taken for granted here that we're discussing equality in regards to sexuality. That is, that people are not treated differently by the state because of their sexuality.
    There are many other forms of inequality, but we're not discussing them and it would be disingenuous to pretend you thought otherwise.

    he claimed the vote was about giving "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State" - it clearly isn't that, it's about extending civil marriage to only specific and certain homosexual couples. A bit of honesty goes a long way.


  • #673
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    For someone who hasn't decided yet, you seem particularly resistant to being informed by the facts?

    When you use a fact, let me know, unlike your false claim a yes vote will give "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State"


  • #674
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    a postere wrote: »
    he claimed the vote was about giving "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State" - it clearly isn't that, it's about extending civil marriage to only specific and certain homosexual couples. A bit of honesty goes a long way.


    ah i see your tactic now. David quinn, is that you?


  • #675
    TwoShedsJackson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    cardinal newman. But i'm sure you knew that already.

    http://www.cardinalnewmansociety.net/theology.html

    What we got here... is a failure to communicate.


  • #676
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    TwoShedsJackson wrote: »
    What we got here... is a failure to communicate.

    why dont you enlighten us?


  • #677
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,705 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    a postere wrote: »
    When you use a fact, let me know, unlike your false claim a yes vote will give "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State"


    With regard to marriage on the basis of their sex.

    If you were genuinely were undecided, you would be making some effort to understand where other people are coming from rather than engaging in picky pedantry in a disingenuous attempt to undermine other posters.

    You too should practice what you preach when you suggest a bit of honesty wouldn't go amiss.


  • #678
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    Pretty sure he was quoting this :pac:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_we%27ve_got_here_is_failure_to_communicate


    i am aware of the source of the quote. it was its relevance i was questioning.


  • #679
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    With regard to marriage on the basis of their sex.

    If you were genuinely were undecided, you would be making some effort to understand where other people are coming from rather than engaging in picky pedantry in a disingenuous attempt to undermine other posters.

    You too should practice what you preach when you suggest a bit of honesty wouldn't go amiss.

    Your claim still isn't true


  • #680
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    a postere wrote: »
    Your claim still isn't true


    how about actually contributing to the thread? everybody else seems to be clear on what the proposed change will do.


  • #681
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    i am aware of the source of the quote. it was its relevance i was questioning.


    ok, i'm an idiot. i've just go it.


  • Advertisement
  • #682
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,705 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    a postere wrote: »
    Your claim still isn't true


    What particular part are you having difficulty with and I'll try and explain in a way you might understand?


  • #683
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    how about actually contributing to the thread? everybody else seems to be clear on what the proposed change will do.

    Clearly not when the poster is campaigning on false pretenses the vote is for actually giving "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State" instead of extending civil marriage to certain homosexual couples only.


  • #684
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    a postere wrote: »
    Clearly not when the are campaigning on false pretenses the vote is for actually giving "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State" instead of extending civil marriage to certain homosexual couples only.


    the only person who is unclear is you. I would be pretty certain that there is nobody in the country that thinks the proposed change will extend marriage rights to siblings or to polygamous relationships. That would take willful stupidity.


  • #685
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the only person who is unclear is you. I would be pretty certain that there is nobody in the country that thinks the proposed change will extend marriage rights to siblings or to polygamous relationships. That would take willful stupidity.

    No, unlike some people, I'm quite clear what the vote is for, and what it's not for, its for extending civil marriage rights to certain and specific qualifying homosexual couples only - unlike the poster who claimed the vote is actually for giving "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State"


  • #686
    pablomakaveli
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,752 ✭✭✭pablomakaveli


    a postere wrote: »
    No I'm quite clear what the vote is for and what it's not for, unlike the poster who claimed the vote is actually for giving "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State"

    Why are you obsessing over that one statement?


  • #687
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,739 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    a postere wrote: »
    No I'm quite clear what the vote is for and what it's not for, unlike the poster who claimed the vote is actually for giving "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State"

    Well, since the rest of us are perfectly clear on what the other poster meant is there anything else you'd like to add to the discussion?


  • #688
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,705 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    a postere wrote: »
    Clearly not when the poster is campaigning on false pretenses the vote is for actually giving "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State" instead of extending civil marriage to certain homosexual couples only.


    Start with the basics -

    You understand what is meant by the institution of marriage in a civil context, right?

    Currently, that institution is only available to heterosexual couples.

    This referendum is about inserting into our constitution the wording which would make that opportunity available to all people regardless of their sex - ie, the protection of the State to all citizens.


  • #689
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    a postere wrote: »
    No, unlike some people, I'm quite clear what the vote is for, and what it's not for, its for extending civil marriage rights to certain and specific qualifying homosexual couples only - unlike the poster who claimed the vote is actually for giving "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State"


    it is clear that your only purpose here is to pick a fight and derail the thread.


  • #690
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Start with the basics -

    You understand what is meant by the institution of marriage in a civil context, right?

    Currently, that institution is only available to heterosexual couples.

    This referendum is about inserting into our constitution the wording which would make that opportunity available to all people regardless of their sex - ie, the protection of the State to all citizens.

    It doesn't extend it all "all people regardless of their sex" - that's another false claim, it extends it to certain homosexual couples only.

    And what about your other false claim that the vote is actually about giving "every citizen in this country the equal protection of the State" - it clearly isn't.


  • Advertisement
  • #691
    a postere
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 194 ✭✭a postere


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    it is clear that your only purpose here is to pick a fight and derail the thread.

    A false claim is a false claim, why are posters supposed to endorse false claims ?


Advertisement