Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

floggg · 17-04-2015 04:05PM

Flem31 wrote: »

You listed the various criteria required for marriage as it currently stands .....sex, mental capacity, blood relationship and age.

But only one is deemed as discriminatory.
Not trying to derail the thread, just trying to understand how one criteria is deemed to be anti equality but the others are ok.

Because one is based solely on the sexual orientation and gender of the persons concerned, and serves no objectively justifiable purpose.

The other criteria are criteria equally applicable to all races, genders and sexual orientations and do serve legitimate and identifiable purposes.

Equality doesn't mean you are allowed do whatever you want. Banning women from owning guns is discriminatory. That doesn't mean banning everybody from owning a fully armed tank is.

ohnonotgmail · 17-04-2015 04:06PM

floggg wrote: »

Because one is based solely on the sexual orientation and gender of the persons concerned, and serves no objectively justifiable purpose.

The other criteria are criteria equally applicable to all races, genders and sexual orientations and do serve legitimate and identifiable purposes.

Equality doesn't mean you are allowed do whatever you want. Banning women from owning guns is discriminatory. That doesn't mean banning everybody from owning a fully armed tank is.

but what if you really really wanted a tank?

Flem31 · 17-04-2015 04:18PM

kylith wrote: »

People under the age of majority or those with diminished mental capacity are not deemed able to give informed consent; the same reason they can't enter into any contract. Those who are related by blood would have children with a higher rate of genetic abnormalities which is why incestuous marriages are not allowed. None of these effect mentaly capable adult homosexuals.

Re the blood relatives, it has been pointed out continually that marriage isn't all about having children. So assuming that they would only enter into the marriage\relationship for procreation purposes seems to me to be just as discriminatory as the opposite where no procreation would ever be achievable.
The blood relatives may be elderly, unable to have children and marriage may be for taxation\pension or property purposes.

Re people under the age of majority and those with diminished mental capacity. We wont allow them to be married, but they can procreate the result of which would be a far more serious undertaking than any contract.
Are teenage parents allowed to keep their children

ohnonotgmail · 17-04-2015 04:21PM

Flem31 wrote: »

Re the blood relatives, it has been pointed out continually that marriage isn't all about having children. So assuming that they would only enter into the marriage\relationship for procreation purposes seems to me to be just as discriminatory as the opposite where no procreation would ever be achievable.
The blood relatives may be elderly, unable to have children and marriage may be for taxation\pension or property purposes.

Re people under the age of majority and those with diminished mental capacity. We wont allow them to be married, but they can procreate the result of which would be a far more serious undertaking than any contract.

neither of these are reasons to allow them to marry.

Flem31 wrote: »

Are teenage parents allowed to keep their children

thankfully the magdelene laundries have been closed down.

Flem31 · 17-04-2015 04:28PM

floggg wrote: »

Because one is based solely on the sexual orientation and gender of the persons concerned, and serves no objectively justifiable purpose.

The other criteria are criteria equally applicable to all races, genders and sexual orientations and do serve legitimate and identifiable purposes.

Equality doesn't mean you are allowed do whatever you want. Banning women from owning guns is discriminatory. That doesn't mean banning everybody from owning a fully armed tank is.

Yes one is on the basis of sexual orientation where as others have a different criteria.

Re the other criteria being applicable to all races, genders and sexual orientations etc. Was there ever a time where no country in the world had SSM enacted in their legislation. That is being changed from a stage where it was not applicable anywhere to the current day when some countries have the legislation.

Equality means you don't close the door after you have got what you desire.
Life is constantly evolving and there may be someone\group in the future who will seek to expand the definition of marriage further. Is it ok for any of us to say what equality is based just on my own viewpoint.

ohnonotgmail · 17-04-2015 04:33PM

Flem31 wrote: »

Yes one is on the basis of sexual orientation where as others have a different criteria.

Re the other criteria being applicable to all races, genders and sexual orientations etc. Was there ever a time where no country in the world had SSM enacted in their legislation.
.

Is that a question or a statement?

it wasnt that long ago that interracial marriage was outlawed in the US. and by not long i mean as recently as 1967. societies change. hopefully for the better. there may be changes further down the line in relation to marriage but i cant see what they are given the small list of exclusions.

seamus · 17-04-2015 04:34PM

Flem31 wrote: »

Re the blood relatives, it has been pointed out continually that marriage isn't all about having children. So assuming that they would only enter into the marriage\relationship for procreation purposes seems to me to be just as discriminatory as the opposite where no procreation would ever be achievable.
The blood relatives may be elderly, unable to have children and marriage may be for taxation\pension or property purposes.

To be fair, that's a good point.

But it's a point for a different referendum. In the case of incest/blood relations, these people are not being discriminated against on the basis of an inherent and inalienable trait. They're not restricted to only finding their blood relative attractive.

In any case, it is a bit confounding of the issue. I personally would have no issue massively expanding the definition of marriage to allow a lot of the relationships currently banned (as well as polygamy), but that's not up for referendum right now, so they're not relevant to the debate.

One eyed Jack · 17-04-2015 04:37PM

Flem31 wrote: »

Yes one is on the basis of sexual orientation where as others have a different criteria.

Re the other criteria being applicable to all races, genders and sexual orientations etc. Was there ever a time where no country in the world had SSM enacted in their legislation. That is being changed from a stage where it was not applicable anywhere to the current day when some countries have the legislation.

Equality means you don't close the door after you have got what you desire.
Life is constantly evolving and there may be someone\group in the future who will seek to expand the definition of marriage further. Is it ok for any of us to say what equality is based just on my own viewpoint.

Yes it is, because that's exactly how a democracy works, everyone has a say in the laws that govern that society. That's why we have referendums.

There hasn't been any significant demand for any of the other criteria to be changed, so there is no need to have a referendum on those issues.

As has been mentioned already more eloquently even by other posters, there are all sorts of reasons why those criteria are in place, and those criteria apply to all people equally, regardless of their sex.

This referendum is specifically and only about removing the criteria regarding sex, and the other criteria are for another thread or threads.

Flem31 · 17-04-2015 04:37PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is that a question or a statement?

it wasnt that long ago that interracial marriage was outlawed in the US. and by not long i mean as recently as 1967. societies change. hopefully for the better. there may be changes further down the line in relation to marriage but i cant see what they are given the small list of exclusions.

Maybe there will be no further changes after May 22nd, but one of those excluded groups may at some point in the future look for their equality

seamus · 17-04-2015 04:39PM

Flem31 wrote: »

Maybe there will be no further changes after May 22nd, but one of those excluded groups may at some point in the future look for their equality

Yep. That's generally how things work. Regardless of the outcome of this referendum, one of those excluded groups may at some point in the future look for their equality.

ohnonotgmail · 17-04-2015 04:39PM

Flem31 wrote: »

Maybe there will be no further changes after May 22nd, but one of those excluded groups may at some point in the future look for their equality

like i said i cant see them removing the age or mental capacity exclusions. and the incest one is icky to most people so i cant see that ever happening either.

Flem31 · 17-04-2015 04:46PM

Ok, can't respond to each individually.

I fully accept that the current referendum is based on sexual orientation.

My point is that while there is a list of criteria such as mental capacity, blood relative etc as a hurdle to overcome, there will always be an inherent inequality regardless of how many or how few are impacted by it.
After this referendum is passed (I know, don't tempt fate) but after it, there will still be people who cannot marry due to circumstances beyond their control and in case of minors, time fixes that, but others not so fortunate.

donegal. · 17-04-2015 05:09PM

ive just sat through that entire 35min.
i never disagreed with some one more in my entire life.
every single point he makes is utter nonsense.

ohnonotgmail · 17-04-2015 05:11PM

donegal. wrote: »

ive just sat through that entire 35min.
i never disagreed with some one more in my entire life.
every single point he makes is utter nonsense.

you're a better man than me gunga din

kunst nugget · 17-04-2015 05:14PM

Flem31 wrote: »

Ok, can't respond to each individually.

I fully accept that the current referendum is based on sexual orientation.

My point is that while there is a list of criteria such as mental capacity, blood relative etc as a hurdle to overcome, there will always be an inherent inequality regardless of how many or how few are impacted by it.
After this referendum is passed (I know, don't tempt fate) but after it, there will still be people who cannot marry due to circumstances beyond their control and in case of minors, time fixes that, but others not so fortunate.

Do you think not being able to marry due to incest is unfortunate?

One eyed Jack · 17-04-2015 05:14PM

Flem31 wrote: »

Ok, can't respond to each individually.

I fully accept that the current referendum is based on sexual orientation.

My point is that while there is a list of criteria such as mental capacity, blood relative etc as a hurdle to overcome, there will always be an inherent inequality regardless of how many or how few are impacted by it.
After this referendum is passed (I know, don't tempt fate) but after it, there will still be people who cannot marry due to circumstances beyond their control and in case of minors, time fixes that, but others not so fortunate.

I know this is off topic, but the mental capacity criteria don't necessarily apply only in the case of a marital contract, they apply in the case of many legal contracts such as mortgages and wills and so on. If you're specifically referring to people with intellectual disabilities, well they can actually enter into marriage, subject to the same mental capacity criteria. There's a Bill in the works at the moment, Mental Capacity (Assisted Decision Making) Bill, which addresses some of the concerns with regard to equal rights for people with intellectual disabilities.

With regard to incestuous and polygamous relationships, well, they're not specifically a matter of equal rights for individual citizens. I don't know what they'd come under actually tbh, equal recognition of the family perhaps? I don't know, but I do know the demand for recognition of those types of relationships in Ireland isn't very high at this point in time in Irish society.

Flem31 · 17-04-2015 05:40PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know this is off topic, but the mental capacity criteria don't necessarily apply only in the case of a marital contract, they apply in the case of many legal contracts such as mortgages and wills and so on. If you're specifically referring to people with intellectual disabilities, well they can actually enter into marriage, subject to the same mental capacity criteria. There's a Bill in the works at the moment, Mental Capacity (Assisted Decision Making) Bill, which addresses some of the concerns with regard to equal rights for people with intellectual disabilities.

With regard to incestuous and polygamous relationships, well, they're not specifically a matter of equal rights for individual citizens. I don't know what they'd come under actually tbh, equal recognition of the family perhaps? I don't know, but I do know the demand for recognition of those types of relationships in Ireland isn't very high at this point in time in Irish society.

Thank you, wasn't aware of a Mental Capacity (Assisted Decision Making) bill. I wont comment any further on mental capacity aspect as I will end up going off thread.

Re Incest polygamy , not sure why we need to refer to the taboo aspect of marrying a blood relative. People enter into relationships for different reasons and some may be even unable to perform the sexual aspect due to disability or illness etc. It wouldn't be the first issue considered taboo that became part of everyday life and I am referring to Divorce.

I agree that the demand for recognition of these types of relationships is not high and not likely to rise substantially over time, but should mere numbers be the criteria whether recognition is even debated or not.

Flem31 · 17-04-2015 05:46PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

Do you think not being able to marry due to incest is unfortunate?

Incest is not acceptable but I do recognise that they may like to avail of the protections that marriage affords them re inheritance\property or pension purposes.
Sex is not a reason to get married, can do that anyway

Bannasidhe · 17-04-2015 05:51PM

Flem31 wrote: »

Incest is not acceptable but I do recognise that they may like to avail of the protections that marriage affords them re inheritance\property or pension purposes.
Sex is not a reason to get married, can do that anyway

Except you are missing what the actual purpose of marriage is - it is to create a legal familial bond between two people who, as far as the law is concerned, are strangers i.e. not related.

Marriage is the State's way of saying it recognises two people who are not blood related as a 'family' under the law.

Siblings are already related under the law by blood.

One eyed Jack · 17-04-2015 05:58PM

Flem31 wrote: »

Thank you, wasn't aware of a Mental Capacity (Assisted Decision Making) bill. I wont comment any further on mental capacity aspect as I will end up going off thread.

Re Incest polygamy , not sure why we need to refer to the taboo aspect of marrying a blood relative. People enter into relationships for different reasons and some may be even unable to perform the sexual aspect due to disability or illness etc. It wouldn't be the first issue considered taboo that became part of everyday life and I am referring to Divorce.

I agree that the demand for recognition of these types of relationships is not high and not likely to rise substantially over time, but should mere numbers be the criteria whether recognition is even debated or not.

With regard to marriage equality for people who are LGBT, it shouldn't even be up for debate IMO, even the demand for it isn't so much a question of numbers, as we simply don't know how many people will actually avail of the opportunity, but to have the opportunity there is a good thing, because it gives everyone that opportunity regardless of their sex. It's easy to make those decisions.

With regard to other types of relationships, it's possible that in the future perhaps with Irish society becoming more multicultural, that there may be an increase in those types of relationships which would lead to a sufficient demand for a change in the law, but the debate over legal recognition of those relationships would involve a completely different set of criteria, and the consequences for society, whether they be positive or negative would be completely separate from the idea of marriage equality for people who are currently discriminated against on no other grounds other than their sex.

Flem31 · 17-04-2015 05:59PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Except you are missing what the actual purpose of marriage is - it is to create a legal familial bond between two people who, as far as the law is concerned, are strangers i.e. not related.

Marriage is the State's way of saying it recognises two people who are not blood related as a 'family' under the law.

Siblings are already related under the law by blood.

Isn't it funny how quick the definition of marriage is restricted.
Once the sexual orientation obstacle is erased, we seem to have no issue with any of the other obstacles remaining in place because it is not applicable to our circumstances.

Siblings are already related under some laws but not under others such as inheritance rights and capital acquisitions tax.

Bannasidhe · 17-04-2015 06:10PM

Flem31 wrote: »

Isn't it funny how quick the definition of marriage is restricted.
Once the sexual orientation obstacle is erased, we seem to have no issue with any of the other obstacles remaining in place because it is not applicable to our circumstances.

Siblings are already related under some laws but not under others such as inheritance rights and capital acquisitions tax.

I am simply stating what the contract of marriage means legally.
It means people who are not blood related within certain degrees of consanguinity become legally related.
Siblings are already closely related so, technically, have no need for their relationship to be legally affirmed.

As it currently stands marriage says that male stranger plus female stranger are legally related. The proposed change is that male stranger plus male stranger/female stranger plus female stranger are legally related. It is not a redefinition as much as an extension of the current terms and conditions.

I made no comment. I simply stated the legal purpose of marriage. If you don't like it you can start a campaign to have it redefined. Then we can discuss why a legal mechanism is required to create a legal family where a blood relationship is extant.

But as that ain't what this referendum is about how about you stay on topic in this thread?

kunst nugget · 17-04-2015 06:17PM

Flem31 wrote: »

Isn't it funny how quick the definition of marriage is restricted.
Once the sexual orientation obstacle is erased, we seem to have no issue with any of the other obstacles remaining in place because it is not applicable to our circumstances.

Siblings are already related under some laws but not under others such as inheritance rights and capital acquisitions tax.

Ah, essentially this is the 'sure if we change it so gays can marry, nothing's sacred' argument. I want gay people to be able to marry the person they love just as I was able to do with the same provisos that were in place for me as a straight person. I wouldn't favour changing the laws concerning allowing incest or children to marry and I wouldn't be in favour of polygamous marriages being legalised either - if any of these came up in a referendum, I couldn't see myself voting anything but no. None of these are actually being legislated for in this referendum and in essence all that happens when discussing them in relation to this is muddy the waters of the debate.

Flem31 · 17-04-2015 06:18PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

With regard to marriage equality for people who are LGBT, it shouldn't even be up for debate IMO, even the demand for it isn't so much a question of numbers, as we simply don't know how many people will actually avail of the opportunity, but to have the opportunity there is a good thing, because it gives everyone that opportunity regardless of their sex. It's easy to make those decisions.

With regard to other types of relationships, it's possible that in the future perhaps with Irish society becoming more multicultural, that there may be an increase in those types of relationships which would lead to a sufficient demand for a change in the law, but the debate over legal recognition of those relationships would involve a completely different set of criteria, and the consequences for society, whether they be positive or negative would be completely separate from the idea of marriage equality for people who are currently discriminated against on no other grounds other than their sex.

I agree LGBT issues shouldn't be up for debate and it wouldn't be if that 1937 legal straightjacket wasn't still dominating so many decisions we try to make as a society.

I disagree that other types of relationships would involve a different set of criteria and consequences for society. More and more, people are choosing to live their lives as they see fit and good luck to them, I have no issues with that at all. But for these other types of relationships, to consider a different criteria etc before they may pass the marriage acceptability hurdle is discrimination in another form.
Imo sexual orientation is the current hurdle up for referendum, and in the future another group may have a similar desire for marriage equality and I think it would be unfair if we applied a different standard to them.

One eyed Jack · 17-04-2015 06:29PM

Flem31 wrote: »

I agree LGBT issues shouldn't be up for debate and it wouldn't be if that 1937 legal straightjacket wasn't still dominating so many decisions we try to make as a society.

I disagree that other types of relationships would involve a different set of criteria and consequences for society. More and more, people are choosing to live their lives as they see fit and good luck to them, I have no issues with that at all. But for these other types of relationships, to consider a different criteria etc before they may pass the marriage acceptability hurdle is discrimination in another form.
Imo sexual orientation is the current hurdle up for referendum, and in the future another group may have a similar desire for marriage equality and I think it would be unfair if we applied a different standard to them.

I think it's a good thing that you're conscious of other types of relationships and families besides your own, but since what we are specifically talking about here is marriage equality for people who are of the same sex (it's an important distinction to make between 'sex', and 'sexual orientation' - people who are LGBT can still marry a person of the opposite sex, and some do, but they cannot marry someone of the same sex), and since you are conscious of how you see the law discriminates against other types of relationships, would you then at least support people who are LGBT in the upcoming referendum as a way of moving towards a fairer society that you would like to live in and see happening?

Flem31 · 17-04-2015 06:42PM

kunst nugget wrote: »

Ah, essentially this is the 'sure if we change it so gays can marry, nothing's sacred' argument. I want gay people to be able to marry the person they love just as I was able to do with the same provisos that were in place for me as a straight person. I wouldn't favour changing the laws concerning allowing incest or children to marry and I wouldn't be in favour of polygamous marriages being legalised either - if any of these came up in a referendum, I couldn't see myself voting anything but no. None of these are actually being legislated for in this referendum and in essence all that happens when discussing them in relation to this is muddy the waters of the debate.

No it's the argument, no law is set in stone.
We must have laws that change with the times and if there is a future demand for a further redefinition of marriage, then we should have that debate. However, I would only make a decision on any future
referendum on this topic when I have heard the arguments on both sides.
I will not prejudge.

Marriage has many criteria but we seem to have only issue with one of them.

Bannasidhe · 17-04-2015 06:44PM

Flem31 wrote: »

No it's the argument, no law is set in stone.
We must have laws that change with the times and if there is a future demand for a further redefinition of marriage, then we should have that debate. However, I would only make a decision on any future
referendum on this topic when I have heard the arguments on both sides.
I will not prejudge.

Marriage has many criteria but we seem to have only issue with one of them.

No. THIS referendum is only about one of them.

Flem31 · 17-04-2015 06:48PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I am simply stating what the contract of marriage means legally.
It means people who are not blood related within certain degrees of consanguinity become legally related.
Siblings are already closely related so, technically, have no need for their relationship to be legally affirmed.

As it currently stands marriage says that male stranger plus female stranger are legally related. The proposed change is that male stranger plus male stranger/female stranger plus female stranger are legally related. It is not a redefinition as much as an extension of the current terms and conditions.

I made no comment. I simply stated the legal purpose of marriage. If you don't like it you can start a campaign to have it redefined. Then we can discuss why a legal mechanism is required to create a legal family where a blood relationship is extant.

But as that ain't what this referendum is about how about you stay on topic in this thread?

The stranger marries stranger aspect is a socially determined rule.
If both parties are beyond the child bearing stage, then blood relatives marrying taboo becomes no ones business imo.

This topic is about marriage redefinition, so why are you assuming that all possible redefinition ends on the 22nd May.

Flem31 · 17-04-2015 06:55PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think it's a good thing that you're conscious of other types of relationships and families besides your own, but since what we are specifically talking about here is marriage equality for people who are of the same sex (it's an important distinction to make between 'sex', and 'sexual orientation' - people who are LGBT can still marry a person of the opposite sex, and some do, but they cannot marry someone of the same sex), and since you are conscious of how you see the law discriminates against other types of relationships, would you then at least support people who are LGBT in the upcoming referendum as a way of moving towards a fairer society that you would like to live in and see happening?

As I have stated before I was never a no voter.
If I voted no, I would be on the same side as a particular senator in the Seanad and that will never ever happen.

What I find a little odd is that a group who have been unfairly discriminated against re marriage seem to be so close minded re the possibility of a future group of people to look for the same rights as the one up for referendum next month.
Next month is about marriage equality but it may or may not be the end of our journey towards that equality, but some seem to be against any future change (if any) after that

Flem31 · 17-04-2015 06:58PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. THIS referendum is only about one of them.

Yes it is, but who knows what future possibilities we may be voting on.

Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

Comments