Flem31 wrote: » 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 wrote: » 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 wrote: » Yes it is, but who knows what future possibilities we may be voting on.
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. Are teenage parents allowed to keep their children
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.
omnithanos wrote: » My parents will be voting no because they follow the teaching of the church. How should a tolerant practicing catholic who believes in equality vote?
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.
Benny_Cake wrote: » Haven't seen any yet, I'd be surprised if there was. I don't remember can assess for previous referenda.
floggg wrote: » Sorry, but if you don't think MENTAL CAPACITY or AGE restrictions involve different criteria than you are patently either lying or incapable of understanding the basic consent issues.
Flem31 wrote: » Re Mental Capacity and Age.......we won't allow them get married because they don't understand the implications but if they become parents that is ok. The different criteria that you wish to implement seems to be on the assumption that marriage would be the biggest thing that could happen to them. My view is that child rearing is bigger.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Clearly that's not true, quite a few people care about two men getting married, which is why they are trying to oppose this referendum being passed. Seriously fran, it took me less than five seconds -http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html Civil partnership is insufficient in many respects to civil marriage. Don't spread that around, I have a reputation to maintain y'know :pac: One simply has nothing to do with the other though. How many times does that need to be explained to you? Two men bringing up a young girl is already a scenario covered by the Children and Family Relationships Bill. Two men who choose to get married, will be addressed in the upcoming Referendum on Marriage Equality. Would I be happy to see other people happy? Of course, and I'll do anything I can to see that those people are happy, and if the child is happy, and the child's parents are happy, then I'm happy. Your position is simply that you want to deny other people that happiness. Why would you want other people to suffer like that? Why would you not want to do everything in your power to try and offer any assistance you can to another human being who is unhappy? It's such a bloody simple principle fran that even a child can understand it, so why as a reasonable and mature adult, can you not understand that much?
fran17 wrote: » Simple answer to that jack,because children are not thing's you use to assist in adults happiness.A child's mind is incapable of distinguishing the difference between the perception of short term happiness,as you put it,and the long term damage this perceived happiness will create.You do,in general,make quite a lot of logical sense in your contributions but this logic of yours regarding a child leaves me perturbed to be quite honest. Ask these people how happy they were and are:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3022105/Hetty-Baynes-Russell-disagrees-Mary-Portas-motherhood-views.htmlhttp://www.lifesitenews.com/news/quartet-of-truth-adult-children-of-gay-parents-testify-against-same-sex-mar
What does it have to do with parenting or guardianship? The referendum does not impact on family law in respect of guardianship or other forms of access to children. The recently passed Children and Family Relationships Act is a separate piece of legislation which deals with these issues. The ISPCC has a publicly stated its position on this HERE Why is this an issue of interest to the ISPCC? As an organisation that provides services directly to children across Ireland, our professional staff have considerable knowledge of the issues that are important to children. In 2014 Childline received a total of 29,167 calls in relation to Sexuality (11% of total calls) - 2,857 of this total linked directly to sexual identity issues and 4,347 of the overall total linked to other sexuality issues - A total of 596 engagements (3% of overall engagements) to Childline Online services were in relation to sexuality. The ISPCC listens to more children, every day, than any other organisation in Ireland. On the basis of our experience of listening to children, we consider the referendum to be a children’s issue. So what’s the ISPCC position on the issue? The ISPCC supports the proposed wording being recommended by government in the Marriage Equality Referendum in May. While we recognise that the marriage equality referendum is solely focused on the issue of marriage equality and does not directly impact on parenting rights or responsibilities, marriage equality is an issue that directly affects children and young people. The ISPCC exists to ensure that children are afforded equal rights as citizens, to bring about a society in which all children are loved, valued and able to fulfil their potential, and to assert the rights of children as equal citizens in accordance with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Referendum gives an opportunity to send a clear message to all children that they are valued, and that treating them differently because of their sexuality-or the sexuality of someone in their household-is unacceptable. The ISPCC exists to ensure that children are afforded equal rights as citizens. We have an important public leadership role and public interest function to state that children’s' ability to grow up, form relationships and have those relationships recognised equally by the state is highly relevant to the debate on the referendum. Put simply, we can make a strong message to children across Ireland, that they are valued equally, irrespective of their sexual orientation.Children and young people, particularly those who are LGBT, are directly and adversely impacted by a system in which rights to marry are restricted to heterosexual couples. Evidence and practice highlights that children who are LGBT often feel excluded, isolated and under-valued, and report these feelings to the ISPCC.Furthermore, as a child-centred organisation, the ISPCC prides itself on listening to children, and responding to research and evidence. Research has shown that 90% of young people aged 18-25 support civil marriage equality. We also have the support of a number of our Children’s Advisory Committees. Finally, our position on the referendum has therefore the potential to impact our relationship with children who contact us for our services. The ISPCC has previously commented on same sex relationships in the context of our work on bullying. We have argued strongly for schools, parents and community groups to recognise the scale and nature of bullying against LGBT children and young people. Our ability to continue to provide a safe space to all children (irrespective of their sexual orientation) is paramount. http://www.ispcc.ie/campaigns-lobbying/ongoing-priorities/marriage-equality-referendum-/12757
fran17 wrote: » Simple answer to that jack,because children are not thing's you use to assist in adults happiness.
A child's mind is incapable of distinguishing the difference between the perception of short term happiness,as you put it,and the long term damage this perceived happiness will create.
You do,in general,make quite a lot of logical sense in your contributions but this logic of yours regarding a child leaves me perturbed to be quite honest. Ask these people how happy they were and are:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-3022105/Hetty-Baynes-Russell-disagrees-Mary-Portas-motherhood-views.htmlhttp://www.lifesitenews.com/news/quartet-of-truth-adult-children-of-gay-parents-testify-against-same-sex-mar
Flem31 wrote: » "There are legal restrictions on who is entitled to enter into to marriage that apply to all citizens regardless of their sex. The same basic criteria apply to everyone regardless of their sex, and then there is the one criteria that is discriminatory - The above is from the original post I responded to and the issue I see is that there are four criteria sexual orientation, age, mental capacity and blood relative. This discussion is framed by the yes side that once we have the referendum passed the country has marriage equality but if sexual orientation is discriminatory then are the other three criteria now open to the same accusation. I am well aware that the current referendum is only on one criteria but it seems strange that people seem very willing to dismiss the idea that there may still be marriage inequality even when this referendum is passed. The SSM referendum is framed around the theme of two people who love each other regardless of their sexuality. But if anyone even considers widening the debate out to what the definition of marriage may be in say 10 or 20 years, that seems to be unacceptable. People get married for a multitude of reasons and some are even for financial considerations. What I find hard to understand is that not long ago the idea of SSM was highly unlikely in this country as it was deemed to be unacceptable. Seems strange that the advocates who have worked hard to make this a reality appear to reject the idea of another grouping ever looking for marriage equality.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Flem it's no harder to understand than a heterosexual person is not sexually attracted to a person of the same sex, and so they won't want to have sex with a person of the same sex. That's not discrimination against that person, it's just something they're not interested in. Sexual orientation has nothing at all to do with the other stuff you're still trying to bring up, and I can't help but wonder why are you judging other people's standards when you aren't even willing to offer your own standard on the subject this thread is actually about - the upcoming referendum on marriage equality for people who are LGBT. Where do you stand on that specific issue? A simple question, I'm only asking for a simple yes or no to the question you will be asked in the upcoming referendum.
Flem31 wrote: » Not sure after that but I find it unsettling that a group that have fought for so long against prejudice could themselves be dismissive of the possibility of any further equality being required.
floggg wrote: » The problem is you have utterly failed to show there is any inequality. You're simply pointing to the existence of a restriction and claiming that to be an equality issue without more. You neither understand the nature of equality law or the nature of consent and capacity to enter into binding legal commitments. Or more accurately, you pretend not since I cannot believe a functioning adult can't conceive of legitimate reasons why those unable by reason of age or mental capacity to give a free and informed consent to the entry into of a life long legal commitment would be prohibited by law from doing so.
Flem31 wrote: » Sexual orientation is being put forward as the only basis for marriage equality. I am merely questioning the logic. If someone says they are a No voter it's because the don't agree with the idea of marriage based on sexual orientation. And no one has an issue with judging anyone for that viewpoint and the usual homophobic bigot tags are applied. Based on the replies over the past number of hours, are the Yes side just indifferent or negative towards other criteria. Using phrases such as icky and references to incest leads me to that view. As I have said before, I am not going to vote No. Not sure after that but I find it unsettling that a group that have fought for so long against prejudice could themselves be dismissive of the possibility of any further equality being required. Do I think any one of the other three categories will result in another marriage referendum in the next 10 years. No I don't, but I also don't dismiss it as a never going to happen as people are full of possibilities. People get married for many many reasons but we seem to be obsessed with the sexual aspects of it rather than looking at the other unusual reasons and not so unusual such as tax avoidance in later life. Transfers of assets between spouses are on a no loss\no gain basis. We are redefining marriage with this referendum and that is a good thing imo. The question remains as to whether this referendum is the end of the process or maybe further definition is needed in the future. If further definition is required it is more likely to be from on the three remaining categories.
kunst nugget wrote: » 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.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » incest one is icky
kylith wrote: » Those who are related by blood would have children with a higher rate of genetic abnormalities which is why incestuous marriages are not allowed.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Flem I have to say at this point, and with all due respect, that there is obviously no point in trying to engage in any meaningful discussion with you when you can't even give a simple yes/no answer to the referendum question currently before us, yet you want to talk about other issues that are nothing to do with the question you're being asked? What would be the point in that? We can't move on to anything else until we have sorted the immediate question first. You're basically trying to have your desert before your dinner while looking around and saying "why doesn't everyone else want desert before their dinner too?". No point in talking about anything else while you can't stomach the idea of what's on the table in front of you.
Flem31 wrote: » Very open minded indeed
Flem31 wrote: » Very fair minded of you to shut down debate based on voting preferences. I started on these threads to familiarise myself with this debate but I find it strange how quickly the attitude changes if a poster is perceived to be not a fully signed up member to the yes side. It is a very particular brand of equality practised but if equality is only administered selectively then it isn't equality
