Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

Bannasidhe · 17-04-2015 06:58PM

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.

Where did I say 'all possible redefinition ends on the 22nd May.'. I didn't so kindly withdraw your accusation and stop trying to put words in my mouth.

I said THIS referendum is about extending the current terms and conditions to include same-sex couples.

If and when there is a referendum about allowing siblings to marry we can discuss that in a thread dedicated to that topic.

Do you have anything relevant to the upcoming referendum or do you intend to continue with 'what if' and 'down the line' as if so the next port of call on your slippery slope should be 'floodgates' (Change for Tooting. Mind the gap) .

One eyed Jack · 17-04-2015 07:00PM

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.

Flem this referendum is not about redefining marriage. Marriage is not defined in the Irish Constitution. This referendum is about redefining one of the conditions upon which two people may enter into the marital contract on the basis of their sex, and only their sex.

Anything else is simply a distraction from that, and another matter entirely for another thread. I think personally you're unfairly muddying the waters when you know well what this referendum specifically is about.

Actually, do you support giving people who are LGBT the opportunity to enter into the contract of civil marriage with a person of the same sex?

One eyed Jack · 17-04-2015 07:13PM

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.

"I was never a no voter" is not a definite answer in support of marriage equality for people who are LGBT. I don't mean to be rude in pressing you on it but I would like to think I'm not wasting my time here. A simple answer yes in support of marriage equality for people who are LGBT would do if you wouldn't mind?

At least then I would be able to make a determination as to whether or not I should take you seriously.

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

Flem tbh I am not even thinking about marriage criteria for anyone else right now, I'm interested solely in what I'm being asked to vote on in the upcoming referendum, as that's all I'm being asked to vote on, and a straight answer to the question above would be really helpful if you wouldn't mind.

osarusan · 17-04-2015 07:43PM

Flem31 wrote: »

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

Who knows indeed. But we do know what we're voting on now.

It is you bringing other issues into it when there is no need for it, and trying (but failing) to justisy this by misrepresenting posters' opinions to make it look like they believe the issue to be voted on in this referendum is the only important issue.

floggg · 17-04-2015 08:11PM

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

It's a red herring that's been done to death, but procreation isn't the only reason to discourage or prohibit incest and i don't think its possible to make the argument that it's an equality issue without looking stupid (at best).

Do you really think if a father or older brother starts to take a liking to their young daughter/sister we should tell them that it's ok to pursue that as long as they wait until she is of the age of consent?

Do you really think it's safe and healthy for a child to be in a household with a family member planning to make a move on them once legal?

And can you not see how there might be dangers of coercion, grooming or other issues preventing her giving full free and informed consent once she is of the age of consent.

pretending that there aren't a whole host of valid reasons why incest is to be discouraged just to try score some petty points against marriage equality advocates really doesn't make a person look very good (or intelligent).

floggg · 17-04-2015 08:29PM

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.

It's not there is different criteria. It's that there is objectively justifiable reasons.

Even if you don't agree where lines or drawn in each of those cases, there are clearly understandable reasons why it was necessary to draw a line in the first place, and those reasons stand up to objective scrutiny (unlike the reasons offered against same sex marriage).

Nobody is closing a door but that doesn't mean we have to make all changes requested, even if there are good reasons not to do so.

I don't think for example anybody would be stupid enough to attempt to argue refusing to allow 6 years old marry would be inequality.

Yet you are trying to construct an absurd abstract argument that just does that. Your pretending there aren't any reasons behind the criteria when a moments consideration would show there are

Annasopra · 17-04-2015 08:32PM

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?

You mean a strong Catholic Cannon Lawyer like Mary McAleese?
https://www.newstalk.ie/podcasts/The_Right_Hook/Highlights_from_The_Right_Hook/85335/

Or Father Iggy O'Donovan
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/fr-iggy-o-donovan-calls-for-yes-vote-in-marriage-referendum-1.2132636

Or like Ciaran O Mathuna, Brendan Butler, Brian Glennon, Patricia Devline
http://www.fime.ie/

floggg · 17-04-2015 08:36PM

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.

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.

Annasopra · 17-04-2015 08:37PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Haven't seen any yet, I'd be surprised if there was. I don't remember can assess for previous referenda.

There are Yes groups in every county in the country actively knocking on doors for "Yes Equality"

There are some no groups actively canvssing as well

Flem31 · 17-04-2015 09:45PM

"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.

Flem31 · 17-04-2015 09:53PM

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.

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.

shruikan2553 · 17-04-2015 09:56PM

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.

We're hardly going to sterilise them are we? Actually, nobody please answer that.

One eyed Jack · 17-04-2015 09:58PM

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.

fran17 · 17-04-2015 10:02PM

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?

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.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/quartet-of-truth-adult-children-of-gay-parents-testify-against-same-sex-mar

shruikan2553 · 17-04-2015 10:04PM

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.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/quartet-of-truth-adult-children-of-gay-parents-testify-against-same-sex-mar

fran, do I really need to get that post you refuse to answer again? You know the ones that list out groups who know far more than either than us and say its fine? The one that asks what do we do about the bill that went through that involves all the children stuff that will happen regardless of the referendum result. Or will you just play victim over "abuse" again which you then go and show it to be completely accurate comment

ohnonotgmail · 17-04-2015 10:05PM

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.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/quartet-of-truth-adult-children-of-gay-parents-testify-against-same-sex-mar

This thread is about the marriage referendum. It is not about people having children or adopting children. all of that is covered in legislation. Please stop doing a david quinn and trying to muddy the waters.

B_Wayne · 17-04-2015 10:17PM

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.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/quartet-of-truth-adult-children-of-gay-parents-testify-against-same-sex-mar

I can produce children of heterosexual couples that are unhappy with the quality of parents as much as you can with gay couples. There's users on this very site that have been raised by same couples. The fact is, that the overall outcomes for children of same sex couples is no different to that of straight couples. This is backed up by the APA.

Also last week the ISPCC came out in support. They have a hell of a lot more knowledge on this subject than you and put forward a far better argument why the referendum is indirectly beneficial to children. The relationships bill has already passed so this referendum does not relate to children however it can have indirect positive effects.

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

One eyed Jack · 17-04-2015 10:50PM

fran17 wrote: »

Simple answer to that jack,because children are not thing's you use to assist in adults happiness.

I really don't know where you got that from? Also if you read my post properly, properly now fran, you'd know that this referendum is not about giving adoption rights to people who are LGBT, that's already a given in the Children and Family Relationship Bill.

I could have twisted your assertion and said that with that sort of logic, you're suggesting that nobody who professes that having a child would make them happy should actually be allowed to have children, which would leave you in a bit of a bind fran if you think about it - how many parents do you know who say that they feel fulfilled having become parents?

I know far too many, they're all the time yakking on about how proud they are of their children, and as much as I love children myself, I don't need to hear every minute detail of their children's latest "achievements" as if it's the parents themselves who just made their first poo all by themselves :rolleyes:

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.

I'm going to go out on a limb here fran and assume you can only be speaking from personal experience. I never said anything about short term happiness, and I've been involved in mentoring children and young people for the last 20 years, so I know the long term effects of helping people from childhood into adulthood, and the long term effects on children of denying them love and support in their early years - it can take many years to overcome a miserable childhood, so why would you inflict that unhappiness upon any human being?

That's exactly what you're doing if you deny their parents the right to marry the person they love. The parents are role models for their children, and if you want to create a stable environment for children, then the onus is upon you to give parents the option to create a stable environment for their children. Voting no in the upcoming referendum would deny parents that opportunity to create that stable environment for their children.

Now, you were saying something about long term damage? Would you not think that a long term commitment by their parents to participate in society in the same way as their peers would create long term happiness for a child?

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.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/quartet-of-truth-adult-children-of-gay-parents-testify-against-same-sex-mar

Fran, if I have to remind you again - this referendum has nothing to do with whether or not we should be able to legislate for who is allowed to become parents, and who is denied that right. That's already covered by the Children and Family Relationship Bill.

I'd a shìt childhood too fran, I know far too many people had shìt childhoods. By your logic (I can't even be arsed to click on those links fran tbh as I'm guessing they're people that had shìt childhoods?), you're suggesting that opposite sex couples are the worst type of parents, because statistically, there are far more damaged children living in misery in opposite sex parent homes than there are in same sex parent homes.

The internet is great and google is great and all fran, but you're still missing the point that this referendum is not about reproduction or parenting skills, it's about marriage equality - two people who should be entitled to enter into a marital contract with no discrimination as to their sex.

Now, can you honestly stop running round in circles and avoiding and dodging because it's very frustrating for people who are trying to engage in meaningful discussion with you. You're making yourself look ridiculous fran and I'm really trying to be kind here, but as tolerant as I am of people, and as high a tolerance level as I have for bullshìt - my patience to entertain you is wearing wearily thin at this point.

floggg · 17-04-2015 10:56PM

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.

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.

Ave Sodalis · 17-04-2015 10:56PM

Now you're back Fran, mind answering those questions you were "abused" with?

Annasopra · 17-04-2015 10:58PM

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.html

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/quartet-of-truth-adult-children-of-gay-parents-testify-against-same-sex-mar

I wonder if you actually met sonics2k face to face or Conor Prendergast or Safia O'Gorman or any of the numerous children raised by loving LGBT parents would you really have the nerve to tell them that their life happiness was only a perception and that they are damaged long term?

I wonder if you had a gay child that was suicidal at 13 or 14 because of societal homophobia how you would feel about this?

Flem31 · 17-04-2015 11:05PM

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.

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.

osarusan · 17-04-2015 11:08PM

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.

You keep saying this. You get asked to point out where this happened. You just ignore that and keep on saying it.

There's no reason for anybody to take your posts seriously.

Flem31 · 17-04-2015 11:22PM

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.

As I have said before those who by reason of age or mental capacity are barred from a legal contract but could still end up with a far greater commitment in the form of parenthood.

By all means stick to your legal tightrope but the simple fact that categories of individuals who are barred from making legal contracts have managed to bypass that lifelong commitment and in some cases end up with far bigger responsibilities which are also life long.

Equality law like every other law needs to change with the times.
I am not advocating teenage marriages or marriage involving people with diminished mental capacity but I accept the likelihood that laws and definitions could well change and I am prepared to give it a fair hearing when the time comes.

PopePalpatine · 17-04-2015 11:24PM

Fran is using LifeSiteNews to support his views on LGBT people - I might as well use RT and other Kremlin-aligned bullsh*tters to form my opinion about Glorious Putin.

One eyed Jack · 17-04-2015 11:24PM

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.

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 · 17-04-2015 11:41PM

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.

Very open minded indeed

Flem31 · 17-04-2015 11:54PM

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.

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

ohnonotgmail · 18-04-2015 12:04AM

Flem31 wrote: »

Very open minded indeed

so thinking incest is icky counts as being close minded now? Jeez, you are a troll.

ohnonotgmail · 18-04-2015 12:06AM

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

you have made no attempt to understand the debate. you have simply tried to derail the debate by going on about incest, polygamy and under age marriage.

Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

Comments