ohnonotgmail wrote: » so thinking incest is icky counts as being close minded now? Jeez, you are a troll.
Flem31 wrote: » The category was blood relations and you brought up incest
ohnonotgmail wrote: » 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.
Flem31 wrote: » Please check your facts. I never introduced either incest or polygamy into the debate, others did
ohnonotgmail wrote: » answer the question. Do you consider thinking that incest is icky to be close-minded? Do you think that we should be open to it? Are you open to it?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » they did. but that hasnt stopped you banging on about it.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » answer the question. Do you consider thinking that incest is icky to be close-minded? Do you think that we should be open to it? Are you open to it? I'm still waiting on you to answer this. I will keep asking you until you do.
Flem31 wrote: » Already answered that question over 6 hours ago, please keep up. Incest is unacceptable but is sex the only reason to get married
incest is icky
Flem31 wrote: » I have answered twice, do you need a third answer
ohnonotgmail wrote: » you couldnt have answered the question already. i only asked it on this page. so stop lying. you quoted a post of mine where i said and gave it as an example of being close-minded. why would you do that if you thought it was unacceptable?
Flem31 wrote: » The same question was asked by another poster and I answered at 5,44pm this evening. The category was blood relations and you and others automatically jumped to incest and your phrase icky. Incest is unacceptable but to only assume incest excludes the possibility of a non sexual relationship such as a marriage of convenience for tax purposes.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » yep, still not answering the question i asked. BLOCKED.
shruikan2553 wrote: » 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
Flem31 wrote: » 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.
floggg wrote: » This post is really quite ridiculous. We do have age limits for sex. It's a year younger than marriage, but is it discriminatory that we don't allow sex regardless of age? Mot certainly not - and I dare you to try and argue the prohibition on sex with children is discriminatory. Equally you will find that there would be a much higher bar to show consent was given by a person with mental capacity issues. Marriage is also a very different thing to sex. Sex is not a life long contract vindicated, protected and enforced by the State. Sex patently isn't - notwithstanding the potential for conception. Sex is momentary and the State has no role in it. So of course the criteria are different - though not dissimilar. And again, I dare you to argue the prohibition on having sex with children or those incapable of having sex is discriminatory.
floggg wrote: » Sex isn't but the only reason, but marriage is for life long romantic commitments and relationships, of which sex is expected to be a part of (hence the concept of consummation, and ability to annul where not done). It's not for platonic, familial or other types of relationship which exclude the possibility of a sexual relationship. You know this.
Yeah_Right wrote: » Ok Flem. I'll bite. You say others brought up incest, polygamy, under age and mental capacity. What group were you specifically meaning when you spoke about future referendums? In one of your posts I think you said something about divorce. I could be wrong though. Just for the record, I'm against marriage involving incest, under age kids, diminished mental capacity and blood relations for tax reasons/evasion. I'm open to polygamy. I can't vote but I fully support SSM.
Flem31 wrote: » The idea that we can draw a line in the sand and say .....that's it all marriage equality achieved on the 22nd May.
Flem31 wrote: » So if a couple gets married but don't have sex, by your standards they are not married and shouldn't have got married. Earlier on in the campaign, it was referred that what any couple do inside the privacy of their own bedroom is their business and no one else's. But there is now a caveat that we expect them to be doing certain things while in the bedroom or else if fails the definition of marriage. The concept of marriage is two people who love each other join together in a union. This has been altered to The concept of marriage is two people who love each other join together in a union and they are odd if they're not having sex. Sex is not always expected or consummated.....I know someone who is married for over 20 years but they have never consummated their marriage. Are you judging them because of your view of marriage ? Btw they haven't consummated due to inability as wife is an invalid Marriages are entered into for a variety of reasons including for convenience. To assume that all marriages are formed due to lifelong commitment of love and the desire for sex is naïve.
osarusan wrote: » Once again, you say this. I am asking you, once again, please point out where this was said by any poster on here.
Flem31 wrote: » We have age limits for sex but if both parties are under that age limit and they become parents, what happens ? We like the idea of having rules and policies, but if they are disregarded by a couple who are both underage there are no consequences other than what may be created by the act itself. Once more when discussing this it is framed as having sex with children......which always assumes the worst scenario. Shame on you Why don't you consider children having sex with other children which is a more likely scenario. Or two people who both have mental capacity issues. We only seem to have an issue about marriage and signing documents regarding these groups but if they procreate let them off and good luck to them. I am not advocating either grouping being allowed to marry but neither am I going to dismiss it completely because I find it disturbing. We seem to be happy to lock the concept of marriage into nice straitjacket but it ignores the fact that life moves on and while 15 year old mothers is not something we should be aiming for as a societal standard, it does happen. We have no issue with barring them from a legal contract as they are not yet adults but it is ok for them to procreate seems like a contradiction to me. Which is the bigger life changing event ? This referendum was framed in terms of inequality and the end of inequality ....and I am just asking the question whether it ends on 22nd May with a yes decision.
Flem31 wrote: » The original post I responded to said the only form of discrimination was on the basis of sexual orientation.
Flem31 wrote: » This referendum was framed in terms of inequality and the end of inequality ....and I am just asking the question whether it ends on 22nd May with a yes decision.
floggg wrote: » I'm not judging their marriage. As a matter of law however, their marriage would likely be voidable at the instance of either party. The ability to engage in the sexual component of marriage is seen as a fundamental feature of the institution. Sex isn't a strict requirement, but the law recognises that marriage is a romantic union, and that a sexual relationship is usually implicit in that. As does society. Your suggestion therefore that you could have a marriage between relatives but not incest would mean we would have to change the concept of what a marriage is entirely (from romantic and sexual union to a platonic co-habitation arrangement), not just the entry criteria. Again, you don't have any equality argument. You are either lying, trolling, or just don't understand equality. And to be clear - marriage will change in the future. I would imagine we may well visit stuff like marital age for instance. we will probably move the limit up or down. we will never get rid of it, and there is no inequality in maintaining it provided that the limit isn't arbitrary or pernicious.
terryduff12 wrote: » Don't know if the question has been asked already if the bill gets passed, will they be including how two men and two women consummate their relationship into sex education for national/secondary schools?.
floggg wrote: » If somebody can point to any unjust and discriminatory restrictions on marriage on 23rd May, I will support a further change. You haven't.
