Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Marriage redefinition and Childrens rights

1…2425272930…34

Comments

  • #782
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


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

    The category was blood relations and you brought up incest


  • #783
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Flem31 wrote: »
    The category was blood relations and you brought up incest

    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?


  • #784
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    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.

    Please check your facts.
    I never introduced either incest or polygamy into the debate, others did


  • #785
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Flem31 wrote: »
    Please check your facts.
    I never introduced either incest or polygamy into the debate, others did


    they did. but that hasnt stopped you banging on about it.


  • #786
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    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?

    Already answered that question over 6 hours ago, please keep up.

    Incest is unacceptable but is sex the only reason to get married


  • Advertisement
  • #787
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Flem31 wrote: »
    The category was blood relations and you brought up incest

    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.


  • #788
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    they did. but that hasnt stopped you banging on about it.

    It seems to be a common theme with yes advocates so the banging must be in stereo :pac:


  • #789
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    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.

    I have answered twice, do you need a third answer


  • #790
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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


    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
    incest is icky
    and gave it as an example of being close-minded. why would you do that if you thought it was unacceptable?


  • #791
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Flem31 wrote: »
    I have answered twice, do you need a third answer

    i would like an honest answer. something you seem incapable of.


  • Advertisement
  • #792
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    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?

    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.


  • #793
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,945 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.

    yep, still not answering the question i asked. BLOCKED.


  • #794
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    yep, still not answering the question i asked. BLOCKED.

    Answer not to your liking so.
    Blocked.......really gutted about that


  • #795
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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

    Pfft. Who are all those internationally recognised medical, psychiatry and social services groups compared to a daily mail link.


  • #796
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,212 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    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.


  • #797
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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.

    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.


  • #798
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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

    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.


  • #799
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    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.

    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.


  • #800
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    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.

    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.


  • #801
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    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.

    I don't remember ever mentioning divorce regarding this (I may have but I honestly don't think so)

    Regarding future referendums, there may never be another referendum and that doesn't bother me.

    The idea that we can draw a line in the sand and say .....that's it all marriage equality achieved on the 22nd May. I am just asking the question that while there are excluded groups(and for good reason) to assume that there won't be any call in the future to change the current definition of marriage seems like wishful thinking.


  • Advertisement
  • #802
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,861 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    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.

    Once again, you say this.


    I am asking you, once again, please point out where this was said by any poster on here.


  • #803
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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.

    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.


  • #804
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    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.


    The original post I responded to said the only form of discrimination was on the basis of sexual orientation. ergo that assumes we are done with this subject next month.
    If any one of the other barriers to marriage are mentioned, people automatically post about the most sordid example........sex with children, sex with person with diminished mental capacity, incest. Not exactly short of examples if you look and they illustrate an attitude that this matter is done on 22nd may.


  • #805
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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.

    Really?

    You can't be that thick.

    Marriage is a legal creation, and if it isn't validly entered into , it never comes into being.

    Children aren't a legal creation. If two 14 year olds have sex and conceive, the baby comes into being whether we like it or not. unless you are suggesting we abort every fetus conceived by underaged children, we can't invalidate the sex.

    Trying to compare the two is idiotic.

    And why did I choose my example? Because it proves how dumb your argument is. If you want to argue age restrictions are discriminatory, stand over the implications of your argument.

    And while I personally believe we should have Romeo and Juliet type laws, there are reasoned arguments for prohibiting sex with anybody under 17 (even if you are under 17 yourself), in particular the supposed deterrent effect.

    It might be the wrong policy, but it isn't discriminatory.


  • #806
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,861 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Flem31 wrote: »
    The original post I responded to said the only form of discrimination was on the basis of sexual orientation.
    Can you link to that post please?


  • #807
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    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.

    If somebody can point to any unjust and discriminatory restrictions on marriage on 23rd May, I will support a further change.

    You haven't.


  • #808
    terryduff12
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 505 ✭✭✭terryduff12


    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?.


  • #809
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    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.

    I take exception to you accusing me of either lying or trolling.
    I have treated you and others with respect and courtesy and dislike your attempt at a putdown.

    I do understand the concept of equality but accept that marriage will evolve and don't automatically assume that it must involve sex or else it isn't a marriage. That is up to the two people involved to decide.

    I am prepared to listen and if a future marriage equality advocacy group comes up with a valid reason for expanding the definition of marriage, I will listen to the merits of same.


  • #810
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    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?.

    The referendum has nothing to do with sex education.


  • Advertisement
  • #811
    Flem31
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Flem31


    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.

    Wasn't pointing out an immediate change was required.
    Just questioned why people assume we are done with this subject for evermore in May


Advertisement