nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

AlphaRed

Lets remember without distortion what we are really voting about. The Yes Campaign has hijacked the referendum by relabeling it "Marriage equality". They are taking the concept of equality which is of great importance to everyone and like a beer commercial are attaching it to the positive emotions and importance people feel about equality.

If you don't do what they say you are against equality and so, a bad person. This is sheer propaganda. We have seen in history how propaganda has been used to manipulate the masses.

Please take the time to fully analyse what that sentence means "marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex". There is no mention of equality in that sentence. That concept has been added by the yes campaign. They are asking you to make a logical leap, because there is no real connection with equality.

Be a true independent thinker. Think of the implications for society and think about the roots of the yes campaign and what it actually has to do with our society. Don't base your decision on emotional but on a rational and deep understanding of the issue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

shruikan2553

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

There seems to be a dishonesty from the yes side.

They fail to acknowledge - that a man and a women in a union is the intention of The Family. Expecting people to throw the baby out with the bathwater - because love is great. Is all a bit flawed for me.

If it is necessary to change the definition of Family - go do that. But the entire thing is daft.

Anyway - drive on with your referendum. But , your not fooling some with this "equality - you homophobe line "

A family as intended in constitution is protected - rightly for the benefit of society. This should be respected by all equally. Not undermined for a personal cause
.

The constitution only says that the family is based on marriage. The referendum is to add a part that says a marriage can be made up of two people of any gender. Then it will be part of the constitution.

Your problems with the referendum is why there is a referendum so it specifically states marriage can be between 2 people of any gender.

You have yet to say what the flaw in this is other than it is not in there already, which makes sense as we are having a referendum. If the constitution already said this there wouldnt be a referendum.

You are telling someone they can't go to the shop to get milk because they're out of milk.

FixdePitchmark

sup_dude wrote: »

But where is family defined?

There is the dishonesty.

If people are trying to muddy the waters, what a family is in a constitution that was formed in 1937 and covers the overwhelming majority of families.

They really have a weak position.

I guess you had a mum and dad.

You will struggle if honest - to find a poster on here that didn't come from a mum and dad. And had a family.

Does this have to change ? perhaps. But that is not what we are voting on.

Ave Sodalis

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

There is the dishonesty.

If people are trying to muddy the waters, what a family is in a constitution that was formed in 1937 and covers the overwhelming majority of families.

They really have a weak position.

I guess you had a mum and dad.

You will struggle if honest - to find a poster on here that didn't come from a mum and dad. And had a family.

Does this have to change ? perhaps. But that is not what we are voting on.

I have a mother and a biological father. My father isn't my family. Does this mean that, without my father being there, I'm not part of a family?

Family isn't defined as mammy, daddy and baby. Family may or may not include children, and it may or may not include both or all biological parents.

seamus

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Does this have to change ? perhaps. But that is not what we are voting on.

If that's not what we're voting on, then why are you bringing it up?

oscarBravo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

There seems to be a dishonesty from the yes side.

There seems to be an aversion to answering questions on your side.

They fail to acknowledge - that a man and a women in a union is the intention of The Family.

You're stating that axiomatically, but refusing to back it up.

Who says that a man and a woman in a union is the intention of the family?

Anyway - drive on with your referendum. But , your not fooling some with this "equality - you homophobe line "

Nobody has called you a homophobe. I'm calling you out on your evasiveness, however.

CramCycle

sup_dude wrote: »

But where is family defined?

I am not sure if it is defined in the constitution but my understanding from observation is the family is defined (to me) as the following.

A family is a unit/collective of people, minimum of two, consisting of one or more adults, who may or may not have children in their care, who are committed to looking after and loving each other for as long as they possibly can.

There are many marriages in Ireland today that do not constitute a family by my definition, including ones where children are involved. There are also alot of families in my definition who are not married.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

There is the dishonesty.

You are making a statement without anything to back it up

If people are trying to muddy the waters, what a family is in a constitution that was formed in 1937 and covers the overwhelming majority of families.

But they haven't, the referendum is changing nothing in regarsds to families or their definition

I guess you had a mum and dad.

I do but in my years I have met many who do not, I know many who have no parents, I know many who have two dads (parents split up, step dad/long term boyfriend becomes a defacto dad, homosexual couple who are looking after a child/children (be they fostered, passed into their care through family, surrogacy etc.)), some with two mums (similar to before).

You will struggle if honest - to find a poster on here that didn't come from a mum and dad. And had a family.

I doubt that.

Does this have to change ? perhaps. But that is not what we are voting on.

At least there is something to agree on, we are not voting on the definition of family, we are voting on the definition of marriage and the Yes side are voting to have this definition become more open to include everyone who wishes to marry, the No side are voting that they like things the way they are.

Please don't muddy the waters by claiming it is anything else.

SpaceTime

The constitution doesn't actually define a family at all, all it does is vaguely link the concept to marriage which is actually more of a danger to unmarried couples with kids than anyone else.

Also some of the provisions in that section are quite bizarre, particularly around women's rights.

It'd be interesting if a group of women took a class action lawsuit against the state based on their rather shockingly sexist and very patriarchal sounding constitutional rights here :

2 1° In particular, the State recognises that by her life within the home, woman gives to the State a support without which the common good cannot be achieved.
2° The State shall, therefore, endeavour to ensure that mothers shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour to the neglect of their duties in the home.

I mean, one could interpret that if say for example you had a large mortgage or high rent, that the state would have a constitutional obligation to pay some of it to prevent the women from having to "neglect their duties in the home".

Could get interesting and very expensive and might need an urgent referendum to modernise.

MrWalsh

SpaceTime wrote: »

I mean, one could interpret that if say for example you had a large mortgage or high rent, that the state would have a constitutional obligation to pay some of it to prevent the women from having to "neglect their duties in the home".

Count me in!

FixdePitchmark

Look - I'll leave it off.

The amendment is under The Family in constitution.

I understand what the majority of people think a family is - If people get together to have children to form a family - I think it deserves special support and recognition.

It is totally flawed (in my eyes) - To try define yourself as this when biologically you are not.

So - I just can't get this.

I'll join the intellectually weak, right wing nuts and the homophobes.

For a movement that has been all about "The Love" - they have really run a nasty campaign - putting the movement back 20 years in my eyes.

The right approach was a fully recognised legal union.

To me the amendment is unconstitutional and should be challenged if possible.

Ave Sodalis

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Look - I'll leave it off.

The amendment is under The Family in constitution.

I understand what the majority of people think a family is - If people get together to have children to form a family - I think it deserves special support and recognition.

It is totally flawed (in my eyes) - To try define yourself as this when biologically you are not.

So - I just can't get this.

I'll join the intellectually weak, right wing nuts and the homophobes.

For a movement that has been all about "The Love" - they have really run a nasty campaign - putting the movement back 20 years in my eyes.

The right approach was a fully recognised legal union.

To me the amendment is unconstitutional and should be challenged if possible.

You were accused on none of the bolded part?

MrWalsh

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I understand what the majority of people think a family is - If people get together to have children to form a family - I think it deserves special support and recognition.

Are you trying to say that myself and my heterosexual husband are not a family because we dont want to have children? Offensive and archaic.

Or that his sister and her daughter are not a family because she is a single mother? Again, offensive and archaic.

His parents are divorced, so are they not not a part of the wider family also?

shruikan2553

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Look - I'll leave it off.

The amendment is under The Family in constitution.

I understand what the majority of people think a family is - If people get together to have children to form a family - I think it deserves special support and recognition.

It is totally flawed (in my eyes) - To try define yourself as this when biologically you are not.

So - I just can't get this.

I'll join the intellectually weak, right wing nuts and the homophobes.

For a movement that has been all about "The Love" - they have really run a nasty campaign - putting the movement back 20 years in my eyes.

The right approach was a fully recognised legal union.

To me the amendment is unconstitutional and should be challenged if possible.

You are the person who keeps saying homophobe.

Something can't be unconstitutional if it's in the constitution. It may contradict something else but you have yet to show anything that says a man and a man or a woman and a woman can't be married.

seamus

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I understand what the majority of people think a family is - If people get together to have children to form a family - I think it deserves special support and recognition.

It is totally flawed (in my eyes) - To try define yourself as this when biologically you are not.

You're pointing out the exact flaw in your thinking yourself really. That "family" is a social construct, not a biological one, therefore to try and restrict it to purely biological terms makes no sense.

So there is no reason why a "family" must consist of a mother, father and their genetic offspring.

In reality the definition of "family" needs to be massively overhauled - as pointed out, it leaves single-parent families in constitutional limbo and fails to recognise many valid types of families which form part of the greater social good.

Marriage and family need to be completely decoupled in the constitution.

To me the amendment is unconstitutional and should be challenged if possible.

By definition, if an amendment is made to the constitution it cannot be unconstitutional.

johnnyskeleton

sydthebeat wrote: »

"Without distinction" means the inability to distinguish

Which means must be treated equal.

I cannot fathom why it's difficult to comprehend that

Not quite. Arguably, the phrase "without distinction" means that a marriage can be contracted between two people without distinction as to their gender, but that does not mean that a marriage of two men or two women is "equal" to a marriage of a man and a woman. So there is equality as regards ability to marry from a sexual orientation point of view, but the article does not necessarily mean that a homosexual marraige and a heterosexual marriage are to be treated equally in all respects.

If anything, one could criticise it for not going far enough.

daithi84

Why do you have the have children to be considered a family. If i get married i would consider my new family that of me and my spouse. Children can be added to the family. Can you only be considered a family if there are children involved? If marriage is the foundation of the family then I would interpret that as to mean me and my spouse are legally a family.

CramCycle

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

It is totally flawed (in my eyes) - To try define yourself as this when biologically you are not.

I will inform everyone I know who have loved and supported their step children as their own for years that they are not in fact family, I dare say one of my own children will be unhappy when they find out

MrWalsh wrote: »

Are you trying to say that myself and my heterosexual husband are not a family because we dont want to have children? Offensive and archaic.

Or that his sister and her daughter are not a family because she is a single mother? Again, offensive and archaic.

His parents are divorced, so are they not not a part of the wider family also?

Not to mention my neighbours who took in a child 50 years ago, hate to inform them they are not family.

Or my mother who was raised by a family in the community, as my Granddad died of a broken heart when his wife passed away just after child birth.

Seriously though, it shocks me at the lack of though some people put into the meaning of words before they let them flow from their mouth.

Also the fact that this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE REFERENDUM but as the referendum commission pointed out, there is nothing they can do about people lying or attempting to mislead people.

FixdePitchmark

MrWalsh wrote: »

Are you trying to say that myself and my heterosexual husband are not a family because we dont want to have children? Offensive and archaic.

Or that his sister and her daughter are not a family because she is a single mother? Again, offensive and archaic.

His parents are divorced, so are they not not a part of the wider family also?

Of course there are exceptions - this amendment is the ultimate bizarre exception.

People who get together and try to form families - successfully and unsuccessfully, deserve special support of the state. Be that housing , child benefit , tax status , health service support.

Just because relationship breaks down. Doesn't mean a family unit that raises children together - doesn't deserve special recognition. If this relationship breaks down, support will be provided.

If people are trying to say procreation is not an important element of social structure - best of luck when we all grow old.

The Family unit is an important part of society. It also protects the state from exposure of fully supporting children.

We can't change the entire structure of society for the exception.

We can provide support - we can provide equality , but we can't call two men getting together in a relationship a marriage or a family in my eyes.

So - they say it is about equality this thing. It isn't, it is about trying to redefine family (as it is what we are voting on) and redefining marriage.

It is an extraordinary lofty ambition, with a tiny amendment. Considering these structures are 1000s of years old.

There are people honestly posting a family is not defined.
I'll leave it there so.

Ave Sodalis

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Of course there are exceptions - this amendment is the ultimate bizarre exception.

People who get together and try to form families - successfully and unsuccessfully, deserve special support of the state. Be that housing , child benefit , tax status , health service support.

Just because relationship breaks down. Doesn't mean a family unit that raises children together - doesn't deserve special recognition. If this relationship breaks down, support will be provided.

If people are trying to say procreation is not an important element of social structure - best of luck when we all grow old.

The Family unit is an important part of society. It also protects the state from exposure of fully supporting children.

We can't change the entire structure of society for the exception.

We can provide support - we can provide equality , but we can't call two men getting together in a relationship a marriage or a family in my eyes.

So - they say it is about equality this thing. It isn't it is about trying to redefine family (as it is what we are voting on) and redefining marriage.

It is an extraordinary lofty ambition, with a tiny amendment. Considering these structures are 1000s of years old.

There are people honestly posting a family is not defined.
I'll leave it there so.

A family isn't defined though.

And your post is a very good reason to vote Yes. Gay couples can adopt. Surely, you want to offer them the protection that marriage brings?

Maximus Alexander

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I understand what the majority of people think a family is - If people get together to have children to form a family - I think it deserves special support and recognition.

I think that this statement completely ignores the way that human beings form collectives and develop bonds. This is an 'idealised' version of the family that is generally promoted in Christianity, but doesn't reflect the reality of how vast swathes of people live, love and interact.

FixdePitchmark

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I think that this statement completely ignores the way that human beings form collectives and develop bonds. This is an 'idealised' version of the family that is generally promoted in Christianity, but doesn't reflect the reality of how vast swathes of people live, love and interact.

And that is why we have civil partnerships.

Go for it - I'd vote for anything.

seamus

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

It is an extraordinary lofty ambition, with a tiny amendment. Considering these structures are 1000s of years old.

And over 1000s of years have been fluid and undefined and variously included harems, communities of biologicially unrelated individuals, same-sex relationships, opposite-sex relationships, polygamy and the other thousands of possible configurations in which people can come together and live as a family unit.

I see no reason this amendment makes any difference. It will not change the actual structure of society, in the slightest. It will just codify in law what society is already doing.

That's generally how the constitution and the law in general works - society changes and goes one way and then the law catches up. The law rarely if ever takes the lead.

FixdePitchmark

People using these sad stories.

Lads we are dealing with the constitution - it is an ideal.

If you are a 2 % - a minority , we can't change an ideal for 2 %.

Adoption is another days debate.

So are the yes side saying this is about single mothers and adoption. marriage or equality or family.

If they are saying it is all this, what a strange confusion.

seamus

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

If you are a 2 % - a minority , we can't change an ideal for 2 %.

You haven't explained why not.

So are the yes side saying this is about single mothers and adoption. marriage or equality or family.

Nice attempt at deflection. No, they're not.

In fact, nobody here has said it is.

Ave Sodalis

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

People using these sad stories.

Lads we are dealing with the constitution - it is an ideal.

If you are a 2 % - a minority , we can't change an ideal for 2 %.

Adoption is another days debate.

So are the yes side saying this is about single mothers and adoption. marriage or equality or family.

If they are saying it is all this, what a strange confusion.

Which sad stories?

The Yes side are not saying it's about single mothers or adoption. The Yes side are saying that your logic can be applied to single mothers, and are wondering why it's only a problem when it comes to gay couples.

MrWalsh

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

So are the yes side saying this is about single mothers and adoption. marriage or equality or family.

No, you are saying a family is two heterosexual parents and children. It is being pointed out to you that that is just one version of a family. You dont seem to mind non ideal families unless they are gay couples. So the onus is on you to explain that.

CramCycle

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

So are the yes side saying this is about single mothers and adoption. marriage or equality or family.

They are not though, you keep saying it is about family, you keep giving a definition that is so narrow that it does not fit a wide range of the Irish population.

You keep saying that marriage is defined as one thing. It is not.

You get upset that people are being facetious, they give you real world examples that I find it haard to believe you have never encountered.

You then say its not about those people.

Confusion only seems to be apparent in your posts.

This referendum is not about family. It is about the definition of marriage. You do not need to be married to be a family (although that provides alot of legal protection for a range of issues, that unmarried families and civil partners do not have).

FixdePitchmark

MrWalsh wrote: »

No, you are saying a family is two heterosexual parents and children. It is being pointed out to you that that is just one version of a family. You dont seem to mind non ideal families unless they are gay couples. So the onus is on you to explain that.

I accept that couples that stay together as a family deserve special recognition - as is the case in the constitution. As is the case in law , housing and tax and most western 1st world countries. I think this should be reaffirmed and encouraged more.

I'm not denying support and protections for all others.

But - you can't claim a right and equality - that is invalid.

Clearly - I'm out there on the right wing on this.

But - this whole thing to me - feels like the entitlement generation.

It is gone a bit too far - when you wake up one day and are told a man and a man together is the same as a traditional family.

Not that they want a union - not that they want a civil union - No they want a marriage and to be A Family - because they love love love love each other.

A bit too x-factor for me - I'm out.

sydthebeat

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not quite. Arguably, the phrase "without distinction" means that a marriage can be contracted between two people without distinction as to their gender, but that does not mean that a marriage of two men or two women is "equal" to a marriage of a man and a woman. So there is equality as regards ability to marry from a sexual orientation point of view, but the article does not necessarily mean that a homosexual marraige and a heterosexual marriage are to be treated equally in all respects.

If anything, one could criticise it for not going far enough.

thats not what i was arguing

i was arguing that the ability of a gay couple entering the contract of civil marriage shall be treated equally by law as to that of a hetrosexual couple

which in my mind is is easier to describe as "marriage equality" in the context of this referendum

every single semantic sentence can be deconstructed to argue against it, but the spirit of the sentance holds.

MrWalsh

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

It is gone a bit too far - when you wake up one day and are told a man and a man together is the same as a traditional family.

Why isnt a man and a man together equal to a "traditional" family?

FixdePitchmark

MrWalsh wrote: »

Why isnt a man and a man together equal to a "traditional" family?

Would you stop.

Look up birds and bees - You Tube.