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

05-05-2015 03:34PM

Ash.J.Williams wrote: »

wel for a start it has nothing to do with the ref....i only brought it up coz a poster said it in such an absolute fashion.

I think what I say in an absolute fashion is that I have seen no reason to think a mother or father are necessary. Rather I think that we know the things that children need in their upbringing - and there is no reason to think that any parental configuration is precluded providing anything on that list.

I think a common error is that people look at the differences in their own parents and they attach - falsely - those differences to sex in their mind. So when they are brought to the point where they imagine parents of the same sex - or a single parent - they are imagining those things being entirely absent. And I think that more than anything is what makes people balk at the idea of same sex parents - or fall for slogans about children deserving a mother and a father.

But the multitude of people brought up perfectly well in our world by Single and Same Sex Parents is proof positive that there is an error in the thinking there. And the variety and diversity that motivated the idea in the first place comes not from the differences in sex - but the differences in personality and relationships and individuality of all the people involved.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I love this - you get your point across, and then want to say "but that has nothing to do with this discussion", completely dismissing that poster's opinion.

Thats Czar - that is one skewed reading of it for sure. The actual accurate reading of it however - for anyone interested - is to signal that I am both cognizant that we risk derailing the thread - but am also very open to have that discussion with someone willing or interested to do so - and that my discomfort at the derail is the exact opposite of an unwillingness to discuss it. It has nothing to do with getting my last word in and closing down the discussion - and everything to do with letting the person know I have a different opinion - I am interested in this fact - and would be keen to invite that person to discuss further in a place more appropriate.

I will leave you to choose whether to continue with your own reading of it - or the accurate one - as you see fit.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's what you're missing, is your failure to acknowledge that other people have a perspective that you don't share

None of the above is remotely accurate at all and you appear to have simply made the whole screed up from nowhere. If I had no interest in the perspectives of others - I would not even be on this forum.

No - I am aware of the existence of alternate perspectives - the user has clearly expressed one - but I remain unaware of what the basis for them may be. I have ignored - dismissed - or played down nothing at all. But a good screed is rarely hampered by not actually mapping onto reality I fear.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Bannasidhe you can present all the statistics you want, but you've also presented personal anecdotes

Which is perfectly valid from Bannasidhe - because if someone presents nothing but personal anecdote to support a position - it is a valid approach to show that another persons personal anecdote negate them 1:1. It is a useful way to demonstrate the failure of anecdote.

As for studies and academic opinion - they are not that complicated and I have a better opinion of peoples capabilities to parse them than you it seems. But for those of us who are aware of papers and studies on the subject - that is why we offer discourse on it in the first place. Because we can lend the benefit of our study to the other - point out papers - help people read them who might struggle - and much more. That is the benefit of discussion forums. We have that ability to draw on the knowledge and training of others - or to offer our own.

And all I can do is repeat what I already said - that I have read nothing nor been made aware of anything - which suggests that what the user suggested is true. There is simply no reason on offer to me at this time to think a female is any kind of requirement in the parenting dynamic. If there is a reason to think it - I am all ears/eyes.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think there's anything to be gained by questioning why they think the way they do.

Then it would be you - not me - ignoring and dodging the perspectives of others. I ALWAYS find utility in asking people why they think like they do because I am interested in the thinking of others - not just my own.

That is what discussion forums are for in my opinion. And by doing so I can - and often do - find reasons for a perspective that are new to me or I never considered. And I modify my own positions to assimilate this new information.

Perhaps such a user has a very good reason for thinking like they do - in which case it would be a gain for me to find out what that is - and modify what would by the wrong perspective I would therefore have thus far had on the issue. And I am many times more interested in uncovering where I am wrong - than demonstrating to anyone else why I think I am right.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's obvious - that's all they've ever known.

Then there is utility in that too. Through others we find perspectives different to our own - and the reasons for them - and we draw on the experience and knowledge of others so our own is not all we have in the bank.

eagle eye wrote: »

It's not against men as such, just that I believe that a mother is so important in the life of a child.

And it is the basis for thinking that which I am unaware of. I would be all ears/eyes to hear the reasoning behind it.

eagle eye wrote: »

I would never be able to do the job that a mother does. I don't think men are capable of doing that job.

What "job" is that exactly? As far as I know they are doing the job of parenting. Which anyone is capable of. If you have a different meaning for "job" here - or different content - then you are keeping it very vague - and I would appreciate having it beefed out a bit for me.

seamus · 05-05-2015 03:37PM

eagle eye wrote: »

It's not against men as such, just that I believe that a mother is so important in the life of a child. I'm a father myself and my partner always tells me and others that I'm a great father but I am certain that I would never be able to do the job that a mother does. I don't think men are capable of doing that job. Obviously there might be that one in a million but women are just so much better at it for the most part.

If I had any involvement in decisions over who gets to adopt a child I'd have the order hetrosexual couple, lesbian couple, single female, gay male couple and single man as the order of preference.

Ah right, so it's just plain old sexism then as opposed to anything else.

You do realise that basically what you're saying is, "Aside from all of the single fathers in the world, who appear to be getting along just fine, men are incapable of raising a child on their own".

What is it that women possess that men cannot provide to a child?

johnnyskeleton · 05-05-2015 03:38PM

eagle eye wrote: »

If I had any involvement in decisions over who gets to adopt a child I'd have the order hetrosexual couple, lesbian couple, single female, gay male couple and single man as the order of preference.

MOD: Good for you. Now, since adoption is not relevant to this thread, please don't mention it again. If you want to set up a new thread about the interplay between adoption and the referendum, be my guest.

Bannasidhe · 05-05-2015 04:22PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was speaking in general terms really Bannsidhe, about this whole notion that the gender roles can simply be dismissed so easily.

It runs completely contrary to many people's personal experiences, and while I personally can understand the importance of good role models in a person's life, regardless of their gender and so on, I'm not so easily prepared as some people are to dismiss outright the importance that other people place on a person having a mother and father in their lives or knowing where they came from or the different characteristics that both sexes bring to the table.

But.
I wasn't dismissing.
I was asking him to explain what he thought those gender defined roles are...

No one seems to be able to explain it other than in terms that some might say look a inseey winceey bit sexist..

Personally, I think implying only mother's can do the nur-cher kissy better talk bout periods stuff is insulting to fathers.

05-05-2015 04:32PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I was speaking in general terms really Bannsidhe, about this whole notion that the gender roles can simply be dismissed so easily.

I think we have out-grown gender roles as a society. I see no reason to subscribe to them any more. What "roles" are there any more aside from the obvious biological functions of reproduction?

I do not think we are dismissing them easily - so much as simply realising they simply do not apply any more. There are no "roles" any more to fulfil - let alone to model and perpetuate.

And that is one of the reasons I welcome the change this thread topic is actually about. To modify the institute of marriage to no longer create a distinction on sex - but to allow anyone to enter into that contract regardless of sex - because sex simply has no relation to the roles or purposes of marriage any more.

And this is a good thing.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not so easily prepared as some people are to dismiss outright the importance that other people place on a person having a mother and father in their lives

Nor am I. But I would perpetuate the idea of acknowledging that as important as a persons mother and father were to them - and were to me - very little about what made them important was ever related to what sex they were.

And many people do assign the things that were important to them - or different in their relationships with them - as being something related to the sex of those parents. And that is likely simply not true - and even if it was it would be creating a general assumption based on a single anecdote.

And that is not a good thing.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the different characteristics that both sexes bring to the table.

And like the idea of gender roles - I am not so convinced there is such a wild difference in those characteristics. Even less so if you consider them in the context of what is relevant or useful to the successful and healthy upbringing of a child.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 05-05-2015 08:36PM

CramCycle wrote: »

That would be a family framework, not a marriage framework. Both fit into the family framework, as far as I know the grandmother and her two daughters and a son do not fit into the marriage framework.

I'd pretty much agree with that. Bear in mind, in that particular post I'm not especially expressing a view on what I think is the right answer. I'm really only saying that I think the question is whether a voter thinks a same sex relationship fits into the marriage framework.

And I think that's the question; not whether same sex relationships are especially good or especially bad at looking after children.

CramCycle wrote: »

It does not the close the gap, if it did, marriage would be redundant in the eyes of the law as you would have two names for the same thing. They are different.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Where's this "gap" you talk about that isn't already addressed in current legislation?

Indeed, and I may not be clear in what I mean in that sentence. For those of us voting No, one element of our outlook is typically that civil partnership is an adequate response. That is, it recognises that a same sex relationship is something like a marriage, to the extent of needing a framework, while at the same time being something a little different. I feel an adequate description of the situation is

http://fergryan.blogspot.ie/2015/04/civil-partnership-v-marriage-some.html

<...>Civil partnership certainly provides extensive rights and obligations. It offers equal treatment with marriage, for instance, in the context of taxation, social welfare, pensions, citizenship, immigration, property, domestic violence, and maintenance. Largely equal treatment applies in the context of succession (inheritance) and remedies following dissolution. It delivered a number of vitally important, and in some cases urgently needed protections for same-sex couples.

Civil Partnership differs from marriage, however, in a number of respects. Many of these differences initially related to children being raised by civil partners, though most of these particular differences have been eliminated by the Children and Family Relationships Bill 2015. Other differences in the original Act have been removed by legislation in 2011 and 2014. Nonetheless, a number of differences remain.<...>

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There is nothing which would detract from giving same sex couples the same opportunities as opposite sex couples.

I think that's not so clear cut. What me, John Waters and 0.02% of the population would say is that changing the Constitution generally has some impact. I don't think it can be assumed that this changes nothing in the nature of the Constitutional protection for existing married couples.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Does the word 'consanguinuity' mean anything to you?

Yes, although I don't see the implications here. When you think about, there's no particular reason why two sisters should be prevented from marrying on grounds of consanguinity. I think adopted chlldren are included in the prohibition, but that's probably out of an excess of form. No Earthly reason why an adopted child shouldn't marry an adoptive sibling.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 05-05-2015 10:26PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

An adequate response to recognising all citizens of the State as equal with respect to the rights, privileges and protections conferred upon them by the institution of civil marriage?

In fairness, that's an attempt to define the answer into the question. Also, in that particular post, I just describing a view that No voters like myself commonly express. If someone says "do you not feel there's a need for some provision", a typical response is "there is some provision". I'd feel that article by Fergus Ryan that I linked described that position in quite a balanced way.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's immediate inference is that it is lesser than, not equal to, the institution of civil marriage.

That's fine as preaching to the converted Yes voter, but it's too general for those of us who don't see a real, pressing issue.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You have yet to actually make an attempt at explaining how giving same sex couples the opportunity to enter into civil marriage presents any changes to the nature of Constitutional protection for existing married couples?

Well, we won't really know until the Courts decide the first case. Until that happens, we'll simply be accused of scaremongering. However, as I think even a few posters (including myself) have said here, the proposed change sits incongruously in Article 41, which has words to the effect that the State protects marriage as the work of women in the home provides a support without which the common good cannot be achieved. It will then go on to provide for marriages which have no women. In the belief that these marriages will have the protection the State gives because women in the home provide an essential support for achieving the common good.

I see that as a dog's dinner. I can't see that it can be seen any other way.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can't say I spend a whole lot of time thinking about incest, let alone trying to come up with a rebuttal to the argument that says because same sex incestuous couples are prohibited from entering into civil marriage, then same sex couples who are not already related should be prohibited from entering into marriage.

But, sure, I'm not saying that. I'm saying it more the other way around. If SSM was legislated for, there would be no particular reason to prevent sisters from marrying.

The situation doesn't arise now, as there is no SSM.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 05-05-2015 10:46PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think you just provided an accurate summary of your entire position with this statement

I see ... a dog's dinner.

That's absolutely it.

I haven't seen a Yes Voter yet who wants to get into how this new section is meant to sit with language almost directly above it that takes for granted the presence of at least one woman in the marriage.

Because it's not just a passing reference, and it can't be imagined out of existence with some kind of Pythonesque ""When it says women, it's not meant to be taken literally. It means all sentient bipedal mammals.".

One eyed Jack · 05-05-2015 11:02PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

That's absolutely it.

I haven't seen a Yes Voter yet who wants to get into how this new section is meant to sit with language almost directly above it that takes for granted the presence of at least one woman in the marriage.

Because it's not just a passing reference, and it can't be imagined out of existence with some kind of Pythonesque ""When it says women, it's not meant to be taken literally. It means all sentient bipedal mammals.".

If yourself, and John Waters, and 0.02% of the population are simply pretending to be ignorant of how the legal system in this country works, then why do you think anyone should have to entertain your persistent, pretentious ignorance?

Your "arguments" as you present them are more inconsistent than the constitution you seem to take issue with, and that's really saying something!

johnnyskeleton · 05-05-2015 11:02PM

Ive scooped a lot of the parenting/adoption threads into another thread. Ive deleted a load of one liners and insulting posts. Please bear in mind the chater

Sofiztikated · 05-05-2015 11:50PM

eagle eye wrote: »

It's not against men as such, just that I believe that a mother is so important in the life of a child. I'm a father myself and my partner always tells me and others that I'm a great father but I am certain that I would never be able to do the job that a mother does. I don't think men are capable of doing that job. Obviously there might be that one in a million but women are just so much better at it for the most part.

If I had any involvement in decisions over who gets to adopt a child I'd have the order hetrosexual couple, lesbian couple, single female, gay male couple and single man as the order of preference.

I'm afraid I'd have to disagree.

I'd go with, in this order:

The person or persons best suited to give the child a good home, regardless of their gender or relationship status.

EDIT: Apologies, saw mod note after posting.

CramCycle · 06-05-2015 10:37AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd pretty much agree with that. Bear in mind, in that particular post I'm not especially expressing a view on what I think is the right answer. I'm really only saying that I think the question is whether a voter thinks a same sex relationship fits into the marriage framework.

I think it does, I have yet to be provided with a reason that it doesn't that isn't easily discredited but those are my views.

For those of us voting No, one element of our outlook is typically that civil partnership is an adequate response. That is, it recognises that a same sex relationship is something like a marriage, to the extent of needing a framework, while at the same time being something a little different.

My view is that it is not a little different, my view is that civil partnership and marriage are not the same thing, if they were, one should be discarded. This referendum makes one unnecessary as it is the same for all couples who wish to be joined in the eyes of the law and our constitution on equal footing to any other couple who wish the same.

I feel an adequate description of the situation is I think that's not so clear cut. What me, John Waters and 0.02% of the population would say is that changing the Constitution generally has some impact.

While I respect your right to opposing view, I tend not to listen to JW as every article and interview he gives has conflicting views within his own view. In fact many of his own well publicised views do not line up with what he says in regards the SSM, more so, much of it is not relatable.

I don't think it can be assumed that this changes nothing in the nature of the Constitutional protection for existing married couples.

It is a constitutional protection, but one that is given to us through a legal framework. Those constitutional protections are still there, they may, depending on how the vote goes, be extended to include more citizens of Ireland who in the eyes of many deserve the right to access such protection.

What this protection is and what it affords a couple though is very much in the hands of legislation.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 06-05-2015 10:48AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If yourself, and John Waters, and 0.02% of the population are simply pretending to be ignorant of how the legal system in this country works, then why do you think anyone should have to entertain your persistent, pretentious ignorance?

Your "arguments" as you present them are more inconsistent than the constitution you seem to take issue with, and that's really saying something!

But, sure, that's just retreating into generalities and avoiding the point.

https://www.constitution.ie/Documents/Bhunreacht_na_hEireann_web.pdf
THE FAMILY
ARTICLE 41
1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society,and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

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.

3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
<stuff providing for divorce, to be followed by the new bit>

‘4 Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.’

What's all that supposed to mean? It's like an Irish joke.

traprunner · 06-05-2015 11:00AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Quote:
https://www.constitution.ie/Document...ireann_web.pdf
THE FAMILY
ARTICLE 41
1 1° The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society,and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

2° The State, therefore, guarantees to protect the Family in its constitution and authority, as the necessary basis of social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and the State.

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.

3 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.
<stuff providing for divorce, to be followed by the new bit>

‘4 Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.’
What's all that supposed to mean? It's like an Irish joke.

It's only issue can be with the word 'woman'. The rest is just drivel. Like many parts of the constitution it needs to be rewritten. Look at the deal being made of this one small amendment. How do you think there would be any chance of making two amendments (in the one area of the constitution) in a country such as ours that is so backwards it's like time stood still in the 1800's? Baby steps are required to keep the confusion to a minimum so our population can say 'yes' or 'no' without a million 'maybes'.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 06-05-2015 11:12AM

traprunner wrote: »

It's only issue can be with the word 'woman'. The rest is just drivel. Like many parts of the constitution it needs to be rewritten. Look at the deal being made of this one small amendment. How do you think there would be any chance of making two amendments (in the one area of the constitution) in a country such as ours that is so backwards it's like time stood still in the 1800's? Baby steps are required to keep the confusion to a minimum so our population can say 'yes' or 'no' without a million 'maybes'.

But the "drivel" counts. It's what the Courts are actually obliged to look at.

I suspect the reason they don't want to amend "woman" is because there's a proposal to change it to "carer's". That's a bunch of people currently making off with €500 million of your money, who'd like the Constitution to require us to fund them.

CramCycle wrote: »

It is a constitutional protection, but one that is given to us through a legal framework. Those constitutional protections are still there, they may, depending on how the vote goes, be extended to include more citizens of Ireland who in the eyes of many deserve the right to access such protection.

What this protection is and what it affords a couple though is very much in the hands of legislation.

Indeed, although I don't see how we can easy assume that the substance of the Constitutional protection is unchanged by extending it. As I'm suggesting above, just nailing this wording onto the end of Article 41 leaves us with a text that's somewhat incoherent.

CramCycle · 06-05-2015 11:35AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I suspect the reason they don't want to amend "woman" is because there's a proposal to change it to "carer's". That's a bunch of people currently making off with €500 million of your money, who'd like the Constitution to require us to fund them.

Again, a legislative change to define what a carer is. Forgive my ignorance here but other than the statement, what legislative action does this part of the constitution relate to.

Complete ignorance on my part, but I don't know of any tax breaks or protections that are there at the moment for women in the home (off the top of my head). The only thing I can think of is child support, is that what it is hinting at? You don't need to be married, at home or a woman for that.

Indeed, although I don't see how we can easy assume that the substance of the Constitutional protection is unchanged by extending it. As I'm suggesting above, just nailing this wording onto the end of Article 41 leaves us with a text that's somewhat incoherent.

I just can't see how it could change it, if we refuse to adapt from fear of an issue that no one can determine, nothing would get done and society would never progress. Admittedly we are slow at such things in Ireland but I'd sooner be slow than immobile.

SireOfSeth · 06-05-2015 11:41AM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But the "drivel" counts. It's what the Courts are actually obliged to look at.

Exactly! The courts are already doing so. The Ref will not change this. All the Ref will (hopefully) change is that gay people can get married too.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 06-05-2015 12:11PM

CramCycle wrote: »

Again, a legislative change to define what a carer is. Forgive my ignorance here but other than the statement, what legislative action does this part of the constitution relate to.
Complete ignorance on my part, but I don't know of any tax breaks or protections that are there at the moment for women in the home (off the top of my head). The only thing I can think of is child support, is that what it is hinting at? You don't need to be married, at home or a woman for that.

Similarly, I'm not aware of any concrete action on foot of the apparently pivotal role of woman in all this. My reference to carers may be a little confusing. What I mean is this

https://www.constitution.ie/AttachmentDownload.ashx?mid=268d9308-c9b7-e211-a5a0-005056a32ee4
(a) Amending the clause on the role of women in the home
A majority of the Convention members favoured a change to the Constitution to amend the clause and, if making such a change, a majority recommended that it should be gender-neutral to include other carers in the home and that it should also include carers beyond the home. The Convention also recommended that the State should offer a “reasonable level of support” to ensure that carers ‘shall not be obliged by economic necessity to engage in labour’.

The "Carers Allowance" paid by the Dept of Social Protection cost about €500 million a year. That proposed change from the Convention would (IMHO) cost us real money. Particularly the "carers beyond the home" stuff.

It's great what people start recommending when they think they've got their hands on your chequebook.

CramCycle wrote: »

I just can't see how it could change it, if we refuse to adapt from fear of an issue that no one can determine, nothing would get done and society would never progress. Admittedly we are slow at such things in Ireland but I'd sooner be slow than immobile.

I suppose that's where I feel the concept of materiality has to apply. If I really felt single sex couples faced intolerable burdens, I might be motivated to take the risks that come with changing the Constitution. I'm not motivated to do that when the purpose seems largely symbolic.

I would take the risk for terminating non-viable pregnancies, because the current ban really causes obvious problems for a group of people who have no remedy at all under our existing law, and can't be given one unless the Constitution is changed.

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Exactly! The courts are already doing so. The Ref will not change this. All the Ref will (hopefully) change is that gay people can get married too.

? I don't think you've digested that the Article is implicitly assuming that marriages contain at least one woman, with a large overlap between "woman" and "mother".

SireOfSeth · 06-05-2015 12:19PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't think you've digested that the Article is implicitly assuming that marriages contain at least one woman, with a large overlap between "woman" and "mother".

I think once you look past your own smoke-screens, you'll see that that doesn't matter a jot with regards to this Ref (and the Law Society seems to agree). So, you can have faith that your YES vote will be put to good use.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 06-05-2015 12:23PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

I think once you look past your own smoke-screens, you'll see that that doesn't matter a jot with regards to this Ref (and the Law Society seems to agree). So, you can have faith that your YES vote will be put to good use.

If any document (including one by the Law Society) actually address the point, it would be grand.

You'll notice, they haven't.

SireOfSeth · 06-05-2015 12:37PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

If any document (including one by the Law Society) actually address the point, it would be grand.

You'll notice, they haven't.

Hopefully this puts your mind at ease...
http://www.lawsociety.ie/News/Media/Press-Releases/The-Law-Society-of-Ireland-calls-for-equality-supports-the-Marriage-Referendum/

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 06-05-2015 12:42PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Hopefully this puts your mind at ease...
http://www.lawsociety.ie/News/Media/Press-Releases/The-Law-Society-of-Ireland-calls-for-equality-supports-the-Marriage-Referendum/

Sure, I've already read it. It doesn't deal with the matter at all.

MrWalsh · 06-05-2015 12:45PM

More PARKLIFE from GCU I see, sigh.....

SireOfSeth · 06-05-2015 12:46PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Sure, I've already read it. It doesn't deal with the matter at all.

They seem to be dealing with the matter in hand, unlike you. I still don't know if you're happy with the Ref, in and of itself ... as all you seem to go on about is the surrounding text in the Constitution.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 06-05-2015 01:43PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

They seem to be dealing with the matter in hand, unlike you.

I suspect the difference between us is I've actually read their paper.

SireOfSeth wrote: »

I still don't know if you're happy with the Ref, in and of itself ... as all you seem to go on about is the surrounding text in the Constitution.

In fairness, I think my posts are clearer than that. If someone is pretending they cannot appreciate the incoherence in the wording, seen as a whole, then they're really not open to discussion at all.

SireOfSeth · 06-05-2015 01:48PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I suspect the difference between us is I've actually read their paper.

Just as well you're not a detective either then. As I have read it.

In fairness, I think my posts are clearer than that. If someone is pretending they cannot appreciate the incoherence in the wording, seen as a whole, then they're really not open to discussion at all.

Weird. It's stunning that you're the only one who can see all these massive issues that mean you are unable to vote on allowing SSM.

traprunner · 06-05-2015 01:55PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I suspect the difference between us is I've actually read their paper.In fairness, I think my posts are clearer than that. If someone is pretending they cannot appreciate the incoherence in the wording, seen as a whole, then they're really not open to discussion at all.

GCU, if you are so adamant that the referendum is wrong due to the 'wording, seen as a whole' then take a court case to try to stop it. Unless you do that there is no point in objecting to it.

Don't be voting 'No' because the 'wording, seen as a whole' is wrong in your mind. At best case spoil your vote (to highlight that you don't agree with the wording), or, at worst case don't vote.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 06-05-2015 02:05PM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Just as well you're not a detective either then. As I have read it.

Hmmm. If you were in school, and I was your teacher, I'd be asking questions at this point.

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Weird. It's stunning that you're the only one who can see all these massive issues that mean you are unable to vote on allowing SSM.

In fairness, me and John Waters.

And I'd guess a 0.02% silent minority.

But the Law Society document doesn't address it. It's actually quite a poor document, that makes no attempt to discuss this in terms of what it actually means.

traprunner wrote: »

GCU, if you are so adamant that the referendum is wrong due to the 'wording, seen as a whole' then take a court case to try to stop it. Unless you do that there is no point in objecting to it.

? But, sure, what's the grounds for a Court case? The people have a perfect right to vote whatever they like into the Constitution. The Pro-Life Amendment was wonky, too. It's just perfectly lawful for the Irish people to decide that a non-viable pregnancy has to be carried to term, even if its a self-evidently gruesome idea.

traprunner wrote: »

Don't be voting 'No' because the 'wording, seen as a whole' is wrong in your mind. At best case spoil your vote (to highlight that you don't agree with the wording), or, at worst case don't vote.

Nonsense. I'm obviously not going to agree to something I think is half-baked.

traprunner · 06-05-2015 02:07PM

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

But, sure, what's the grounds for a Court case? The people have a perfect right to vote whatever they like into the Constitution. The Pro-Life Amendment was wonky, too. It's just perfectly lawful for the Irish people to decide that a non-viable pregnancy has to be carried to term, even if its a self-evidently gruesome idea.

You tell me what the grounds are. You keep arguing about the legality of the wording of the article in the constitution.

SireOfSeth · 06-05-2015 02:17PM

SireOfSeth wrote:

Weird. It's stunning that you're the only one who can see all these massive issues that mean you are unable to vote on allowing SSM.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

In fairness, me and John Waters.

Haha. Well that explains it.

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

Comments