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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.

Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

1…1112141617…327

Comments

  • #392
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    LookingFor wrote: »
    I'd have thought people against polygamy and polyamory would welcome the amendment. Asides from the gender aspect of the amendment, it actually also for the first time makes explicit that marriage is between two people. It would make impossible any move to recognise polygamous marriages without a referendum.

    Vote yes to copper fasten marriage as between two people only! :)

    Yes add discrimination against a whole set of consenting adults and call it equity.


  • #393
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    The point can't be simply dismissed. No part of the Constitution is read in isolation.

    I'm not saying this is an argument for a No vote. The Yes voters who acknowledge that the new words don't fit well with existing measures are at least acknowledging wider implications exist. If they regard those implications as a lesser concern, that's their choice.

    But pretending the inconsistency isn't there is too much.

    And the referendum commission material is particularly lacking in substance this time.

    Have you even read what she was talking about?


  • #394
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    gravehold wrote: »
    Yes add discrimination against a whole set of consenting adults and call it equity.

    I'm neither for or against polygamy/polyamory...I really don't know enough about it. My comment is a tongue-in-cheek jibe at those who would slippery-slope us from this amendment to polygamous or polyamorous marriage.

    I do know that whether or not this amendment makes Article 41 perfect, it does make it more fair. That is A Good Thing.


  • #395
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    gravehold wrote: »
    Yes add discrimination against a whole set of consenting adults and call it equity.


    Is there any point even replying to you? I do have to ask, what's your argument against SSM? I mean your argument, not the latest one you've picked up for someone else.


  • #396
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Have you even read what she was talking about?
    Only bits - as I understand it, she's was asking why the obvious inconsistency isn't addressed in the referendum information booklet.


  • Advertisement
  • #397
    Jimoslimos
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,930 ✭✭✭Jimoslimos


    gravehold wrote: »

    Honestly if you are for polygamy a no vote is now better then a yes
    I would disagree that people should use that as an excuse for voting no.

    I think too much emphasis is made on love between people as the basis for marriage. If it were plenty of unmarried couples would be be married and vice versa. In the eyes of the state it is an contract that provides a framework for agreeing rights and obligations such as property and next of kin.

    There is no reason why this cannot be extended to polygamy - the contracts may be slightly more complex is all.
    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    Polygamy is not recognised in Ireland,Irish law may not recognise some foreign marriages because of it,-law is developing here,so depends on the facts of the case). It is illegal, in Ireland, you risk faces criminal charged if you marry more than one person concurrently
    My last post was cut short, basically bigamy is illegal but polygamy is impossible is what I meant to say.


  • #398
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Only bits - as I understand it, she's was asking why the obvious inconsistency isn't addressed in the referendum information booklet.

    You may wanna actually go read it so before making comments...


  • #399
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    LookingFor wrote: »
    I do know that whether or not this amendment makes Article 41 perfect, it does make it more fair. That is A Good Thing.
    Is it?

    You may have come across the famous spam list of changes that this referendum will bring in:

    http://www.marriagequality.ie/download/xls/marriage_equality_missing_pieces_audit_full_list.xls

    This list includes this item.

    "Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 15 1, 3 (1) A "sexual act", unless rape, aggravated sexual assault, with a person under the age of 17 is an offence, except when the parties to the Act are married."

    The normal minimum age for marriage in Ireland is 18, unless people get a dispensation by the Courts. To give a picture of that, only 11 people aged under 17 got married in 2013.

    Most of us would say that's 11 too many. This referendum will open the door to even more marriages by people under 17, as clearly SSM will be allowed in similar circumstances.

    Can you explain to me why increasing, instead of reducing, the situations where under 17s will be able to marry is a good thing?


  • #400
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Is it?

    You may have come across the famous spam list of changes that this referendum will bring in:

    http://www.marriagequality.ie/download/xls/marriage_equality_missing_pieces_audit_full_list.xls

    This list includes this item.

    "Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 15 1, 3 (1) A "sexual act", unless rape, aggravated sexual assault, with a person under the age of 17 is an offence, except when the parties to the Act are married."

    The normal minimum age for marriage in Ireland is 18, unless people get a dispensation by the Courts. To give a picture of that, only 11 people aged under 17 got married in 2013.

    Most of us would say that's 11 too many. This referendum will open the door to even more marriages by people under 17, as clearly SSM will be allowed in similar circumstances.

    Can you explain to me why increasing, instead of reducing, the situations where under 17s will be able to marry is a good thing?

    We should just ban marriage altogether so... obviously if you add more people, you're going to get more variables. That's the way life works and you have to account for that.


  • #401
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,123 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    gravehold wrote: »
    Yes add discrimination against a whole set of consenting adults and call it equity.


    It's not discrimination against a whole set of consenting adults any more than it discriminates against 12 year olds on the grounds of their age.

    You know damn well what Civil Marriage is, and you know the prerequisites, and you know that polygamous relationships between consenting adults are not discriminated against because nobody is allowed enter into civil marriage with more than one person. The discrimination is in the fact that both parties must be of the opposite sex, which means that people of the same sex may not enter into Civil Marriage.

    To recognise polygamous marriage would mean a change in the Constitution to recognise polygamous marriage in conjunction with civil marriage. Nothing is being redefined by this referendum. The only thing the passing of this referendum would achieve is that two people may enter into marriage in accordance with law (there is no law recognising polygamous marriage) without distinction as to their sex.

    Now will you please stop lying and trying to mislead people?


  • Advertisement
  • #402
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Is it?

    You may have come across the famous spam list of changes that this referendum will bring in:

    http://www.marriagequality.ie/download/xls/marriage_equality_missing_pieces_audit_full_list.xls

    This list includes this item.

    "Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 15 1, 3 (1) A "sexual act", unless rape, aggravated sexual assault, with a person under the age of 17 is an offence, except when the parties to the Act are married."

    The normal minimum age for marriage in Ireland is 18, unless people get a dispensation by the Courts. To give a picture of that, only 11 people aged under 17 got married in 2013.

    Most of us would say that's 11 too many. This referendum will open the door to even more marriages by people under 17, as clearly SSM will be allowed in similar circumstances.

    Can you explain to me why increasing, instead of reducing, the situations where under 17s will be able to marry is a good thing?


    That's a ridiculous point to make. It's like saying divorce will increase because more people can get married, and so we should stop more people getting married. Or arguing we should ban marriage altogether to avoid situations like that for anyone.

    More two parent families having the option of marriage is a fairer situation. That brings pluses and minuses in individual circumstances depending on how those marriages pan out, but they are THE SAME pluses and minuses that will apply to everyone. That is fairness!

    Sorry, I don't mean to be demeaning, but it's just bizarre logic. It's like arguing we should stop women from driving to reduce the number of car crashes.


  • #403
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    It's not discrimination against a whole set of consenting adults any more than it discriminates against 12 year olds on the grounds of their age.

    You know damn well what Civil Marriage is, and you know the prerequisites, and you know that polygamous relationships between consenting adults are not discriminated against because nobody is allowed enter into civil marriage with more than one person. The discrimination is in the fact that both parties must be of the opposite sex, which means that people of the same sex may not enter into Civil Marriage.

    To recognise polygamous marriage would mean a change in the Constitution to recognise polygamous marriage in conjunction with civil marriage. Nothing is being redefined by this referendum. The only thing the passing of this referendum would achieve is that two people may enter into marriage in accordance with law (there is no law recognising polygamous marriage) without distinction as to their sex.

    Now will you please stop lying and trying to mislead people?

    No it wouldn't this could have add marraige is consenting adults regardless of sex no need to add the couple part. Yhey we just need to discrimalize polygamy like the gays did in 93 and they could get married.

    The gays are purposely adding the couple part with this yes vote, if you don't want the couple part added to marriage in the constitution vote no


  • #404
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    gravehold wrote: »
    No it wouldn't this could have add marraige is consenting adults regardless of sex no need to add the couple part. Yhey we just need to discrimalize polygamy like the gays did in 93 and they could get married.

    The gays are purposely adding the couple part with this yes vote, if you don't want the couple part added to marriage in the constitution vote no

    As I said, polygamy will most likely need a referendum anyway, just like "the gays" did.

    Again, I ask, what is your own argument against SSM? That isn't picked up from someone else.


  • #405
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,346 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    gravehold wrote: »
    Sure but we could have one referendum instead of the one that adds to the constitution that only couples can marry.

    The fact this adds only couples can marry into it makes it hugely discriminatory and shows that yes equality posters are a huge lie

    Part of what I have written below is not about the 34th amendment in the referendum. I am going off-thread to reply to you about polygamy from the 3rd para.

    Marriage and Couples.......

    It's probably because the word/term couple has for centuries meant two (2) people only and when it came to putting marriage into the law books from what was generally seen and accepted to be married couples - incl those with common law status - that version was generally accepted in what was Christendom.

    The use of the word couples to describe two gay people in a relationship was and is not of their choice, it's the term used and understood by society generally to describe two people (gay or straight) in a relationship. It's taken decades for society to get used to the notion of gay couples being acceptable to it (to whatever percentage of societal approval it has now).

    Polygamous Marriage.....

    Polygamy will/is doubtless face/ing the same struggle for society to adjust to it as well.

    Going way off the debate thread now, what you require for the type of marriage you desire would probably seen as impossible as the law requires marriage to be a legal contract, with divorce between partners only allowed after a fixed-time term of separation (I think 5 years for marriage and 2 years for CP's) first.

    I don't know for sure but it would probably be very hard for polygamous partners to have to comply with those terms before they could enter into any new relationships (supposing that any such new relationships came about while existing marriages still stood) would end up with bigamy charges being applied. Even existing bigamy law would have to be changed from coupled marriages to include polygamous marriages.


  • #406
    Lt J.R. Bell
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 679 ✭✭✭Lt J.R. Bell


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    The fact remains that Marriage is not defined in the Constitution therefore is cannot be re-defined in the Constitution.

    As for marriage being 're-defined' in legislation stop acting like this has never, ever happened ever in Ireland.

    Here is a handy list by barrister Mark Tottenham https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CA8ypesWkAA_EFW.png:large

    which shows the numerous 're-definitions' of marriage including the most recent one which 'redefined' it in such a way that it is no longer for life. Legislation had to amended for each and everyone of these and the latter necessitated some major legislation be written, debated and enacted.

    When the Constitution was written marriage was also for life - we changed that. The sky did not fall in.

    When the Constitution was written there was so such thing as rape within marriage. We changed that. The sky did not fall in.

    When the Constitution was written 15 year olds could get married. We changed that . The sky did not fall in.

    Legislation changes. That is the nature of legislation. If it didn't women could still be raped by their husbands, they would be unable to get a barring order against a violent rapist husband, they would be banned from working in the Civil Service after marriage and 15 year old could get married - oh... widows would not have an automatic entitlement to 30% of their deceased husband's estate... and women wouldn't be allowed to keep their own wages in the unlikely even they were allowed to work outside the home. There would also be no contraception in Ireland.

    Show me exactly where the Constitution makes any mention of gender or sexuality? It doesn't. It doesn't even mention men in the article dealing with marriage never mind sexual orientation.


    Of all the reasons to vote no the fact that legislation will have to be amended is without doubt the most ridiculous yet.

    I never said that marriage in Ireland, was never ever defined or redefined before, so ALL of what you said after that allegation is utterly irrelevant.

    Definition of terms get defined and redefined alot, to ensure that it meets with the time. One part of the definition that always remained constant since the establishment of this statement was that Marriage meant it was only open to man and woman. This will be changed if the referendum passes

    I do not think any draftsman of any Constitution or Treaty intended or was expected to have to spell out what single every word or comma actually means. That is the job of the Courts, to interpret, and, for the legislators to put the meat on the bone of the text of the Constitution by way of legislation.

    It is truely hilarious. On one side of the mouth, you are playing down the notion that marriage is not being redefined, just extended, and on the other, our former Tainiste talked about ssm being the major human right crusade of this generation. That sounds a bit more than a mere extension of a term.

    Even one of the worse Attorney Generals in the past 30 years (and remember Harry Whelan) accepted that this was a new departure in our laws, hence the need for a referendum to bring ssm into force

    Marriage is for life, subject to the provision that under strict conditions that it may be disolved by a decree if divorce and before that, succeed in getting Nullity. For most couples, it's for life.

    I Get an awful feeling when you waffle about legislation, and imply about divorce you are forgetting that the Constitution had to be amended to allow this to happen

    Your talking about 15 years old. Wow weren't they heterosexual marriages, as oppose to gay marriages? Hardly like for like

    Oh, and by the way, the crazy laws about whether non consensual sex with the wife being rape or not, has NOTHING to do with the definition or meaning of the word marriage. I don't think any vows or conditions about rape were needed at the time of the solemenisation on marriage. The criminal laws did nothing to the definition on marriage. They only applied once you were married. Horse before the cart dear boy, horse before the cart

    Show you the definitions?(already did) You really don't know what a Constitution is do you or its purpose.? Or why it doesn't spell out everything

    So your suggesting that because a man is not mentioned in Article 41, and bearing in mind, the dog on the street, bar you, knows what a marriage is, is somehow has nothing to do with men? Lol

    Constitutional Law includes BOTH its text AND Case Law.The new admendments then are spelt out in either new legislation or amended legislation or thebcurrent legislation is repealed

    You should read up on many of the available online articles by Gerard Hogan. Your source is a schoolboy compared to Hogan


  • #407
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    gravehold wrote: »
    No it wouldn't this could have add marraige is consenting adults regardless of sex no need to add the couple part. Yhey we just need to discrimalize polygamy like the gays did in 93 and they could get married.

    The gays are purposely adding the couple part with this yes vote, if you don't want the couple part added to marriage in the constitution vote no

    The decriminalisation of homosexuality was not a constitutional, thus not a referendum matter. Polygamy would be a constitutional matter, certainly after this amendment. It could not be made legal in the same manner at all.

    Who are 'the gays' by the way?


  • #408
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    LookingFor wrote: »

    Who are 'the gays' by the way?

    gay people thought that would be obvious


  • #409
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    gravehold wrote: »
    gay people thought that would be obvious

    But I mean, who are the gay people who drafted this amendment? Did they draft it en masse? Funny, I didn't get an invite...


  • #410
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    LookingFor wrote: »
    But I mean, who are the gay people who drafted this amendment? Did they draft it en masse? Funny, I didn't get an invite...

    Are you gay voting yes, then you are one of the gays adding discrimination into the constitution.


  • #411
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    gravehold wrote: »
    Are you gay voting yes, then you are one of the gays adding discrimination into the constitution.

    Gravehold- what is your argument against SSM that isn't just you jumping on the bandwagon of whoever came up with any sort of No argument?


  • Advertisement
  • #412
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Lt J.R. Bell wrote: »
    I never said that marriage in Ireland, was never ever defined or redefined before, so ALL of what you said after that allegation is utterly irrelevant.

    Definition of terms get defined and redefined alot, to ensure that it meets with the time. One part of the definition that always remained constant since the establishment of this statement was that Marriage meant it was only open to man and woman. This will be changed if the referendum passes

    I do not think any draftsman of any Constitution or Treaty intended or was expected to have to spell out what single every word or comma actually means. That is the job of the Courts, to interpret, and, for the legislators to put the meat on the bone of the text of the Constitution by way of legislation.

    It is truely hilarious. On one side of the mouth, you are playing down the notion that marriage is not being redefined, just extended, and on the other, our former Tainiste talked about ssm being the major human right crusade of this generation. That sounds a bit more than a mere extension of a term.

    Even one of the worse Attorney Generals in the past 30 years (and remember Harry Whelan) accepted that this was a new departure in our laws, hence the need for a referendum to bring ssm into force

    Marriage is for life, subject to the provision that under strict conditions that it may be disolved by a decree if divorce and before that, succeed in getting Nullity. For most couples, it's for life.

    I Get an awful feeling when you waffle about legislation, and imply about divorce you are forgetting that the Constitution had to be amended to allow this to happen

    Your talking about 15 years old. Wow weren't they heterosexual marriages, as oppose to gay marriages? Hardly like for like

    Oh, and by the way, the crazy laws about whether non consensual sex with the wife being rape or not, has NOTHING to do with the definition or meaning of the word marriage. I don't think any vows or conditions about rape were needed at the time of the solemenisation on marriage. The criminal laws did nothing to the definition on marriage. They only applied once you were married. Horse before the cart dear boy, horse before the cart

    Show you the definitions? You really don't know what a Constitution is do you or its purpose.? Or why it doesn't spell out everything

    So your suggesting that because a man is not mentioned in Article 41, and bearing in mind, the dog on the street, bar you, knows what a marriage is, is somehow has nothing to do with men? Lol

    Constitutional Law includes BOTH its text AND Case Law.The new admendments then are spelt out in either new legislation or amended legislation or thebcurrent legislation is repealed

    You should read up on many of the available online articles by Gerard Hogan. Your source is a schoolboy compared to Hogan

    So what if legislation needs to be amended/repealed or new legislation needs to be written?
    You are the one making a big deal about it while ignoring that this happens all the time.

    Changes in legislation renders some case law invalid - so what! Laws change.

    Every single referendum requires change.

    You appear afraid of change.

    And do try to be less condescending and arrogant if you can.

    It really is tiresome trying to discuss something with some one who feels the need to include comments such as 'You really don't know what a Constitution is do you or its purpose' - it's childish, attacks the poster and quite frankly causes people to dismiss any valid points you may make.


  • #413
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    gravehold wrote: »
    Are you gay voting yes, then you are one of the gays adding discrimination into the constitution.

    Will I magically become gay because I vote yes?


  • #414
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    gravehold wrote: »
    Are you gay voting yes, then you are one of the gays adding discrimination into the constitution.

    Alright man. Keep waving that pro-polygamy flag for a no vote.

    In the meantime, the constitution and legislation work in tandem, and this amendment will allow our marriage legislation to be less discriminatory, so I'm perfectly proud to vote yes for that.

    You're perfectly entitled to mount a campaign to make the constitution number-neutral on marriage by the way.


  • #415
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    sup_dude wrote: »
    Gravehold- what is your argument against SSM that isn't just you jumping on the bandwagon of whoever came up with any sort of No argument?

    Don't have one voting yes, i am sticking up for the no side here cause they get no support here and bringing up yes lies and hypocrisy of the yes side cause I don't like the pc left wing nuts that thinks the lgbt does no wrong.


  • #416
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    traprunner wrote: »
    Will I magically become gay because I vote yes?

    No but then you also wouldn't be the gays


  • #417
    gravehold
    Closed Accounts Posts: 912 ✭✭✭gravehold


    LookingFor wrote: »
    Alright man. Keep waving that pro-polygamy flag for a no vote.

    In the meantime, the constitution and legislation work in tandem, and this amendment will allow our marriage legislation to be less discriminatory, so I'm perfectly proud to vote yes for that.

    You're perfectly entitled to mount a campaign to make the constitution number-neutral on marriage by the way.

    Legislation is easy to change, the constitution not, no point adding discrimination into the constitution and call it equality


  • #418
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    gravehold wrote: »
    No but then you also wouldn't be the gays

    That's in total contradiction to what you keep on saying.


  • #419
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    gravehold wrote: »
    Don't have one voting yes, i am sticking up for the no side here cause they get no support here and bringing up yes lies and hypocrisy of the yes side cause I don't like the pc left wing nuts that thinks the lgbt does no wrong.

    The No side are perfectly capable of making an statement if they have one. You do know what you're saying is mostly ignorant rubbish anyway that has be refuted several times but you refuse to acknowledge that? Including the so called lies and hypocrisy.

    Nobody thinks LGBT does no wrong. The only people that classify them and judge them in their entirety is the No side.


  • #420
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    gravehold wrote: »
    Legislation is easy to change, the constitution not, no point adding discrimination into the constitution and call it equality

    The Constitution requires a referendum. Then it's changed. It's not that difficult.


  • Advertisement
  • #421
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    gravehold wrote: »
    Legislation is easy to change, the constitution not, no point adding discrimination into the constitution and call it equality



    All the more reason to add this equality to it. Any future government could remove legislation permitting SSM unless it's enshrined in the constitution therefore re-adding this equality.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement