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…3233353738…327

Comments

  • #1022
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    Well in my head that is not a family either that is just two people living together.Regardless of sexual persuasion.

    Your head must be a mad place altogether! Tell us more?


  • #1023
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    It is no or abstain/spoil vote for me.

    How will any family be re-defined or affected in anyway by a yes victory? Seriously if you claim to be concerned by this issue you must be able to at least offer one hypothetical.


  • #1024
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    It is no or abstain/spoil vote for me.

    If you remain confused then do the decent thing and spoil your vote.


  • #1025
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    Dimithy wrote: »
    Only if you plan on installing solar panels in your baby.
    Or in the case of the upkeep on a listed baby.

    What about if I get an older baby? Isnt there some break on insurance for vintage cars? What about vintage babies?


  • #1026
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 55,060 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Sure:
    http://www.catholicweddinghelp.com/questions/civil-ceremony-first.htm

    Previous marriage is probably the most common impediment to marriage. The Church follows Christ's teaching that marriage is a covenant that cannot be dissolved, so it does not recognize divorce as "dissolving" the previous marriage. However, the Church has a legal process for determining whether the previous marriage was valid—that is, that the couple freely gave themselves to one another in a way that brought about a valid marriage between them. If the Church determines that the previous marriage was not valid, it is said to be annulled. An annulment removes the impediment to marriage.

    The bit in bold might form an obstacle though.


  • Advertisement
  • #1027
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    I am all for this equality craic but
    when giving equality to one crowd which results in the re-defining of the word family, for some reason I find this very difficult to re-reconcile.

    I am just glad that I have found the nub of the decision I have to decide. A poster asked me to search my heart and find the reasons that I think it is a difficult decision and I have.

    So I have to decide on equality or re-defining the family as a result of re-defining marriage.

    All of you all may laugh at me but I am finding it a tough choice.

    In your heart you might feel that family = man + woman + kid(s). However, what we are voting on is marriage/family in the legal context. This states that a family = man + woman + with or without kid(s). Therefore just man + woman is legally a family. You are voting on whether you are happy to allow gay couples this right too.

    The question is, why shouldn't gay couples also be afforded this human right (the same as everyone else)?


  • #1028
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    SireOfSeth wrote: »
    In your heart you might feel that family = man + woman + kid(s). However, what we are voting on is marriage/family in the legal context. This states that a family = man + woman + with or without kid(s). Therefore just man + woman is legally a family. You are voting on whether you are happy to allow gay couples this right too.

    The question is, why shouldn't gay couples also be afforded this human right (the same as everyone else)?

    Cause... me no likey


  • #1029
    gormdubhgorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,504 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    This is from wiki the definiton of the family in the constitution:
    Article 41.1.1° of the Constitution "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", and guarantees its protection by the state. However, these rights and protections are not extended to every family unit, such as single parents, unmarried opposite-sex co-habiters, and same-sex couples.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • #1030
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Previous marriage is probably the most common impediment to marriage. The Church follows Christ's teaching that marriage is a covenant that cannot be dissolved, so it does not recognize divorce as "dissolving" the previous marriage. However, the Church has a legal process for determining whether the previous marriage was valid—that is, that the couple freely gave themselves to one another in a way that brought about a valid marriage between them. If the Church determines that the previous marriage was not valid, it is said to be annulled. An annulment removes the impediment to marriage.

    The bit in bold might form an obstacle though.

    The previous marriage it is talking about above is religious marriage - not civil marriage.


  • #1031
    Dimithy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 351 ✭✭Dimithy


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    What about if I get an older baby? Isnt there some break on insurance for vintage cars? What about vintage babies?

    Vintage babies are actually becoming quite popular with the young, and fashion conscious crowd.
    If your baby is more than 15 years old, you are exempt from the yearly NCT (National Child Test).
    Under 15, and you must have your child tested yearly.


  • Advertisement
  • #1032
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    tayto lover wrote: »
    Previous marriage is probably the most common impediment to marriage. The Church follows Christ's teaching that marriage is a covenant that cannot be dissolved, so it does not recognize divorce as "dissolving" the previous marriage. However, the Church has a legal process for determining whether the previous marriage was valid—that is, that the couple freely gave themselves to one another in a way that brought about a valid marriage between them. If the Church determines that the previous marriage was not valid, it is said to be annulled. An annulment removes the impediment to marriage.

    The bit in bold might form an obstacle though.

    I think that's a reference to where the marriage was a Catholic one. Might be wrong.

    Whenever someone confuses civil marriage and Catholic marriage, I like to tell them about my brother who is married to one woman according to the state and another according to the Church... :)


  • #1033
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    What about if I get an older baby? Isnt there some break on insurance for vintage cars? What about vintage babies?

    You gonna jump in at the deep end and try to 'adopt' an 18yr old Russian girl? :pac:


  • #1034
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    lak wrote: »
    When SSM is introduced,will members of the LGBT community be looking to get married in church(catholic or otherwise).I've just finished reading the past 15 pages(69 is a lot to ask) and haven't been able to find any mention of weather or not anyone will even be interested in such a scenario let alone weather it is expected that the church must accommadate SSM on equality grounds.

    I have read a lot about potatoes though

    The referendum is about civil marriage only, and only concerns marriages performed and recognised by state bodies.

    Regardless of the wishes of the lgbt community, no church can be compelled or forced to perform a wedding against it's faith or will.

    For example, as matters stand the Catholic church cannot be compelled to marry a divorced couple notwithstanding that divorce was legalised by referendum here.

    similarly the RCC can lawfully refuse to marry lgbt couples if it wishes.


  • #1035
    gormdubhgorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,504 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    MrWalsh wrote: »
    Your head must be a mad place altogether! Tell us more?
    Well when people say hows the family they means kids/relations.
    Otherwise people would say how is himself or herself?

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • #1036
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    This is from wiki the definiton of the family in the constitution:
    Article 41.1.1° of the Constitution "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", and guarantees its protection by the state. However, these rights and protections are not extended to every family unit, such as single parents, unmarried opposite-sex co-habiters, and same-sex couples.

    Your point is?


  • #1037
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    This is from wiki the definiton of the family in the constitution:
    Article 41.1.1° of the Constitution "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", and guarantees its protection by the state. However, these rights and protections are not extended to every family unit, such as single parents, unmarried opposite-sex co-habiters, and same-sex couples.

    Read this thread that covers legalities of family: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057421081


  • #1038
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    This is from wiki the definiton of the family in the constitution:
    Article 41.1.1° of the Constitution "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", and guarantees its protection by the state. However, these rights and protections are not extended to every family unit, such as single parents, unmarried opposite-sex co-habiters, and same-sex couples.

    So where is the bit about a family is mammy + daddy = children? Im not seeing it?


  • #1039
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    Well when people say hows the family they means kids/relations.
    Otherwise people would say how is himself or herself?

    Feck me! You do understand that we are talking about civil rights and not people having a chat?


  • #1040
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    It is the description of the family unit that bothers me too now I relise on further reflection (see above). (yes I know you do consider yourself to be a family).

    I know there is the argument that families come in all shapes but to me a family mammy + daddy + kid

    Anything else is not a family to me but a collection of people who were a full family or wish to be a full family.

    I think the family thing might be at the back of a lot of peoples minds but they do not realise it. Which is why children were been brought into the marriage to the debate.

    Then taken furhter the ideal family is one which is married (of course this is not always the case either!)

    So because my partner doesn't have a penis I don't have a family but if there was a penis we would be because we could then sign a particular contract and because there is not penis you are going to vote to prevent us signing that contract.


    And feck any same-sex parents who are just trying to get Constitutional protection for their families because your idea of what should be is more important than what is...

    Gotcha.

    Can I have the hours I wasted talking to you back please? Hours I could have been spending with my grandchildren in my notafamily but I thought, wrongly, that you were keeping an open mind so it was worth not reading them their bed time story this once and get their 'notgrandmother' to do it instead.


  • #1041
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    Well when people say hows the family they means kids/relations.
    Otherwise people would say how is himself or herself?

    There are sayings, and then there's the law, or the constitution.

    If you got married, the day you did so, you and your spouse became a constitutionally protected family.


  • Advertisement
  • #1042
    tayto lover
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 55,060 ✭✭✭✭tayto lover


    smash wrote: »
    You gonna jump in at the deep end and try to 'adopt' an 18yr old Russian girl? :pac:

    ha ha Good man Smash :D


  • #1043
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    Dimithy wrote: »
    Vintage babies are actually becoming quite popular with the young, and fashion conscious crowd.
    If your baby is more than 15 years old, you are exempt from the yearly NCT (National Child Test).
    Under 15, and you must have your child tested yearly.

    Oh thats very interesting. Too old will interfere with my gay paedophile stuff though.
    smash wrote: »
    You gonna jump in at the deep end and try to 'adopt' an 18yr old Russian girl? :pac:

    Maybe an 8 year old Korean boy?


  • #1044
    lak
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37 ✭lak


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    This is from wiki the definiton of the family in the constitution:
    Article 41.1.1° of the Constitution "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", and guarantees its protection by the state. However, these rights and protections are not extended to every family unit, such as single parents, unmarried opposite-sex co-habiters, and same-sex couples.

    Isn't the last line what we are voting to change though.


  • #1045
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Magenta wrote: »
    David Quinn/Iona now saying that a Yes vote would mean straight people marrying their own gender for tax evasion/a laugh therefore vote No.

    http://www.mediahq.com/ionainstitute/107618/press-release-from-the-iona-institute-ref-com-confirms-that-two-heterosexual-male-or-female-friends-can-marry-under-proposed-new-marriage-law

    David is really getting his knickers in a twist about the concept of 'consummation'. What does he think about marriages that havn't been consummated? Are they not legal? Was there a requirement to the legal procedures of marriage that I missed where you must take proof of intercourse to the registrar prior to being issued with a marriage licence? What happens when a couple get married but due to health reasons cannot 'consummate'? Are they not really married?

    Anyhow I told you that Equal Martiage will result in tax increases! Not only because of spouses claiming each others tax credits but now heterosexual friends of the same gender will be able to marry for tax purposes too!
    Perhaps it should be suggested to David that straight marriage be banned in case opposite gender friends marry for tax purposes.

    What an absolute gob****e!


  • #1046
    Ghost Buster
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 5,172 ✭✭✭Ghost Buster


    wupucus wrote: »
    I shall be voting no as I find the concept of homosexuality repulsive and unnatural -

    But only the men?


  • #1047
    Hamadeusentman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 735 ✭✭✭Hamadeusentman


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    As the Spanish Hapsburgs found out....:eek:

    The Hapsburg chin.


  • #1048
    MrWalsh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,664 ✭✭✭MrWalsh


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    Well when people say hows the family they means kids/relations.
    Otherwise people would say how is himself or herself?

    What people? People ask me how the family is and I tell them how myself and my husband and the cats are.


  • #1049
    gormdubhgorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,504 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    How is any family going to be re-defined or affected in anyway by a yes vote?
    It will result in a redlining of the family in Art 41 of the constitution.

    From the ref commission:
    Article 41 pledges the State to guard with special care the institution of marriage on which the family is founded. In a number of cases, the courts have decided that the Constitutional rights which apply to the family based on marriage are not necessarily applicable to non-marital families.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • #1050
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Iona press release wrote:
    Could two heterosexual male or female friends who are not closely related marry each other under the terms of the proposed new marriage law?
    The answer from a Referendum Commission spokesperson was as follows:
    The simple answer is yes.

    1. Two heterosexual friends get married right now so what is the issue in bringing equality into it?
    2. Aren't people getting married friends already? There are laws in place to prevent two strangers in getting married.


  • Advertisement
  • #1051
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    .


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement