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…3334363839…327

Comments

  • #1052
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    It will result in a redlining of the family in Art 41 of the constitution.

    Answer the question. How will it actually affect anyone?


  • #1053
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    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.

    How will a family that exists today be 're-defined' or affected in anyway? Third time now asking.


  • #1054
    gormdubhgorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,503 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    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.

    Again see below:
    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.

    The results of this will be that same sex couples will now be defined as a "family" as a result of marriage. Instead of the previous family in the traditional sense.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • #1055
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    Again see below:
    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.

    That in no ways answers my question.


  • #1056
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    Again see below:
    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.
    You still didn't answer the question.


  • Advertisement
  • #1057
    Hyzepher
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    Again see below:
    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.

    You can cut and paste, but what is your point?


  • #1058
    BizzyC
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,012 ✭✭✭BizzyC


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    Again see below:
    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.

    The results of this will be that same sex couples will now be defined as a "family" as a result of marriage. Instead of the previous family in the traditional sense.

    How does that affect anyone but the same sex couple?


  • #1059
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    sunshine and showers wrote: »
    Right, actually, let's settle this once and for all.

    We're both wrong. I went and looked into it and the Family Law Act 1995.

    The age of consent for marriage is not 17 - it's 18. You do not need parental consent to marry under the age of 18, but you do need a Court Exemption Order. To be granted such an order, you have to prove that there are good reasons for your application and that the granting of an Order is in the best interests of the parties to the intended marriage. (Generally, as a minor, an applicant would also need to prove parental consent, barring exceptional circumstances.)

    Your concern about the under 18 year olds marrying is currently being addressed by the Oireachtas - ast year the Government supported a proposal by Labour party senators to remove the ability for under 18 years to marry - Exemption Order or not.

    Therefore your concern for underage gay Irish citizens, while touching, is not a reason to vote no to the SSM Referendum.
    Delighted that people accept this issue deserves this much attention. While your post is helpful in explaining some of the matter to people who might have no familiarity with these things, unfortunately it doesn't settle the matter.
    • The point I'm referring to is one set out by Marriage Equality as one of the 160 differences to be removed. So, if there was any error, it wouldn't be mine.
    • The context set by the Marriage Equality material relates to offences where the relevant threshold age is 17.
    • The Oireachtas has made no commitment to change the existing law; the motion you referred to related to forced marriage, and Government only committed to examine if a change in the law was warranted. The Government's position is actually that forced marriage is already an offence, and that none of the marriages under age 18 are forced marriages. (http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/seanad2014062500026?opendocument)
    • Hence, the issue remains live, exactly as myself and Marriage Equality would suggest.
    I take it as implicit in your post that you regard this as a negative consequence of a Yes vote. Would you make that explicit?

    Now that we've established its a live issue, can anyone finally give me a positive reason for extending the scope of the right to marry under age 17?

    EDIT: Oh, and as I said, there's no requirement for parental consent to marriage at any age.


  • #1060
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    So gormdubhgorm....hypothetically....if everything was to your sanctification would you support same sex marriage, yes or no? One word answer please.


  • #1061
    gormdubhgorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,503 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    r Article 41.1 the state promises to "protect the Family", and recognises the family as having "inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law".

    In other words the family unit is top dog.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Advertisement
  • #1062
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »
    Now that we've established its a live issue, can anyone finally give me a positive reason for extending the scope of the right to marry under age 17?

    That's not what we're voting on.


  • #1063
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    r Article 41.1 the state promises to "protect the Family", and recognises the family as having "inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law".

    In other words the family unit is top dog.

    This is depressing. How will a family that exists be 're-defined' or affected in any way?


  • #1064
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    r Article 41.1 the state promises to "protect the Family", and recognises the family as having "inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law".

    In other words the family unit is top dog.

    And this will change or be in danger... how?


  • #1065
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    No because it once was a family therefore still deserves constitutional protection.

    So a widow/widower raising a family alone is deserving of protection of their "family" in your eyes.

    But a single mother/father raising children alone is undeserving of any protection even though they are doing the same job, face the same challenges and have the same needs?


  • #1066
    Cuban Pete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 156 ✭✭Cuban Pete


    It's like Groundhog Day in here. Amazing how people can say the same thing over and over and act like it hasn't been shown to be utter bull.


  • #1067
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    This is depressing. How will a family that exists be 're-defined' or affected in any way?

    I'm at a different of the spectrum. I'm finding the likes of gormdubhgormand GCU hilarious. :D


  • #1068
    Hyzepher
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators Posts: 4,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hyzepher


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    r Article 41.1 the state promises to "protect the Family", and recognises the family as having "inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law".

    In other words the family unit is top dog.

    Before Yes vote:
    Man + Woman + kids = family
    Man + Woman no kids = family
    Man + Man not equal family
    Woman + Woman not equal family

    After Yes Vote:
    Man + Woman + kids = family
    Man + Woman no kids = family
    Man + Man = family
    Woman + Woman = family

    No refining of family for heterosexual couples

    Got it?


  • #1069
    LookingFor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,682 ✭✭✭LookingFor


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    Again see below:
    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.

    The results of this will be that same sex couples will now be defined as a "family" as a result of marriage. Instead of the previous family in the traditional sense.

    Not instead of, in addition to.

    The constitution's notion of family, and as enacted in law, already accommodates more than one type of family. They don't replace or redefine each other. They are different types of the same class, with the same status and protection in the law and constitution. Their status with respect to the state does not impede the status of any other with respect to the state. Nor will the addition of same sex couples to their cohort.


  • #1070
    gormdubhgorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,503 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    traprunner wrote: »
    So gormdubhgorm....hypothetically....if everything was to your sanctification would you support same sex marriage, yes or no? One word answer please.

    Impossible for me to give a one word answer!

    I would vote yes for equality (as the phrase goes) - if the definition of the family was not redefined as result of marriage.

    Side note - I have noticed when I say it does not involve children people say gay couples have children and when I said it does beforehand I am told it has nothing to do with children.
    Therefore I find the what is a family question much easier in my mind.

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • #1071
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Hamadeusentman wrote: »
    The Hapsburg chin.

    Not to mention the Hapsburg dribble down the Hapsburg chin and the general mental health issues which is always a good thing in an absolute monarch.


  • Advertisement
  • #1072
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


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

    ...and you are content with continuing to oppress that section of society - even though it has NO impact on your life.


  • #1073
    gormdubhgorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,503 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    Before Yes vote:
    Man + Woman + kids = family
    Man + Woman no kids = family
    Man + Man not equal family
    Woman + Woman not equal family

    After Yes Vote:
    Man + Woman + kids = family
    Man + Woman no kids = family
    Man + Man = family
    Woman + Woman = family

    No refining of family for heterosexual couples

    Got it?
    I don't agree with that in the slightest but thanks for trying to help!

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • #1074
    smash
    Closed Accounts Posts: 34,808 ✭✭✭✭smash


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    I would vote yes for equality (as the phrase goes) - if the definition of the family was not redefined as result of marriage.

    It's not being redefined. Heterosexual couples (or families) will in no way be affected by this.


  • #1075
    Professey Chin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 51,054 ✭✭✭✭Professey Chin


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    I don't agree with that in the slightest but thanks for trying to help!

    Why not? What about it is changing or is wrong?


  • #1076
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    Impossible for me to give a one word answer!

    I would vote yes for equality (as the phrase goes) - if the definition of the family was not redefined as result of marriage.

    Side note - I have noticed when I say it does not involve children people say gay couples have children and when I said it does beforehand I am told it has nothing to do with children.
    Therefore I find the what is a family question much easier in my mind.

    Such crap!! I removed the worry about families.

    So I'll ask again...hypothetically....if everything was to your sanctification would you support same sex marriage, yes or no? One word answer please.


  • #1077
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    I don't agree with that in the slightest but thanks for trying to help!

    You not agreeing does not make you right.


  • #1078
    GCU Flexible Demeanour
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,257 ✭✭✭GCU Flexible Demeanour


    smash wrote: »
    That's not what we're voting on.
    It is, according to the list of differences presented by Marriage Equality, and linked many times by Yes posters on these forums.

    This is most certainly a consequence that arises from voting Yes. It's just not rational to say otherwise.


  • #1079
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »

    Side note - I have noticed when I say it does not involve children people say gay couples have children and when I said it does beforehand I am told it has nothing to do with children.
    Therefore I find the what is a family question much easier in my mind.

    It will affect children who are gay and children who are being raised by same sex couples. It will not affect children in that the referendum is not about children. It's quite simple really. It is not about children but a yes vote will positively affect certain children.

    Family is not constitutionally defined.


  • #1080
    gormdubhgorm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,503 ✭✭✭✭gormdubhgorm


    LookingFor wrote: »
    Not instead of, in addition to.

    The constitution's notion of family, and as enacted in law, already accommodates more than one type of family. They don't replace or redefine each other. They are different types of the same class, with the same status and protection in the law and constitution. Their status with respect to the state does not impede the status of any other with respect to the state. Nor will the addition of same sex couples to their cohort.

    So your telling me to read Shatter's family law book....that was murder the first time!

    Guff about stuff, and stuff about guff.



  • Advertisement
  • #1081
    kylith
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,744 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    gormdubhgorm wrote: »
    I think that the referendum should be re written and civil partnership be given the same constitutional protection as marriage instead. But don't call a civil partnership marraige it can and never should be the same thing. Biology dictates as much.
    So you'd prefer to have 160+ referenda to bring CP into line with marriage? And to still be denying gay people constitutional protection of their relationship at the end of it?

    Why does them joining your club make the club less worthy?


    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!)
    A dinner to me is meat and vegetables. Some of my friends, shock horror, don't eat meat. I therefore move that what they eat shouldn't be allowed to be called dinner, they can use all the same condiments, but they have to call what they eat Evening Repast.

    Do you see how silly extending your personal definitions of something to affect everyone else is?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement