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/

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

1…151152154156157…327

Comments

  • #4592
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    What I mean is, I presume these would be catholic weddings? Or am I wrong? Why try seek entry into something that doesn't want you & doesnt recognise you?
    Yeah, you're wrong.

    Religious marriages aren't "real" marriages. At the start or the end of the religious ceremony (critically, not during the ceremony), a legal ceremony takes place which is when the actual marriage takes place. The religious ceremony is window dressing. Failure to do the legal bit means you aren't really married.

    People who get married outside of religious ceremonies do the exact same thing but without the priest and usually without the church.

    Marriage equality will not require religions to facilitate same sex marriages in their church, it simply means that legally marriage can take place between two people of the same sex.


  • #4593
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    What is worrying me is that anecdotally there seems that there is going to be a significant amount of voter fraud this time around. Or would seem that a lot of emigrants are returning home for the vote, who one presumes were not resident here last September and have been gone for over 18 months. I have a feeling that this will be a lot closer run thing than many people realise and it could be these votes which will determine the outcome.


  • #4594
    sjb25
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭sjb25


    gstack166 wrote: »
    No. Im saying I'm voting no because I feel marriage should be between a man & a woman. That's all.

    I just struggle to understand it all. I mean, I understand fully it's about equality etc.

    What I mean is, I presume these would be catholic weddings? Or am I wrong? Why try seek entry into something that doesn't want you & doesnt recognise you?

    If the landlord down my local came over to me one night night & said 'Listen, you can drink away in here no problem, but I'm never going to like you or utter a word to you' no matter how much I liked the pub id tell him shove it up his a*se!

    That's what I feel it's like if I'm honest.

    You need to more research before you make up your mind I think as you are wrong
    If you still think it should be a NO so be it but don't vote no on thinking the wrong stuff it's about civil marrige no church's no kids no Notting except extending the rights of civil marrige two people of the same sex that's it


  • #4595
    ixoy
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 18,046 Mod ✭✭✭✭ixoy


    gstack166 wrote: »
    What I mean is, I presume these would be catholic weddings? Or am I wrong? Why try seek entry into something that doesn't want you & doesnt recognise you?
    The only legally recognised marriage is a civil marriage in Ireland. The marriage ceremony in a church is just the rite of matrimony which has no legal bearing. You're only actually married when you sign the documents during the ceremony - a priest, up until recently, was the only person other than a HSE employee who could do this which is why some people still equate married = church.

    What we want is to have that civil marriage and absolutely not expect a Catholic church to do that. We can do it via the HSE or now with a humanist celebrant or others who can legally perform the ceremony.
    Humanist weddings, for example, are becoming a lot more popular these days (I've attended three recently) and people are starting to see there's a lot more than just the standard church wedding for a marriage ceremony.


  • #4596
    Shrap
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,163 ✭✭✭Shrap


    JohnnyChimpo wrote: »
    These would not be catholic weddings in anyway. Gays would merely be entitled to CIVIL marriages, much like if my divorced mother decided to remarry she could do so in law but not in a church.

    Please think some more on this. This referendum is really not asking for much

    Yes, this referendum will have no effect whatsoever on Catholic marriage, either now or in the future.


  • Advertisement
  • #4597
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    seamus wrote: »
    Yeah, you're wrong.

    Religious marriages aren't "real" marriages. At the start or the end of the religious ceremony (critically, not during the ceremony), a legal ceremony takes place which is when the actual marriage takes place. The religious ceremony is window dressing. Failure to do the legal bit means you aren't really married.

    People who get married outside of religious ceremonies do the exact same thing but without the priest and usually without the church.

    Marriage equality will not require religions to facilitate same sex marriages in their church, it simply means that legally marriage can take place between two people of the same sex.

    Not quite true. A religious marriage, the couple is married in the eyes of that church, the accompanying civil marriage marries people in the eyes of the state. It is not necessary to do both but the latter confirs additional rights, property, taxation and otherwise to those party to the civil marriage contract.


  • #4598
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    Best no poster yet, two fathers cant replace a mothers love.

    Somehow voting no will provide all children with a mother to love them.


  • #4599
    Wrongway1985
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,531 ✭✭✭Wrongway1985


    seamus wrote: »

    Marriage equality will not require religions to facilitate same sex marriages in their church, it simply means that legally marriage can take place between two people of the same sex.

    Denmark says otherwise churches regardless of its foundings and its beliefs have to facilitate SSM a priest may refuse to carry out such a wedding but the church itself has to get a replacement as it is now mandatory.


  • #4600
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    oppenheimer1 wrote: »
    Not quite true. A religious marriage, the couple is married in the eyes of that church, the accompanying civil marriage marries people in the eyes of the state. It is not necessary to do both but the latter confirs additional rights, property, taxation and otherwise to those party to the civil marriage contract.
    Well, the civil marriage is always necessary, really.

    You cannot legally call yourself "married" without the civil part, in this country at least.


  • #4601
    JohnnyChimpo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,190 ✭✭✭JohnnyChimpo


    Not a NSA agent wrote: »
    Best no poster yet, two fathers cant replace a mothers love.

    Somehow voting no will provide all children with a mother to love them.

    And yet a YES vote might allow 2 mothers' love! Imagine the possibilities!


  • Advertisement
  • #4602
    Not a NSA agent
    Closed Accounts Posts: 781 ✭✭✭Not a NSA agent


    JohnnyChimpo wrote: »
    And yet a YES vote might allow 2 mothers' love! Imagine the possibilities!

    If only we could harness that extra love. Renewable energy for all!


  • #4603
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    Jaysus just caught some of the debate on Newstalk on the way home. Is John Waters actually aware what this referendum is about. Anytime he came on he started ranting about separated parents rights. He is absolutely deluded and clueless. He is a major liability to the no side.


  • #4604
    mailforkev
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,829 ✭✭✭mailforkev


    gstack166 wrote: »
    No. Im saying I'm voting no because I feel marriage should be between a man & a woman. That's all.

    I just struggle to understand it all. I mean, I understand fully it's about equality etc.

    What I mean is, I presume these would be catholic weddings? Or am I wrong? Why try seek entry into something that doesn't want you & doesnt recognise you?

    As some others have said, this referendum will not affect any church weddings. Nor will any church be compelled to do anything against their wishes.

    I married my wife in a civil ceremony, nothing religious involved. As a yes voter I would simply like to extend this option to gay couples. We had a great wedding day (and happy marriage) and I feel everyone deserves that right.

    You seem reasonable. I understand that for many people gay couples wanting to get married is a very new and different thing and can be a struggle to understand compared to what they are used to.

    If you have any other concerns please ask here and hopefully someone can't help answer them for you. Contrary to what some of the No side would have you believe, we are nice people who just want to do a nice thing.


  • #4605
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Wrongway1985 wrote: »
    Denmark says otherwise churches regardless of its foundings and its beliefs have to facilitate SSM a priest may refuse to carry out such a wedding but the church itself has to get a replacement as it is now mandatory.

    The Church of Denmark is the Established/State church in the same way as The Church of England is the Established/State religion.

    Both were required by law to marry all to wanted to get married - so a Jew could marry a Hindu in a church.

    The COE were given an opt out clause meaning they are not obliged to perform a SSM.

    In the Lutheran Church of Denmark, individual ministers are free to refuse but the bishop then has to find an alternative.

    The Roman Catholic Church is not an established church in Ireland. We do not have a State religion so it it completely different. We cannot enact egislation telling the RCC to do anything - we can't even get them to pay the compensation they agreed to pay to the victims of their child abusers.

    Do give all the facts not just the bits that suit your argument.


  • #4606
    BlitzKrieg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,698 ✭✭✭✭BlitzKrieg


    Wrongway1985 wrote: »
    Denmark says otherwise churches regardless of its foundings and its beliefs have to facilitate SSM a priest may refuse to carry out such a wedding but the church itself has to get a replacement as it is now mandatory.

    It's a weird day that I have to use the Vatican to put the story straight

    http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/06/10/catholic_church_not_affected_by_new_same-sex_marriage_law_/1101583


    State run churches only

    Wouldn't apply to any church in ireland


  • #4607
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    gandalf wrote: »
    Jaysus just caught some of the debate on Newstalk on the way home. Is John Waters actually aware what this referendum is about. Anytime he came on he started ranting about separated parents rights. He is absolutely deluded and clueless. He is a major liability to the no side.

    He is riven with bitterness and a trully extraordinary volume of anger. If he wasn't campaigning to have me kept a second class citizen I would feel nothing but pity for him.


  • #4608
    frostyjacks
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,951 ✭✭✭frostyjacks


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    He is riven with bitterness and a trully extraordinary volume of anger. If he wasn't campaigning to have me kept a second class citizen I would feel nothing but pity for him.

    Homosexuals don't know what it means to be a second class citizen. Go to Saudi Arabia or Iraq of you want to see real oppression.

    And when the referendum passes and gay couples start playing happy families, won't their children be second class citizens, being deliberately denied the love of a mother and a father?


  • #4609
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Homosexuals don't know what it means to be a second class citizen. Go to Saudi Arabia or Iraq of you want to see real oppression.

    And when the referendum passes and gay couples start playing happy families, won't their children be second class citizens, being deliberately denied the love of a mother and a father?

    I was five when the country stopped treating me like a criminal. We do Frosty and it is precisely because of individuals like you. I hope you learn to deal with your hate.


  • #4610
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    He is riven with bitterness and a trully extraordinary volume of anger. If he wasn't campaigning to have me kept a second class citizen I would feel nothing but pity for him.

    So in essence his argument distils down to "if I can't have happiness you can't either!".

    What a pathetic individual he is!


  • #4611
    mrsoundie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭mrsoundie


    Can anyone explain to me, why do we need this in the constitution and not in a piece of legislation?


  • Advertisement
  • #4612
    iDave
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,750 ✭✭✭iDave


    So we're not as bad as Saudi Arabia or Iraq which means we shouldn't aspire to any better than we currently are.
    Sometimes I think the no side want to lose.


  • #4613
    sjb25
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,417 ✭✭✭sjb25


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Homosexuals don't know what it means to be a second class citizen. Go to Saudi Arabia or Iraq of you want to see real oppression.

    And when the referendum passes and gay couples start playing happy families, won't their children be second class citizens, being deliberately denied the love of a mother and a father?

    No coz they will have the love of 2 mothers or 2 fathers

    I know 2 kids who's fathers wants Notting to do with them who even denies they exists how the fcuk is that better than having to mams or dads if they love the child????


  • #4614
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    mrsoundie wrote: »
    Can anyone explain to me, why do we need this in the constitution and not in a piece of legislation?

    Although the Constitution doesn't explicitly define marriage as a union of one man and one woman in its text, case law has done so and this gives it the effect of constitutional recognition. Therefor it was concluded that the only way to secure constitutional protection for the legal recognition of same sex marriages was by way of referendum.

    IF however it had been passed in legislation and then challenged, and the court found in favor of the legislation it would in essence be the same as having it in the constitution.


  • #4615
    gandalf
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,458 ✭✭✭✭gandalf


    mrsoundie wrote: »
    Can anyone explain to me, why do we need this in the constitution and not in a piece of legislation?

    Two reasons that I can think of.

    Legislation would be open to constitutional challenge and a future government could strike down the legislation.


  • #4616
    marienbad
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Homosexuals don't know what it means to be a second class citizen. Go to Saudi Arabia or Iraq of you want to see real oppression.

    And when the referendum passes and gay couples start playing happy families, won't their children be second class citizens, being deliberately denied the love of a mother and a father?

    What kind of logic is that ? Are there only two kinds of oppression , level I - you're gay you can't get married , level 2 you insulted the prophet off with your head ?

    Are all those kids that have lost a parent for whatever reason second class citizens ?


  • #4617
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Homosexuals don't know what it means to be a second class citizen. Go to Saudi Arabia or Iraq of you want to see real oppression.

    So a little bit of oppression is ok? So long as its not life threatening. Perhaps you should go and live there to learn the value of a treating everyone equally.


  • #4618
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,360 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Homosexuals don't know what it means to be a second class citizen. Go to Saudi Arabia or Iraq of you want to see real oppression.

    And when the referendum passes and gay couples start playing happy families, won't their children be second class citizens, being deliberately denied the love of a mother and a father?

    I was not going to say anything but I was compelled to. Homosexuals are treated disgustingly in those countries. None of us can imagine what oppression on that scale is like. It applies to Christians, Jews, atheists and human rights activists.

    Your following statement exposes us to how you really feel. You are judging these people and placing them as in some way unimportant when infact they are completely equal to your or I. They are not inferiors to be tossed aside. They constitute a part of society.


  • #4619
    KingBrian2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,360 ✭✭✭KingBrian2


    marienbad wrote: »
    What kind of logic is that ? Are there only two kinds of oppression , level I - you're gay you can't get married , level 2 you insulted the prophet off with your head ?

    Are all those kids that have lost a parent for whatever reason second class citizens ?

    I believe what he is referring to is the hierarchy of hatred. These groups are classified in a different area. Women, Blacks, Jews, Muslims, the dreaded trade unions. People have prejudices and he is portraying his particular one. For society all people should be treated the same but many people myself included forget that at times.


  • #4620
    martingriff
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,409 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    frostyjacks wrote: »
    Homosexuals don't know what it means to be a second class citizen. Go to Saudi Arabia or Iraq of you want to see real oppression.

    And when the referendum passes and gay couples start playing happy families, won't their children be second class citizens, being deliberately denied the love of a mother and a father?

    Are children of single parents or children who are rared by grandparents second class citizens citizens do not have the love of a mother or father. I agree with Waters ( I am now going to scrub my hands and mouth out with Demestos) that the government should give legal status to all kind of families and children should know who there parents are if they want to but to vote no because these are not law yet is stupids. He really lost the run of himself when he brought up the case in America because the mother lost custody of the child how about the father.

    I know I am been pedantic here but when they talk about homosexuals its always 2 men how about 2 women are they hoping that will not go away


  • Advertisement
  • #4621
    Baggy Trousers
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,816 ✭✭✭Baggy Trousers


    Did anyone hear the SSM debate on Newstalk earlier?
    One of the No campaigners was absolutely all over the place in her "summing up"
    I think her name was "Birdie" but one of her reasons was that if we had SSM years ago and men were marrying men, we wouldn't be here today because it's a "sterile relationship". She stressed she wasn't homophobic but also stressed that 97% of Ireland were Christian.

    I would imagine that some of the more credible No campaigners are embarrassed by some of the No arguments.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement