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…166167169171172…327

Comments

  • #5042
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    The degrees of relationship currently prohibited are set out in legislation. All the prohibited relationships are gendered, eg a man may not, a woman may not. The legislation would have to be amended to include the new possible relationships.

    Consanguinity – blood relationships
    A man may not marry his:
    • Grandmother
    • Mother
    • Father’s sister (aunt)
    • Mother’s sister (aunt)
    • Sister
    • Father’s Daughter (half sister)
    • Mother’s Daughter (half sister)
    • Daughter
    • Son’s Daughter (granddaughter)
    • Daughter’s Daughter (granddaughter)
    • Brother’s Daughter (niece)
    • Sister’s Daughter (niece)
    A woman may not marry her:
    • Grandfather
    • Father.
    • Father’s Brother (uncle)
    • Mother’s Brother (uncle)
    • Brother
    • Father’s Son (half brother)
    • Mother’s Son (half brother)
    • Son
    • Son’s Son (grandson)
    • Daughter’s Son (grandson)
    • Brother’s Son (nephew)
    • Sister’s Son (nephew)
    Affinity – relationship by marriage
    A man may not marry his:
    • Grandfather’s Wife (step-grandmother)
    • Father’s Wife (stepmother)
    • Father’s Brother’s Wife
    • Mother’s Brother’s Wife
    • Son’s Wife
    • Son’s Son’s Wife
    • Daughter’s Son’s Wife
    • Brother’s Son’s Wife
    • Sister’s Son’s Wife
    • Wife’s grandmother (grandmother-in-law)
    • Wife’s Mother (mother-in-law)
    • Wife’s Father’s Sister
    • Wife’s Mother’s Sister
    • Wife’s Daughter (stepdaughter)
    • Wife’s Son’s Daughter
    • Wife’s Daughter’s Daughter
    • Wife’s Brother’s Daughter
    • Wife’s Sister’s Daughter
    A woman may not marry her:
    • Grandmother’s Husband (step-grandfather)
    • Mother’s Husband (stepfather)
    • Father’s Sister’s Husband
    • Mother’s Sister’s Husband
    • Daughter’s Husband
    • Son’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Daughter’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Brother’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Sister’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Husband’s Grandfather (grandfather-in-law)
    • Husband’s Father (father-in-law)
    • Husband’s Father’s Brother
    • Husband’s Mother’s Brother
    • Husband’s Son (stepson)
    • Husband’s Son’s Son
    • Husband’s Daughter’s Son
    • Husband’s Brother’s Son
    • Husband’s Sister’s Son

    Anyone else getting a feeling of Deja Poo?


  • #5043
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    The degrees of relationship currently prohibited are set out in legislation. All the prohibited relationships are gendered, eg a man may not, a woman may not. The legislation would have to be amended to include the new possible relationships.

    Consanguinity – blood relationships
    A man may not marry his:
    • Grandmother
    • Mother
    • Father’s sister (aunt)
    • Mother’s sister (aunt)
    • Sister
    • Father’s Daughter (half sister)
    • Mother’s Daughter (half sister)
    • Daughter
    • Son’s Daughter (granddaughter)
    • Daughter’s Daughter (granddaughter)
    • Brother’s Daughter (niece)
    • Sister’s Daughter (niece)
    A woman may not marry her:
    • Grandfather
    • Father.
    • Father’s Brother (uncle)
    • Mother’s Brother (uncle)
    • Brother
    • Father’s Son (half brother)
    • Mother’s Son (half brother)
    • Son
    • Son’s Son (grandson)
    • Daughter’s Son (grandson)
    • Brother’s Son (nephew)
    • Sister’s Son (nephew)
    Affinity – relationship by marriage
    A man may not marry his:
    • Grandfather’s Wife (step-grandmother)
    • Father’s Wife (stepmother)
    • Father’s Brother’s Wife
    • Mother’s Brother’s Wife
    • Son’s Wife
    • Son’s Son’s Wife
    • Daughter’s Son’s Wife
    • Brother’s Son’s Wife
    • Sister’s Son’s Wife
    • Wife’s grandmother (grandmother-in-law)
    • Wife’s Mother (mother-in-law)
    • Wife’s Father’s Sister
    • Wife’s Mother’s Sister
    • Wife’s Daughter (stepdaughter)
    • Wife’s Son’s Daughter
    • Wife’s Daughter’s Daughter
    • Wife’s Brother’s Daughter
    • Wife’s Sister’s Daughter
    A woman may not marry her:
    • Grandmother’s Husband (step-grandfather)
    • Mother’s Husband (stepfather)
    • Father’s Sister’s Husband
    • Mother’s Sister’s Husband
    • Daughter’s Husband
    • Son’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Daughter’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Brother’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Sister’s Daughter’s Husband
    • Husband’s Grandfather (grandfather-in-law)
    • Husband’s Father (father-in-law)
    • Husband’s Father’s Brother
    • Husband’s Mother’s Brother
    • Husband’s Son (stepson)
    • Husband’s Son’s Son
    • Husband’s Daughter’s Son
    • Husband’s Brother’s Son
    • Husband’s Sister’s Son

    You raised this before and it was dealt with. :rolleyes:


  • #5044
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    The degrees of relationship currently prohibited are set out in legislation. All the prohibited relationships are gendered, eg a man may not, a woman may not. The legislation would have to be amended to include the new possible relationships.

    :confused: Those being?


  • #5045
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    bjork wrote: »
    Yes they can but is it the default position of the constitution that a third party is involved

    The constitution doesn't state this.


  • #5046
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,892 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    bjork wrote: »
    So you are saying homosexuality is a medical issue? or a flaw in biology or what?
    bjork wrote: »
    No you are comparing 2 men trying to have a child to a couple with medical issues.

    What is your point? because that is suggesting that homosexuality is a medical issue

    You should be deeply ashamed of yourself.


  • Advertisement
  • #5047
    Ironé
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 260 ✭✭Ironé


    bjork wrote: »
    No, this is a nonsense argument because a medical condition is not the same as being homosexual

    Why not? It's two couples, theoretically who can't have children for biological reasons?

    Over 30 years of peer-reviewed research has show that the sexuality of parents has no impact on their ability to raise happy well adjusted kids. Children's charities here are calling for a yes vote. LGBT people have been able to adopt here for 20 years. None of the above would be true if there was any evidence that same sex parenting was damaging.

    You do not want to accept any of this because the thought of two dads or two mothers is abhorrent to you. This is not a rational opinion if you are ignoring the above. This is you being prejudice towards LGBT people. If you are ok with that then there is no changing your mind. But I believe we should challenge ourselves to face up to our prejudices.


  • #5048
    Vivisectus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 807 ✭✭✭Vivisectus


    Hyzepher wrote: »
    Why would you say that there are laws forbidding certain relatives from marrying?

    The laws around incest are a very interesting case. There is a good point to be made that since marriages tend to involve sexuality and sexuality involves a chance of offspring, there is a good reason to forbid these marriages, as the offspring is likely to suffer from genetic defects.

    It is very tricky ground, though, with lots of tricky angles. Should consenting adults not be allowed to do as they please? We do not currently forbid other people with a higher chance of genetic disease from marrying or reproducing. On the other hand, I think we DO have rules about people with specific genetic problems getting married, if those problems impair their mental faculties.

    All in all it seems to me that the laws around incest are currently based on a religious taboo, but one that has some very pragmatic reasons to it as well. However, thanks to birth control, some of these reasons are not nearly as strong any more as they used to be. A debate around changing the laws around it, while not in the scope of the current referendum, would have to consider the rights of people who wish to engage in such a marriage, as well as any possible disadvantages.

    We could open a thread and discuss it if you are interested, but I again I really do not see what it has to do with this referendum.


  • #5049
    bjork
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,554 ✭✭✭bjork


    osarusan wrote: »
    You should be deeply ashamed of yourself.

    Not me who compared it to medical issues. Take it up with the poster that did.


  • #5050
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    bjork wrote: »
    Well I waded through all the bitchy comments, thanks for the contribution, that really explained things to me, well done, well done

    So you read the pages that you were directed to and understand it now yes?
    bjork wrote: »
    I suppose it goes back to the whole uncertainty of the production of children. By default same a sex couple need a third party involved to produce children.

    So by permitting same sex marriage, are we effectively permitting the involvement of a third party as a default position?

    ....maybe not.

    If my wife and I cannot conceive then the same applies. So this is all totally irrelevant to the debate. And bizarre. Very, very bizarre.


  • #5051
    Knasher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,370 ✭✭✭Knasher


    bjork wrote: »
    Yes they can but is it the default position of the constitution that a third party is involved
    But if a third party is involved, the third party won't be married to a gay couple any bit more than the third party would be married to a straight couple.

    Making an appointment to see a fertility doctor, doesn't count as a marriage proposal FYI.


  • Advertisement
  • #5052
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Irish law, through legislation currently prohibits certain heterosexuals from marrying. For example I cannot marry my late wife's auntie. After a yes vote on Friday no laws exist to prohibit me from marrying my late wife's uncle or her father, or her brother or my brother for that matter.
    That is a fact. Check it out.

    Is this really the level of desperation you've sunk to? That just says it all really.


  • #5053
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,892 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    bjork wrote: »
    Not me who compared it to medical issues.
    Nobody compared it to medical issues - I'm taking it up with you as you are the one trying to pretend that a comparison was made.


  • #5054
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    bjork wrote: »
    Yes they can but is it the default position of the constitution that a third party is involved

    From Dr Andrea Mulligan, a practising barrister and adjunct assistant professor lecturing in medical law and bioethics at Trinity College Dublin.
    IN THE LAST week or so, surrogacy and donor-conception have assumed a central role in the debate on the marriage referendum. Posters all over the country claim that a vote for same sex marriage is a vote for surrogacy, and warn against “designing” families in which children will be denied a mother and father. These arguments are deeply misleading.
    First, the No side’s arguments are based on a flawed account of the case law on the constitutional right to procreate. Second, the No side consistently implies that the ethical issues surrounding surrogacy and donor conception arise only for same sex couples. In fact, these technologies are used by large numbers of heterosexual couples and precisely the same ethical issues arise, whether the prospective parents are gay or straight.

    The right to procreate
    The Irish courts have never recognised a constitutional right to donor conception or surrogacy. The right to procreate has only ever been fully discussed in one case – Murray v Ireland. That case involved a claim about natural procreation. There is no case in which the right to procreate was found to include the right to have a child using an egg or sperm donor, or a surrogate. It is telling that when asked to name such a case, members of the No Side cannot.

    Indeed, it is very difficult to see how the right to procreate could ever extend that far. Having a child using donated eggs, sperm or a surrogate is clearly entirely different to procreating using one’s own genetic material. It means involving a third party in the reproductive project. This obviously has ramifications for the donor or the surrogate, and more importantly, it has major ramifications for the child.

    Some commentators on the No Side argue that while there might not yet be a right to surrogacy, the courts might find one in the future. This, too, is completely unrealistic. Just last November, the Supreme Court decided that surrogacy had to be regulated by the Oireachtas, and not by the courts. The Chief Justice, Susan Denham, commented, “Any law on surrogacy affects the status and rights of persons, especially those of the children; it creates complex relationships, and has a deep social content. It is, thus, quintessentially a matter for the Oireachtas.” So, for the No Side’s dire premonitions to come true, the Irish courts would have to entirely abandon this very clear position.

    http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/same-sex-marriage-surrogacy-donor-conception-2105084-May2015/


  • #5055
    SafeSurfer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,398 ✭✭✭SafeSurfer


    SireOfSeth wrote: »
    :confused: Those being?

    Same sex relationships not included above.

    Multo autem ad rem magis pertinet quallis tibi vide aris quam allis



  • #5056
    Ironé
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 260 ✭✭Ironé


    SireOfSeth wrote: »
    :confused: Those being?

    This has all been very clearly explained to you.

    The problem is you do not want to believe it. You do not want to apply logic to any of this. The facts are there in front of you but you are actively choosing to ignore it. So I can only assume your position is based on an irrational belief that same sex marriage is wrong - aka prejudice.



  • #5057
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    bjork wrote: »
    It's not. It's wondering how those that do will go about it and what is the default position the constitution will have on the issue. To ignore it would presume no gay couples will want children?

    The constitution has no position on it. Nor will it if this referendum is passed. What about this is confusing for you and how many times does t need to be explained before you get it?


  • #5058
    Sofiztikated
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,995 ✭✭✭Sofiztikated


    bjork wrote: »
    No you are comparing 2 men trying to have a child to a couple with medical issues.

    What is your point? because that is suggesting that homosexuality is a medical issue

    Wouldn't you just **** your togs with excitement of the 2 men were infertile?

    What if myself and my wife wanted to use a surrogate, but we are both fertile? Do I have to justify a reason to you?


  • #5059
    eviltwin
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    bjork wrote: »
    Not me who compared it to medical issues. Take it up with the poster that did.

    I never claimed homosexuality was a medical issue. Are you that desperate to avoid answering the question you have to start twisting my posts?


  • #5060
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Is this really the level of desperation you've sunk to? That just says it all really.
    Let's not forget that SafeSurfer entered this thread on the pretence of being "undecided, but concerned about outside money influencing Irish politics".

    It's clear that he's a firm "No", looking to justify his vote because he knows that outright admitting that gay people are "icky" isn't what rational people do.


  • #5061
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    bjork wrote: »
    Yes they can but is it the default position of the constitution that a third party is involved

    When I got married we had a party, but no-one told me there was a second party never mind a third party!

    Why was I not invited????

    Definitely voting No now!


  • Advertisement
  • #5062
    CiDeRmAn
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 34,811 CMod ✭✭✭✭CiDeRmAn


    The rules against incest predate organised religion with the affects of recessive genetic disorders being well known to those who never had the science to describe it.
    Animal husbandry also is a pre-science craft that understood the need to have a distance between animals to avoid disease and ensure a healthy off spring.
    The rules for humans as described in our laws directly comes from these understandings and they have been proved with modern genetics.
    But it has nothing to do with SSM


  • #5063
    Lyaiera
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,818 ✭✭✭Lyaiera


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Same sex relationships not included above.

    The referendum doesn't legislate for same sex marriage.


  • #5064
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    Ironé wrote: »
    This has all been very clearly explained to you.

    The problem is you do not want to believe it. You do not want to apply logic to any of this. The facts are there in front of you but you are actively choosing to ignore it. So I can only assume your position is based on an irrational belief that same sex marriage is wrong - aka prejudice.


    :confused: Ehhh. I'm voting YES. Suspect that you meant to quote someone else.


  • #5065
    Ironé
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 260 ✭✭Ironé


    SireOfSeth wrote: »
    :confused: Ehhh. I'm voting YES. Suspect that you meant to quote someone else.


    Lol :-D Sorry - I'm just getting so frustrated with all the nonsense on these boards. Apologies!


  • #5066
    Ironé
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 260 ✭✭Ironé


    Doctor Jimbob wrote: »
    The other lad's name has S twice as well, it confuses me sometimes too :pac:

    I haven't lost it completely so. I swear the sooner this referendum is over the better - I'm not well after it. :rolleyes:


  • #5067
    galljga1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,937 ✭✭✭galljga1


    FutureGuy wrote: »
    I was at the debate myself. Yep her name was Birdie and she was in favour of a No vote.

    I would say that the room was about 90-95% in favour of a yes vote.

    Her argument for a No vote was, quite frankly, ridiculous. I actually felt sorry for her - she was clearly deeply religous but her points were utter non-sense. Her comment that 97% of people in Ireland summed up the rest of her points - deeply inaccurate and hurtful. As predicted by more than one person, she framed her argument with "I'm not homophobic, but..."

    As a yes campaigner, I really wish the Yes side nailed the lies and inaccuracies regarding the surrogacy issue but they did not. If I had no clue about the facts and I was undecided, I would be vote no based on it.

    Yes, the whole adoption, surrogacy nonsense is hemorrhaging votes big time. The minute they come up in conversation, they should be shot down. I saw a debate beside Stephen's Green shopping centre on BBC earlier today (not all of it). One uncountered point was that surrogacy services spiked in countries after ssm was introduced. It would have been easy to point out that surrogacy services are spiking across the world due to societal changes in general and also to ask for figures of SSM vs 'traditional' couples availing of these services and how they have changed in countries where SSM has been made available.


  • #5068
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    Ironé wrote: »
    Lol :-D Sorry - I'm just getting so frustrated with all the nonsense on these boards. Apologies!

    Know what you mean. It would be nice if the thread got back on topic... you know like... discussing the referendum :)


  • #5069
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    What legal experts have refuted this. This is how the law stands.

    That is totally untrue:

    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/getting_married/legal_prerequisites_for_marriage.html
    Prohibited Degrees of Marriage wrote:
    Prohibitions apply to marriage between certain people related by blood or marriage. A couple who fall within the prohibited degrees of relationship cannot marry. These prohibitions are based on:

    consanguinity – blood relationship including half blood (half blood means having one parent in common, for example a half-brother)
    affinity – relationship by marriage
    The prohibited degrees apply to a wide range of family relationships and include marital and non-marital offspring.

    An adopted child is within the prohibited degrees in relation to its natural family and adoptive parents. However, it would appear an adopted child can marry the child of his/her adoptive parents.

    The Deceased Wife’s Sister Act 1907 and the Deceased Husband’s Widow’s Marriage Act 1921 allow a man to marry his deceased wife’s sister and a woman to marry her deceased husband’s brother. Following a High Court decision in October 2006, if a marriage ends due to a divorce rather than a death the prohibition on marrying no longer applies.

    There is no legal restriction on the marriage of first cousins.

    Consanguinity – blood relationships

    A man may not marry his:

    Grandmother
    Mother
    Father’s sister (aunt)
    Mother’s sister (aunt)
    Sister
    Father’s Daughter (half sister)
    Mother’s Daughter (half sister)
    Daughter
    Son’s Daughter (granddaughter)
    Daughter’s Daughter (granddaughter)
    Brother’s Daughter (niece)
    Sister’s Daughter (niece)
    A woman may not marry her:

    Grandfather
    Father.
    Father’s Brother (uncle)
    Mother’s Brother (uncle)
    Brother
    Father’s Son (half brother)
    Mother’s Son (half brother)
    Son
    Son’s Son (grandson)
    Daughter’s Son (grandson)
    Brother’s Son (nephew)
    Sister’s Son (nephew)

    Affinity – relationship by marriage

    A man may not marry his:

    Grandfather’s Wife (step-grandmother)
    Father’s Wife (stepmother)
    Father’s Brother’s Wife
    Mother’s Brother’s Wife
    Son’s Wife
    Son’s Son’s Wife
    Daughter’s Son’s Wife
    Brother’s Son’s Wife
    Sister’s Son’s Wife
    Wife’s grandmother (grandmother-in-law)
    Wife’s Mother (mother-in-law)
    Wife’s Father’s Sister
    Wife’s Mother’s Sister
    Wife’s Daughter (stepdaughter)
    Wife’s Son’s Daughter
    Wife’s Daughter’s Daughter
    Wife’s Brother’s Daughter
    Wife’s Sister’s Daughter
    A woman may not marry her:

    Grandmother’s Husband (step-grandfather)
    Mother’s Husband (stepfather)
    Father’s Sister’s Husband
    Mother’s Sister’s Husband
    Daughter’s Husband
    Son’s Daughter’s Husband
    Daughter’s Daughter’s Husband
    Brother’s Daughter’s Husband
    Sister’s Daughter’s Husband
    Husband’s Grandfather (grandfather-in-law)
    Husband’s Father (father-in-law)
    Husband’s Father’s Brother
    Husband’s Mother’s Brother
    Husband’s Son (stepson)
    Husband’s Son’s Son
    Husband’s Daughter’s Son
    Husband’s Brother’s Son
    Husband’s Sister’s Son

    Jesus but the level of debate here is just pathetic if this is what it has come to.


  • #5070
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    bjork wrote: »
    No, this is a nonsense argument because a medical condition is not the same as being homosexual

    So the problem is that they are gay?

    True colours.....


  • Advertisement
  • #5071
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    SafeSurfer wrote: »
    Same sex relationships not included above.

    You obviously did not read the link that was posted to you.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement