Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

Sofiztikated · 19-05-2015 06:15PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Why not give me a preview Alpha. Share and share alike.

traprunner · 19-05-2015 06:16PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I haven't a clue. That's why I asked. Seeing as you're the one with the inside track on what's going to happen.

Maybe his time would be better spent going for James Randi's One Million Dollar Psychic Challenge. He knows the future.

Sofiztikated · 19-05-2015 06:18PM

traprunner wrote: »

Maybe his time would be better spent going for James Randi's One Million Dollar Psychic Challenge. He knows the future.

But that's part of the non makey uppey lobby, and shure, we all know what they're up to.

jobbridge4life · 19-05-2015 06:25PM

AlphaRed wrote: »

That is not a conspiracy theory:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html

A conspiracy theory is based on a belief, that article is a FACT

but you left out some of the pertinent details Alpha

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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.

So perhaps its best you kept hinting at things you can't talk about.

Isaacce33 · 19-05-2015 06:54PM

Sofiztikated wrote: »

That sentence is, in essence, the definition of equality. No distinction, no difference, seen as equal.

I think a YES vote will actually undermine the principle of equality by applying it inappropriately to two fundamentally different types of relationship (many gay people believe this). So while I respect the rights of same sex couples to have their relationships protected in Law, I don't think that this union has to be regarded as the same as marriage - equality of different people but not equality of different relationships.

different things are different - does not make one better or worse but JUST DIFFERENT

I think this a a badly thought out referendum and if people vote NO maybe good will come out of it

jobbridge4life · 19-05-2015 06:55PM

Isaacce33 wrote: »

I think a YES vote will actually undermine the principle of equality by applying it inappropriately to two fundamentally different types of relationship (many gay people believe this). So while I respect the rights of same sex couples to have their relationships protected in Law, I don't think that this union has to be regarded as the same as marriage - equality of different people but not equality of different relationships.

different things are different - does not make one better or worse but JUST DIFFERENT

I think this a a badly thought out referendum and if people vote NO maybe good will come out of it

What are makes gay and straight relationships 'fundamentally different'?

Isaacce33 · 19-05-2015 07:00PM

traprunner wrote: »

Conspiracy is that the world is going to turn gay or something like that. (I still can't figure out what you are trying to say).

How come when anyone raises the natural questions as to where we are going it is always a CONSPIRACY?

Should we really just drive down the road in the DARK

there are huge repercussions to a YES vote and it is irresponsible to not consider them

for more see Don't vote 'Yes' in same-sex referendum because you feel sorry for gay people – B. Arnold (Independent, available free online)

traprunner · 19-05-2015 07:04PM

Isaacce33 wrote: »

How come when anyone raises the natural questions as to where we are going it is always a CONSPIRACY?

Should we really just drive down the road in the DARK

there are huge repercussions to a YES vote and it is irresponsible to not consider them

for more see Don't vote 'Yes' in same-sex referendum because you feel sorry for gay people – B. Arnold (Independent, available free online)

AlphaRed didn't explain what he was on about. He kept on giving hints of a conspiracy where gay people start a war or something with religion and no evidence was forthcoming. That's why I said conspiracy.

What are the 'huge repercussions' of a yes vote?

Isaacce33 · 19-05-2015 07:05PM

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

It would be off topic to pursue that but we could could do a whole thread on what's wrong with that statement.

well why not deal with what's right with it?

tipparetops · 19-05-2015 07:17PM

It will be close Friday, would not be surprised if it was a NO.
This surrogacy argument is working nicely for the NO vote.

Many people are against surrogacy due to the issue of money buying a womb.
The argument from the government is not coming across well, and it might drive the soft yes to the NO side.
Friday was always going to be close regardless of the polls, how the cities vote will probably decide it.

jobbridge4life · 19-05-2015 07:22PM

tipparetops wrote: »

It will be close Friday, would not be surprised if it was a NO.
This surrogacy argument is working nicely for the NO vote.

Many people are against surrogacy due to the issue of money buying a womb.
The argument from the government is not coming across well, and it might drive the soft yes to the NO side.
Friday was always going to be close regardless of the polls, how the cities vote will probably decide it.

With respect there is no right to surrogacy under the constitution. This referendum cannot create that right. This has already been clarified (repeatedly and at length) by the independent Referendum Commission among others.

Isaacce33 · 19-05-2015 07:24PM

Someone asked me about possible implications of a YES vote

I think B. Arnold does a interesting job below

On the Rights of children, in a Same-Sex Marriage, one or both legal parents of a child would lack a genetic relationship with that child (and hence a natural guardianship interest), while one or more parties outside the marriage could retain such an interest.

Several persons might have concurrent claims to access and guardianship and those claims would vary with circumstance, thus exposing many more children to parental disputes and litigation about guardianship and access. The extended family – in particular, the vital role of grandparents in supporting natural parents – would be completely undermined. Since marriage would no longer be linked to procreation and blood relationship, the whole structure of the extended family relationship would gradually disappear. It is with the rights of children that the destructive nature of Same-Sex Marriage can most clearly be seen, even if the legal anomalies are ironed out. As far as I know this has not been considered by the Government.

Solemnising marriage in a religious ceremony would invite special scrutiny, with the proposed amendment to the Constitution raising profound issues about the right to contract a Same-Sex Marriage. A legally binding marriage in Ireland may be celebrated in a civil, secular or religious ceremony. It is not clear if the proposed Article 41.4 would create or imply a right to contract a Same-Sex Marriage in a religious ceremony. The wording of Article 41.4 should clarify this situation. No proposal for this is being put before us.

Marriage law, and not equality law, is central to the proposed constitutional change which, although called the Marriage Equality Bill, is in fact a Marriage Redefinition Bill. In this context the legal effects of the amendment would be radical and irrevocable.

The core meaning of marriage would change under the legislation. The complementary ingredients of marriage that give it completeness and are vested in sexual partnership would become an optional rather than an essential feature of marriage. As a consequence, much of the current corpus of marriage law, which is based on sexual complementarity, would be undermined.

Asserting marriage equality would imply that whatever is permitted in one case must be permitted in the other. Much of the existing law of marriage would have to be revised and re-enacted - and much of family case law abandoned – to take account of the new concept of marriage in the proposed amendment.

Not a NSA agent · 19-05-2015 07:34PM

AlphaRed wrote: »

Gladly

Great, when will it start?

tipparetops · 19-05-2015 07:35PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

With respect there is no right to surrogacy under the constitution. This referendum cannot create that right. This has already been clarified (repeatedly and at length) by the independent Referendum Commission among others.

with respect to you there is no legislation in Ireland to deal with surrogacy, Ireland has a dont ask dont tell policy.
the government made a big mistake not sorting the surrogacy issue before this referendum,
being honest it should be banned full stop.
By not dealing with this issue the Government has allowed the surrogacy issue to be misused by the No vote.

jobbridge4life · 19-05-2015 07:40PM

tipparetops wrote: »

with respect to you there is no legislation in Ireland to deal with surrogacy, Ireland has a dont ask dont tell policy.
the government made a big mistake not sorting the surrogacy issue before this referendum,
being honest it should be banned full stop.
By not dealing with this issue the Government has allowed the surrogacy issue to be misused by the No vote.

So you agree with my assertion. Thanks.

tipparetops · 19-05-2015 07:42PM

jobbridge4life wrote: »

So you agree with my assertion. Thanks.

and you agree with me, thank you more.

sydthebeat · 19-05-2015 07:57PM

why cant people see that whats being voted on is "legal equality"... and that legal equality cannot and does not supercede biology ????

people are different and relationships are different, this referendum doe snot seek to change that, it cant because its physically impossible.

what this referendum does seek to change however, is that civil marriage shall be open to any two people, irrespective of their gender, in accordance with the law.
thats it, thats all... nothing more, nothing less.

Dimithy · 19-05-2015 07:58PM

tipparetops wrote: »

with respect to you there is no legislation in Ireland to deal with surrogacy, Ireland has a dont ask dont tell policy.
the government made a big mistake not sorting the surrogacy issue before this referendum,
being honest it should be banned full stop.
By not dealing with this issue the Government has allowed the surrogacy issue to be misused by the No vote.

There is already legislation in place concerning adoption, but that hasn't stopped the no side from trying to use that as an issue.

For most of the arguments from the no side, reality is not an issue.

Dimithy · 19-05-2015 08:00PM

sydthebeat wrote: »

why cant people see that whats being voted on is "legal equality"... and that legal equality cannot and does not supercede biology ????

people are different and relationships are different, this referendum doe snot seek to change that, it cant because its physically impossible.

what this referendum does seek to change however, is that civil marriage shall be open to any two people, irrespective of their gender, in accordance with the law.
thats it, thats all... nothing more, nothing less.

Yes, but how do you know that the secret gay lobby inside the government wont ban straight couples from being parents, and will instead use them in some sort of baby farm for gay couples?

You don't know, so therefore you must vote no.

tipparetops · 19-05-2015 08:09PM

Dimithy wrote: »

There is already legislation in place concerning adoption, but that hasn't stopped the no side from trying to use that as an issue.

For most of the arguments from the no side, reality is not an issue.

Can I ask you a question?
Do you agree surrogacy should be banned.
And if not, why not?

K-9 · 19-05-2015 08:10PM

AlphaRed wrote: »

If we got into it now this thread would be locked and I would be banned.

If you can't respect my identity how can I respect yours?

Mod:

Banned for trolling, enough is enough. Go troll somewhere else.

Kalman · 19-05-2015 09:08PM

A resounding No!

meglome · 19-05-2015 09:10PM

Kalman wrote: »

A resounding No!

Dare we ask why?

Dimithy · 19-05-2015 09:27PM

tipparetops wrote: »

Can I ask you a question?
Do you agree surrogacy should be banned.
And if not, why not?

I dont know enough about surrogacy to say if it should be banned. I dont think id agree with paying for surrogacy, but again Its not something i've looked into much.

But again, surrogacy is an issue whether you vote yes or no. A no vote will not make the surrogacy issue go away. That will only happen when it is legislated for, which is going to happen.

Villain · 19-05-2015 09:53PM

AlphaRed wrote: »

Good question but as you know the gay lobby has been picking off countries one by one

Whataboutery, the same as all NO arguments I have heard during this debate, talk about everything other than the actual issue at hand.

Same crap was said on Divorce referendum, did the world end? no

I tell you what I can't stand is Catholic church followers talking about children deserving their birth mothers when they facilitated children of unmarried mothers being taken from their birth mother because of catholic beliefs, the catholic church has NO moral authority in this country on this issue or any issue pertaining to children or families.

Happyman42 · 19-05-2015 10:01PM

Villain wrote: »

Whataboutery, the same as all NO arguments I have heard during this debate, talk about everything other than the actual issue at hand.

Same crap was said on Divorce referendum, did the world end? no

I tell you what I can't stand is Catholic church followers talking about children deserving their birth mothers when they facilitated children of unmarried mothers being taken from their birth mother because of catholic beliefs, the catholic church has NO moral authority in this country on this issue or any issue pertaining to children or families.

I am a Yes voter to the hilt, but people like Mary McAleese really really bug me.
Committed Roman Catholics who can find a way around church teaching when their own child turns out to be gay.
It is the height of sickening hypocrisy, imo.:rolleyes:

JONJO THE MISER · 20-05-2015 02:46AM

Just went on youtube there to listen to some tunes first time in a few months and a promoted video in large screen for me to watch is a advert for a yes vote, i do not like this, in my opinion companies should be impartial, but i guess these internet companies are just pushing a agenda, i dont see many of them promoting the no side.
Maybe they should keep the hell out of the politics of Ireland and let people make there own mind up.
Dont see the likes of Tesco or Dunnes promoting either side but it seems ok for these internet companies outside of Ireland to promote what they think we should vote:mad:

ronivek · 20-05-2015 02:50AM

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Just went on youtube there to listen to some tunes first time in a few months and a promoted video in large screen for me to watch is a advert for a yes vote, i do not like this, in my opinion companies should be impartial, but i guess these internet companies are just pushing a agenda, i dont see many of them promoting the no side.
Maybe they should keep the hell out of the politics of Ireland and let people make there own mind up.
Dont see the likes of Tesco or Dunnes promoting either side but it seems ok for these internet companies outside of Ireland to promote what they think we should vote:mad:

What Internet company? YouTube advertisements are generally localised; as in YouTube knows you're in Ireland and thus it displays Irish advertisements.

Speaking of which I don't believe I've seen a single 'Yes' campaign ad; but I've been spammed with 'No' campaign ads. Maybe the two campaigns are targeting specific demographics; not sure.

Edit: I tell a lie; I did see a Mrs. Brown one (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38WRQrR2br4) a couple of times a few weeks back. I quite liked that one!

JONJO THE MISER · 20-05-2015 02:58AM

It was the first video under what to watch when i went on youtube, when i normally go on youtube there are small screens of what to watch but this has enlarged, come on now i think we all know youtube is trying to promote the yes side.

ronivek · 20-05-2015 03:01AM

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

It was the first video under what to watch when i went on youtube, when i normally go on youtube there are small screen of what to watch but this has enlarged, come on now i think we all know youtube is trying to promote the yes side.

YouTube aren't promoting any side; that's how YouTube advertisements work. A "promoted video" is effectively just an advertisement. It's likely one of the 'Yes' campaign groups who have funded it.

Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction

Comments