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…231232234236237…327

Comments

  • #6992
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,435 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Riverireland wrote: »
    Sorry.... What positive legal difference will it give to the children of gay couples?

    Have we not been told (over told) that this makes no difference to children?

    Oh. I see you haven't read the thread.... Or any of the many other threads. Or any of the factual literature on the question that's been available for ages. Come back when you have.

    Take this one as a test case: Lesbian couple. Ten year old daughter. Lesbian 1 carried the child and gave birth to her. Child recognises both women as her parents, and has strong bonds of attachment and affection with both. Car crash. Lesbian 1 is on life support, with no possibility of recovery.

    Question 1: Who do the doctors talk to?
    Question 2: Who does the child live with as a legal guardian, recognised in law?


  • #6993
    Ave Sodalis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,555 ✭✭✭Ave Sodalis


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No i'am pretty sure its written into law that a marriage can be voided as long as it hasent been consummated, which is defined as sexual intercourse. As gay couples cannot consummate there marriages will always be voidable whereas this will not be the case for straight couples. Is this incorrect?

    Yup, as gay couples can have sex


  • #6994
    timetogo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 990 ✭✭✭timetogo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    As gay couples cannot consummate there marriages

    Why can't they?


  • #6995
    joe40
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,813 ✭✭✭joe40


    Ash.J.Williams wrote: »
    the post are so fast i've no idea which thread is which or what post is what....but some dope has just mentioned "consumation" of marriage and how gays failure to consumate will lead to divorce:):):):):):):)

    David Quinn actually took up that point on a radio discussion on Newstalk. Don't know if there is any legal basis but he wasn't challenged too much on it. Sounds crazy though.


  • #6996
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,435 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    timetogo wrote: »
    Why can't they?

    Makes littlebabyjebus cry.


  • Advertisement
  • #6997
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No i'am pretty sure its written into law that a marriage can be voided as long as it hasent been consummated, which is defined as sexual intercourse. As gay couples cannot consummate there marriages will always be voidable whereas this will not be the case for straight couples. Is this incorrect?

    No. The Government has already begun the process of identifying legislation that may need to be tweaked should the referendum pass. This is standard for standard legislation as well. So this will altered, alternatively given the constitutional amendment it may a judge may be able to interpret the act in accordance with the constitution and btw gay people are capable of sexual intercourse.


  • #6998
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    timetogo wrote: »
    Why can't they?

    The definition on consummation in law is given as sexual interciourse so if you can explain how that's possible I'd like to know.


  • #6999
    SireOfSeth
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 340 ✭✭SireOfSeth


    endacl wrote: »
    Oh. I see you haven't read the thread.... Or any of the many other threads. Or any of the factual literature on the question that's been available for ages. Come back when you have.

    Take this one as a test case: Lesbian couple. Ten year old daughter. Lesbian 1 carried the child and gave birth to her. Child recognises both women as her parents, and has strong bonds of attachment and affection with both. Car crash. Lesbian 1 is on life support, with no possibility of recovery.

    Question 1: Who do the doctors talk to?
    Question 2: Who does the child live with as a legal guardian, recognised in law?

    Well put. Vote YES!


  • #7000
    timetogo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 990 ✭✭✭timetogo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The definition on consummation in law is given as sexual interciourse so if you can explain how that's possible I'd like to know.

    I think that's a conversation you should have with your parents.


  • #7001
    StewartGriffin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,284 ✭✭✭StewartGriffin


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Can someone explain what the story is with the legality regarding consummation? just heard a bit on the radio on the way to work. Does it mean that legally a gay marriage will always be voidable as consummation cannot happen whereas a straight marriage that is lost upon consummation?

    Interesting question.

    As ThisRegard quoted, the Civil Marriage position to void a marriage is something like this:

    At the time of the marriage ceremony, either party was impotent. You must show that either you or your spouse was unable to consummate the marriage. You cannot obtain a declaration of nullity because one of you is infertile or because one of you is simply refusing to consummate the marriage. It must be the case that one of you is incapable of sexual intercourse.

    Dictionary definition of Consummation is:

    the action of making a marriage or relationship complete by having sexual intercourse

    Dictionary Def of sexual intercourse:

    sexual contact between individuals involving penetration, especially the insertion of a man's erect penis into a woman's vagina, typically culminating in orgasm and the ejaculation of semen.

    So, to answer your question after all that, I really don't know. :)


  • Advertisement
  • #7002
    Ketracel White
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4 ✭Ketracel White


    Does anyone know if RTE or others will be conducting an exit poll during the referendum?


  • #7003
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Can someone explain what the story is with the legality regarding consummation? just heard a bit on the radio on the way to work. Does it mean that legally a gay marriage will always be voidable as consummation cannot happen whereas a straight marriage that is lost upon consummation?

    Perhaps it's time that silly, archaic clause was removed altogether. The rules as they stand are that the marriage can be void if one partner is incapable of sexual intercourse. It says nothing about penises in vaginas only. If this clause must be kept, then I am sure it could be applied if one partner in a LGBT marriage was incapable of having sex. How would anyone not know this before they marry anyway? Why can consummation not apply to anal sex? Or penetration that doesn't involve a penis? David Quinn has also dragged this up as an argument and it is laughable.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sexual-intercourse

    The definition of sexual intercourse is sexual contact involving penetration. The phrase typically but not exclusively refers to penis in vagina sex.

    Anyhow all this relates to legislation that can be changed after the referendum and is totally irrelevant to the referendum itself. If you think that the potential of the definition of 'connsumation', as it is understood in a legal sense, changing to accommodate LGBT marriages, is a good enough reason to deny people equal rights, well I really don't know what to say to you!


  • #7004
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    No. The Government has already begun the process of identifying legislation that may need to be tweaked should the referendum pass. This is standard for standard legislation as well. So this will altered, alternatively given the constitutional amendment it may a judge may be able to interpret the act in accordance with the constitution and btw gay people are capable of sexual intercourse.


    So something else that needs to be sorted in the courts? more changes need to be made. Under what definition can a lesbian couple have sexual intercourse? I'am intriged genuinly.


  • #7005
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    CaveCanem wrote: »
    The point is that saying Ireland is intolerant and homophobic if this is not approved by the majority of voters is like saying perhaps the most liberal state in the U.S. is just like Russia when it comes to attitudes to sexuality and relationships.

    There are large parts of California which are extremely conservative. And large religious communities which are intolerant to homosexuality as well.

    That's not in doubt.

    Your reference to Russia is pretty disingenuous. I never referenced Russia at all. I can only assume you are trying to exaggerate and distort my position in order to make it seem absurd or irrational.

    But we both know there can be degrees of intolerance. Intolerance comes in many shapes and forms. It is at its most extreme in places like Russia and Uganda, but just because people aren't being beaten or killed it doesn't mean there is not intolerance here.

    And to deny that there is discrimination or intolerance unless such violence is being encountered is its own type of intolerance - an intolerance to admitting the wrongs or hardships a minority can suffer and intolerance to changing the situation. It's a refusal to admit there isn't anything wrong with the position - which is an endorsement of the status quo and the wrongs suffered.

    So yes, a society which refuse to accept the equal worth and validity of same sex relationships is showing intolerance. It's sending a pretty clear message about how it views our relationships and its determination not to accept them.


  • #7006
    timetogo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 990 ✭✭✭timetogo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So something else that needs to be sorted in the courts? more changes need to be made. Under what definition can a lesbian couple have sexual intercourse? I'am intriged genuinly.

    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intercourse


  • #7007
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,435 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The definition on consummation in law is given as sexual interciourse so if you can explain how that's possible I'd like to know.

    Luckily, in the extremely unlikely event of that being of the remotest relevance, we have a bunch of lads and lassies who meet regularly for a bit of a banter on Kildare Street. I'd imagine they'd be able to cobble together some sort of a workable definition that the courts, realistically, would never have to test.


  • #7008
    MathDebater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 958 ✭✭✭MathDebater


    Zen65 wrote: »
    I don't think it's reasonable to say the man's sexuality was not a factor in the decision to assault him. The accused's statement is pretty clear about what was going on in his own head.

    The reason Willoughby decided to attack him was because Mulvaney copped off with a girl Willoughby was mad about. It's completely unreasonable and unsavoury to use the murder to score political points and to pretend that the deceased was your acquaintance. It wasn't a homophobic attack as 1) the chap wasn't gay and 2) it started over Willoughbys jealousy that Mulvaney was with the girl he fancied.


  • #7009
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Ketracel White wrote: »
    Does anyone know if RTE or others will be conducting an exit poll during the referendum?

    Could be completely wrong here but I don't think they do at Referendums as it might 'influence' voters.


  • #7010
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    PopePalpatine wrote: »
    I'm going to guess:

    YES 61% NO 39%

    I really do believe that this might be the one vote that might get under-25s off their arses to vote.
    Interestingly enough that's the same conclusion that RedC came to.

    In addition to straight out asking people what they were voting, they included a "perceived outcome" question, where they asked people what they thought the actual outcome would be.

    The aim here was to see if they could eliminate "Shy voters" - people who'll tell RedC they're voting one way because they're ashamed to admit the other.
    That is, people's perception of the outcome is based on what they see around them. So someone who says they're voting "Yes", might see their friends and family all talking about "No", and so will predict a "No" win.

    While the "what are you voting" results came out 70/30, the "what do you think it will be" results came out to 62/38.

    Personally I'm optimistic, but far from certain. What gives me hope is the fact that those in social class ABC are more likely to vote, and to vote yes, while those in the lower classes are less likely to vote and more likely to vote "No". So this might offset the elderly vote.
    The elderly vote has also been reassuringly high in "don't knows" for most of this debate.

    I'll be keeping an eye on Donegal personally. If a "Yes" comes in for any of the Donegal constituencies, then a win is guaranteed. Otherwise, it might be a tighter result.


  • #7011
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,435 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So something else that needs to be sorted in the courts? more changes need to be made. Under what definition can a lesbian couple have sexual intercourse? I'am intriged genuinly.

    You're genuinely intrigued by what other consenting adults get up to in the bedroom?

    Why?


  • Advertisement
  • #7012
    arayess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,707 ✭✭✭arayess


    osarusan wrote: »
    A vote that denied same sex couples the right to civil marriage would a rather significant asterisk on that (in)complete package of items, don't you think?

    I don't know what to think to be honest.
    I gave my reasons why a no vote won't condemn ireland.

    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Because you don't agree doesn't make it 'crap'.

    Had my 82 year old Father on the phone this morning assuring me that he is voting Yes and so is everyone he knows so not to worry.
    He then went on to tell me that he isn't just voting Yes because I'm gay - he is voting Yes because looking back over his life he sees that Ireland was a horrible place for so many people due to narrow minded intolerance and he wants to leave a better country for his great-grand children.
    He wants them to remember him as a man who although he made mistakes and treated people unfairly (he was shockingly racist and homophobic) at the end he came good and voted for tolerance.

    He signed off saying ' sure I might not get another chance to make a real change, I'm getting on a bit now like, and we really need to leave the past behind and make amends. It won't change what happened but it might make us the kind of country where laundries can never happen again.'

    Those were the terms a conservative, Catholic, white, heterosexual, elderly man gave as his reasons for Voting Yes; making amends, tolerance and leaving a better country for his great-grandchild.

    It's crap based on my reasoning which is fairly reasonable in my opinion - you may disagree as is your right but its' not just "cos I say so". i think you are an intelligent person and I'd expect a better response than that.

    Your dad shouldn't live with regret - nobody should. whats done is done.. If voting yes tomorrow brings him that peace that is a good thing and I wish him (and others who feel like him) all the best. Inner peace is probably the most important thing in a persons life.


  • #7013
    jobbridge4life
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,759 ✭✭✭jobbridge4life


    Deleted User wrote: »
    So something else that needs to be sorted in the courts? more changes need to be made. Under what definition can a lesbian couple have sexual intercourse? I'am intriged genuinly.

    Well yes but that is the same with every single legislative change that happens it has to be checked against the existing legislation and the legislation is amended appropriately. Of course its somewhat different in relation to an amendment to the Constitution because you can't be can't legislate in the Constitution.

    Ask a lesbian and maybe don't be so prurient.


  • #7014
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 1,100 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Kiwi in IE wrote: »
    Perhaps it's time that silly, archaic clause was removed altogether. The rules as they stand are that the marriage can be void if one partner is incapable of sexual intercourse. It says nothing about penises in vaginas only. If this clause must be kept, then I am sure it could be applied if one partner in a LGBT marriage was incapable of having sex. How would anyone not know this before they marry anyway? Why can consummation not apply to anal sex? Or penetration that doesn't involve a penis? David Quinn has also dragged this up as an argument and it is laughable.

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sexual-intercourse

    The definition of sexual intercourse is sexual contact involving penetration. The phrase typically but not exclusively refers to penis in vagina sex.

    Anyhow all this relates to legislation that can be changed after the referendum and is totally irrelevant to the referendum itself. If you think that the potential of the definition of 'connsumation', as it is understood in a legal sense, changing to accommodate LGBT marriages, is a good enough reason to deny people equal rights, well I really don't know what to say to you!

    Well its not exactly equal rights if gay couples have a get out clause that straight couples dont even if based on a technicality, its still something that will have to be sorted in the courts and by law makers down the line.


  • #7015
    osarusan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,894 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    arayess wrote: »
    I don't know what to think to be honest.

    You don't think that voting against civil marriage for same sex couples would put a significant dent in Ireland's reputation as a tolerant country?


  • #7016
    timetogo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 990 ✭✭✭timetogo


    The phrase typically but not exclusively refers to penis in vagina sex.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Well its not exactly equal rights if gay couples have a get out clause that straight couples dont even if based on a technicality, its still something that will have to be sorted in the courts and by law makers down the line.

    You even bolded the part that invalidated your point and then made your point

    :confused:


  • #7017
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    jobbridge4life wrote: »
    Well yes but that is the same with every single legislative change that happens it has to be checked against the existing legislation and the legislation is amended appropriately. Of course its somewhat different in relation to an amendment to the Constitution because you can't be can't legislate in the Constitution.

    Ask a lesbian and maybe don't be so prurient.

    Lesbian she say there are many many videos out there he can watch.
    Most of them get it completely wrong but there you go.


  • #7018
    traprunner
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,887 ✭✭✭traprunner


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The definition on consummation in law is given as sexual interciourse so if you can explain how that's possible I'd like to know.

    I'll entertain you but you have to provide legal proof of the definition of 'consummation'!

    What is the is the legal definition of 'sexual intercourse'?


  • #7019
    Kiwi in IE
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,063 ✭✭✭Kiwi in IE


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Well its not exactly equal rights if gay couples have a get out clause that straight couples dont even if based on a technicality, its still something that will have to be sorted in the courts and by law makers down the line.

    Did you read my post? Consummation is about sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse refers to penetrative sex. LGTB couples have penetrative sex just like us straight couples do.


  • #7020
    Tinder Surprise
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,466 ✭✭✭Tinder Surprise


    Hi,

    I've scanned through the thread but cant find any posts relating to any gay people opposed to this, and I would be very interested into their input.

    ta.


  • Advertisement
  • #7021
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Tinder Surprise wrote: »
    Hi,

    I've scanned through the thread but cant find any posts relating to any gay people opposed to this, and I would be very interested into their input.

    ta.

    Watch a video on YouTube and one the the two voting No gays will be along to give you their view.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement