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

timetogo · 21-05-2015 11:38AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Consummation is about sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse refers to penetrative sex.

Does it in law? It doesn't in the dictionary. I'm aware that the law might have a different interpretation.

MathDebater · 21-05-2015 11:39AM

SireOfSeth wrote: »

Haha. You're having a laugh... aren't you?

A lot on both sides have engaged in scumbag behaviour. I would call pretending to know someone and using their murder to score a political point is extreme scumbag behaviour.

21-05-2015 11:40AM

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.

I was just going on the definition of intercourse as interpreted in Irish Law. It should probably be dismissed altogether along with alot if other stuff.

Kiwi in IE · 21-05-2015 11:41AM

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.

Look up Paddy Manning. He is the poster child for the no side.

Kiwi in IE · 21-05-2015 11:43AM

timetogo wrote: »

Does it in law? It doesn't in the dictionary. I'm aware that the law might have a different interpretation.

Yeah it does in the dictionary

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

Not sure about the legal definition but whatever way that can be changed. Is just another red herring anyway. Even if the legal definitions of intercourse and consummation did have to be revised. So what?

endacl · 21-05-2015 11:44AM

MathDebater wrote: »

A lot on both sides have engaged in scumbag behaviour. I would call pretending to know someone and using their murder to score a political point is extreme scumbag behaviour.

Jaysus. You're like a dog with a bone.

Will you take this as a valid example of homophobic violence that occurs. Or will I just add you to the long list of 'ignore poster' that this thread has generated?

Vivisectus · 21-05-2015 11:44AM

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.

Non-consummation is only of interest in the case of an annulment of a catholic marriage, not a divorce. If the church wishes to start having gay weddings, I am sure they can add some wording for it..

tayto lover · 21-05-2015 11:46AM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Look up Paddy Manning. He is the poster child for the no side.

He was on a debate on LMFM radio this morning and easily got the better of his opponent Bernadine Quinn. The text messages afterwards were very much on his side too. Looks like the battle is going to be closer than I thought in this area anyway.

21-05-2015 11:46AM

Vivisectus wrote: »

Non-consummation is only of interest in the case of an annulment of a catholic marriage, not a divorce. If the church wishes to start having gay weddings, I am sure they can add some wording for it..

Where did you get this from? Consummation applies to civil marriages also.

floggg · 21-05-2015 11:47AM

[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?

Consummation is a common law concept. It is archaic and out dated - and is not required by the constitution.

I can't say how they will approach it, but I can say it's not a constitutionally required element for marriage. The state has full power to legislate around that requirement - to modify it, abolish it, replace it with something else.

It is the fine print, which the Constitution is not concerned with. If there is an issue, it will most likely be dealt with in the enabling legislation which is required to implement a Yes vote.

But I can also say that the courts aren't stupid, and they won't apply a common law rule to a same sex marriage where it is going to produce an absurd result.

And finally, consummation was also required under common law in places like NZ, Canada, South Africa and the U.S. States which legalised same sex marriage and which have a very similar legal system to ours (and rely on much of the same case law). In no such countries were there any material legal issues around consummation following legalisation of same sex marriage.

This is really a non-issue.

floggg · 21-05-2015 11:50AM

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.

He sounds like a great man. Takes a lot of strength to admit your faults and to want to change them.

MathDebater · 21-05-2015 11:50AM

endacl wrote: »

Jaysus. You're like a dog with a bone.

Will you take this as a valid example of homophobic violence that occurs. Or will I just add you to the long list of 'ignore poster' that this thread has generated?

I don't care a jot what you do. I'm well aware that homophobic attacks occur. My issue is with yer man pretending to know Mulvaney and for him using his murder to score political points.

Tinder Surprise · 21-05-2015 11:50AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

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

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Look up Paddy Manning. He is the poster child for the no side.

thanks.

This video seems quite insightful, and I would be grateful if somebody could explain to me a point that was made in it:

"Don't redefine marriage but put Civil partnership into the constitution"

Is that too simplistic a point, and why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6HD8KLQBvA

Riverireland · 21-05-2015 11:52AM

osarusan wrote: »

People who know what they are talking about have said over and over again that the only children that same sex marriage would have any impact on are those children who are already a part of same sex' families' - because now they can be considered families without inverted commas and enjoy the constitutional protection of the family.

Could you possibly answer kylith's question from earlier:

Even if the piece of paper signifies marriage means nothing to you, do you not think it is right that those to whom it does mean something should be able to get it?

I find your post both condescending and insulting considering I have had children both within and outside marriage. I regard the children of same sex couples exactly the same as children of heterosexual couples and single parents. I also consider children of any race, social background, religion etc to be equal.

With regard to kyliths question I am fully entitled to not vote tomorrow, we live in a democracy last time I checked. Mind you don't go too far with your dogma you are sounding extremely dictatorial.

traprunner · 21-05-2015 11:52AM

Tinder Surprise wrote: »

thanks.

This video seems quite insightful, and I would be grateful if somebody could explain to me a point that was made in it:

"Don't redefine marriage but put Civil partnership into the constitution"

Is that too simplistic a point, and why?

He is wrong to put it simply. Marriage is not being redefined. Also, why would anyone want to put something that treats them as unequal into the constitution?

SireOfSeth · 21-05-2015 11:53AM

Tinder Surprise wrote: »

thanks.

This video seems quite insightful, and I would be grateful if somebody could explain to me a point that was made in it:

"Don't redefine marriage but put Civil partnership into the constitution"

Is that too simplistic a point, and why?

More the question is: Why would we bother to do that? Have two definitions for the same thing?

Kiwi in IE · 21-05-2015 11:53AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Where did you get this from? Consummation applies to civil marriages also.

Not entirely correct. If one of the partners is unable to engage in sexual intercourse there is grounds for the marriage to be voided. If the parties or one of the parties choose not to consummate it but are physically capable of doing so, this is not grounds for the marriage to be voided.

21-05-2015 11:54AM

Tinder Surprise wrote: »

thanks.

This video seems quite insightful, and I would be grateful if somebody could explain to me a point that was made in it:

"Don't redefine marriage but put Civil partnership into the constitution"

Is that too simplistic a point, and why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6HD8KLQBvA

So after tomorrow will gay couples have two options? or both? or pick one? will civil partnership be done away with?

matrim · 21-05-2015 11:55AM

Deleted User wrote: »

So after tomorrow will gay couples have two options? or both? or pick one? will civil partnership be done away with?

No new civil partnerships will be allowed but current one's will be kept as is. If a couple wish to they can get married which will change their civil partnership to a marriage.

traprunner · 21-05-2015 11:56AM

Deleted User wrote: »

So after tomorrow will gay couples have two options? or both? or pick one? will civil partnership be done away with?

Even though you missed my last question to you.....The government have stated that Civil Partnership will no longer be available if Yes wins.

Not a NSA agent · 21-05-2015 11:56AM

Tinder Surprise wrote: »

thanks.

This video seems quite insightful, and I would be grateful if somebody could explain to me a point that was made in it:

"Don't redefine marriage but put Civil partnership into the constitution"

Is that too simplistic a point, and why?

[YOUTUOUTUBE]

The groups against this referendum were also against civil partnership. They say why dont you add CP to the constitution when they would have been against that too.

Its easier to just let gay people take part in what is already there instead of building an new system designed to be the same in all but name. I doubt anyone is really stupid enough to sit there and say gay people married? That cant happen but nnarried? Thats fine.

Riverireland · 21-05-2015 11:56AM

Tinder Surprise wrote: »

thanks.

This video seems quite insightful, and I would be grateful if somebody could explain to me a point that was made in it:

"Don't redefine marriage but put Civil partnership into the constitution"

Is that too simplistic a point, and why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6HD8KLQBvA

I have sympathy for Paddy Manning. The man is entitled to his opinion, please remember that this is a democracy. He is actually a very brave man as far as I can see and has been outcast by the gay community for having his own opinion which is a great shame.

21-05-2015 11:57AM

traprunner wrote: »

Even though you missed my last question to you.....The government have stated that Civil Partnership will no longer be available if Yes wins.

What question?

floggg · 21-05-2015 11:58AM

StewartGriffin wrote: »

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.

Well the good news is that both me and my boyfriend are definitely capable of sexual intercourse - both of the gay and the penis in a vagina kind.

We refuse to the latter, but we are definitely capable of doing so (even if we have to picture the cast of Magic Mike will doing it). So no consummation worries for us then.

Mickeroo · 21-05-2015 11:58AM

Riverireland wrote: »

I find your post both condescending and insulting considering I have had children both within and outside marriage. I regard the children of same sex couples exactly the same as children of heterosexual couples and single parents. I also consider children of any race, social background, religion etc to be equal.

With regard to kyliths question I am fully entitled to not vote tomorrow, we live in a democracy last time I checked. Mind you don't go too far with your dogma you are sounding extremely dictatorial.

Question dodge manoeuvre initiated, deploying faux outrage.

osarusan · 21-05-2015 11:59AM

Riverireland wrote: »

I find your post both condescending and insulting considering I have had children both within and outside marriage. I regard the children of same sex couples exactly the same as children of heterosexual couples and single parents. I also consider children of any race, social background, religion etc to be equal.

You asked a question about the impact of SSM on children - I told you which children it will impact.

There is a lot of nonsense being talked by a lot of people - you heard some and asked for clarification - I explained what the people who know what this referendum actually means have to say about the impact on children. There was nothing condescending or insulting in what I said.

Here is something you might be insulted by - you say that you consider all children to be equal, but yet you won't bother voting tomorrow on an issue that would bring equality to children in same sex families, so I have to question the extent of your commitment to equality for all children.

traprunner · 21-05-2015 11:59AM

Deleted User wrote: »

What question?

This:

traprunner wrote:

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'?

21-05-2015 12:00PM

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Not entirely correct. If one of the partners is unable to engage in sexual intercourse there is grounds for the marriage to be voided. If the parties or one of the parties choose not to consummate it but are physically capable of doing so, this is not grounds for the marriage to be voided.

So a gay couple is 'unable' to engage in sexual intercourse therefore there is grounds for the marriage to be voided. Eitherway it would have to be challenged in the courts I suppose.

kona · 21-05-2015 12:01PM

I've a genuine question here, people are different, so if they are different can they be properly treated equally?
Why couldn't a standalone part of the constitution be written to cater for SSM rather than modifying the existing constitution.

Not a NSA agent · 21-05-2015 12:02PM

kona wrote: »

I've a genuine question here, people are different, so if they are different can they be properly treated equally?
Why couldn't a standalone part of the constitution be written to cater for SSM rather than modifying the existing constitution.

Why would you make an entire new part when they can just add a line to what is already there?

The same people will still oppose it.

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

Comments