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
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Referendum time again! This time, it's divorce

124

Comments

  • #92
    UsBus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,390 ✭✭✭UsBus


    Bannasidhe wrote: »

    As for divorce - I'm not married so I have no skin in the game - I think the current laws are far too restrictive. I also think a year should be long enough - I mean it only takes 3 months prior notice to get married...

    On the topic of pre-nups I am neither for nor agin them but I think if a couple have a such contract it should be legally binding. I would be of the general opinion that people should be able to 'leave' with what they brought (or assets equivalent) and what was gathered during the marriage split 50/50, however -factored into that should be protections ring-fenced for any children.

    100%
    That makes far too much sense to ever become law in this country. Solicitors for one would be up in arms at the loss of their gravy train.


  • #93
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    Cabaal wrote: »
    Utter nonsense,

    But lets go with it anyway, many religions receive state funds or receive special exceptions by the state, so they are not subjective either eh?

    My comment had nothing to do with religion or subjectivity. It was about the impartiality of addiction councilors who seek state funding on the pretext that their main concern is addicts. Personally I immediately doubt the sincerity of anyone who calls for the funding of anything.


  • #94
    realitykeeper
    Registered Users Posts: 4,138 ✭✭✭realitykeeper


    UsBus wrote: »
    100%
    That makes far too much sense to ever become law in this country. Solicitors for one would be up in arms at the loss of their gravy train.

    I do agree that solicitors and the legal profession are a self serving cohort who thrive on discord in society. One wonders whether the adversarial system of law (and politics) work to the best advantage of the people.


  • #95
    eviltwin
    Registered Users Posts: 17,495 ✭✭✭✭eviltwin


    realitykeeper wrote: »
    My comment had nothing to do with religion or subjectivity. It was about the impartiality of addiction councilors who seek state funding on the pretext that their main concern is addicts. Personally I immediately doubt the sincerity of anyone who calls for the funding of anything.

    You could say that about every social care professional then. Speaking as one who has my wages paid mostly by the state, it's utter rubbish.


  • #96
    Seth Brundle
    Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 38,806 Mod ✭✭✭✭Seth Brundle


    Man who chose to never marry knows what's best for married couples and warns them on the implications of the referendum passing


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,865 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Man who chose to never marry knows what's best for married couples and warns them on the implications of the referendum passing

    I know they are entitled to their views and all that. But there are times when discretion is the better part of valour.

    I’ll say no more. Anyway I doubt many are listening anymore to pious lectures from those with no experience of marital breakdown on a personal level. As you say.


  • #98
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,706 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    I know they are entitled to their views and all that. But there are times when discretion is the better part of valour.

    I’ll say no more. Anyway I doubt many are listening anymore to pious lectures from those with no experience of marital breakdown on a personal level. As you say.

    A dwindling audience for sure.


  • #99
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users Posts: 15,865 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    smacl wrote: »
    A dwindling audience for sure.

    It’s fine for them to preach to their own , but to get full on media coverage is another thing. How do they manage to do that? Other religions just get on with it on their own terms.

    But many just ignore the CC now. Thankfully.


  • #100
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,544 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Is there any kind of visible public opposition to this? I don't think I've seen anything/anybody campaigning either way, and I'm assuming it will be a landslide to remove it from the constitution.


  • #101
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,050 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    smacl wrote: »
    It is an interesting point and one I'd tend to agree with. By implication, in your opinion, does this in turn imply that what it means to be a Christian is to a significant extent subjective?
    Sorry, missed this at the time.

    The meaning of anything is subjective, surely? Meanings are sourced in, and belong to, our minds.

    I think the signficant (yes, I know you see what I did there) thing here is not the subjective/objective distinction, but the individual/collective distinction. I can read the scriptures (or any other text) and decide for myself what it means, or I can read the same text collectively with a bunch of other people and we can make a shared decision about what it means. The shared meaning is more important than the individual meaning, if only because it's a meaning which a whole bunch of people accept, and therefore a meaning which will have more traction in the real world.

    The problem with some of the more simplistic atheistic critiques of Christianity is that they can read scripture to arrive at a (frequently tendentious, as in this instance of Mt's account of Joseph's intention to divorce Mary) interpretation, and then assign that interpretation to Christians. This, obviously, is wrong. Christianity is not what Joe Militant-Pagan thinks the scriptures mean; it's what Christians think the scriptures mean. No doubt there's much to criticise there but, for the criticism to have any weight, it does have to start there.


  • Advertisement
  • #102
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 32,972 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Seth Brundle wrote: »
    Man who chose to never marry knows what's best for married couples and warns them on the implications of the referendum passing

    Catholic Church, still trying to hold on to what little power they have in Ireland.

    God bless them (if he actually existed).


  • #103
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,706 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Sorry, missed this at the time.

    The meaning of anything is subjective, surely? Meanings are sourced in, and belong to, our minds.

    I think the signficant (yes, I know you see what I did there) thing here is not the subjective/objective distinction, but the individual/collective distinction. I can read the scriptures (or any other text) and decide for myself what it means, or I can read the same text collectively with a bunch of other people and we can make a shared decision about what it means. The shared meaning is more important than the individual meaning, if only because it's a meaning which a whole bunch of people accept, and therefore a meaning which will have more traction in the real world.

    The problem with some of the more simplistic atheistic critiques of Christianity is that they can read scripture to arrive at a (frequently tendentious, as in this instance of Mt's account of Joseph's intention to divorce Mary) interpretation, and then assign that interpretation to Christians. This, obviously, is wrong. Christianity is not what Joe Militant-Pagan thinks the scriptures mean; it's what Christians think the scriptures mean. No doubt there's much to criticise there but, for the criticism to have any weight, it does have to start there.

    Fair enough, but in addition to Joe Militant-Pagan, we also have Born-again Billy the Bible basher* who is equally critical of moderate Christians on the basis of specific scriptural interpretation and writes off the majority of them as faux Christian on that basis. If we're talking about collective understanding the broad consensus lies well away from these more extreme positions. My subjective take on the Christian majority in this country is that they're secular, moderate and pretty vague on the specifics of the bible being more concerned with the simpler message of being good people. Personally I haven't read the bible cover to cover and have no great interest in doing so. I suspect this may be something else I have in common with many Irish Christians. I do see great value in the communal aspect of Christianity and the other major religions but think this value is seriously eroded by the hierarchical structure, ongoing scandals, antiquated morality, and dubious mythology.

    (* i don't know if the Viz comic is still a thing, but there's the makings of a great strip between these two in there somewhere :) )


  • #104
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,050 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    smacl wrote: »
    Fair enough, but in addition to Joe Militant-Pagan, we also have Born-again Billy the Bible basher* who is equally critical of moderate Christians on the basis of specific scriptural interpretation and writes off the majority of them as faux Christian on that basis . . .
    Well, yes. There's a certain kind of Christian who is hugely preoccupied with denouncing other Christians as not True Christians™. This is yet another characteristic that can be shared by certain Christians and certain Atheists - and, interestingly, often by Islamophobes as well.
    smacl wrote: »
    If we're talking about collective understanding the broad consensus lies well away from these more extreme positions. My subjective take on the Christian majority in this country is that they're secular, moderate and pretty vague on the specifics of the bible being more concerned with the simpler message of being good people. Personally I haven't read the bible cover to cover and have no great interest in doing so. I suspect this may be something else I have in common with many Irish Christians. I do see great value in the communal aspect of Christianity and the other major religions but think this value is seriously eroded by the hierarchical structure, ongoing scandals, antiquated morality, and dubious mythology.

    (* i don't know if the Viz comic is still a thing, but there's the makings of a great strip between these two in there somewhere :) )
    Couldn't disagree with any of this (esp. the footnote). The takeaway is that, as regards belief, Christianity is quite a diverse phenomenon, which tends to undermine (a) criticisms of Christianity based on positions which are, in fact, marginal within Christianity, and (b) criticisms of Christianity which present it as monolithic, intellectually controlling, groupthink, etc. But of course it opens up at least the possibility of criticisms of Christianity as incoherent, self-contradictory or similar.


  • #105
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Anyway I doubt many are listening anymore to pious lectures from those with no experience of marital breakdown on a personal level.


    I think the churches rep is now so bad that statements like this will probably help to pass the amendment.


  • #106
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,050 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    I think the churches rep is now so bad that statements like this will probably help to pass the amendment.
    The amendment is going to pass anyway. I think Nulty knows this, and I don't think he imagines that anything he might say will change this.

    Reading his statement, at no point does he call for people to vote against the amendment. Rather, he calls for people to "reflect on the implications of the referendum", and suggests that "the common good would be better served by supporting and resourcing couples and families in preparation for, and during marriage." He calls for "the introduction of socio-economic policies which support the family and through long-term education strategies which promote values such as fidelity and commitment".

    You may agree or disagree about the value of such policies, but we should note what he doesn't say; there's no call, explicit or implicit, for the Catholic view of marriage to be enforced on people by having the law deny them the opportunity to divorce.


  • #107
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    there's no call, explicit or implicit, for the Catholic view of marriage to be enforced on people by having the law deny them the opportunity to divorce.

    This is absolutely 100% a call for Catholics to vote No:

    "The objective of the proposed referendum is not to support marriage, rather to liberalise divorce", said Bishop Nulty. "It is imperative that we continue to work together to promote marriage and family."

    With the use of the word imperative, I would call this an instruction to vote No.


  • #108
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,050 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Read on.


  • #109
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Read on.


    I read the whole thing already, and nothing in it changes my mind.

    The proposed referendum is not supporting marriage. It is imperative that we support marriage.

    Here is what we should be doing (implied: instead of passing this referendum.)


  • #110
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,050 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    You're focussing more on something you find to be implied in the statement than on what is actually explicit in it. No offence, but I think this is a very tendentious reading.


  • #111
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Of course he should have changed what he said to something like
    "It is imperative that we selectively continue to work together to promote marriage and family."

    After all thats what the church is doing in Ireland,


  • Advertisement
  • #112
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    You're focussing more on something you find to be implied in the statement than on what is actually explicit in it. No offence, but I think this is a very tendentious reading.


    "Dogs are not cats, they are enemies of cats. It is imperative we get a cat."


    I don't think it is a tendentious reading of this to say that it calls for a No to dogs vote.


  • #113
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »

    The proposed referendum is not supporting marriage. It is imperative that we support marriage.

    I wonder if that includes same-sex marriage?

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


  • #114
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,854 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Nulty had an opinion piece in yesterday's IT too (There's more bloody articles by bishops in the IT these days than the Irish Catholic...)

    Objective of referendum is not to support marriage, but to liberalise divorce
    Clearly then marriage in Ireland, and for every society, is valuable and deserves significant support and protection.

    Doubt he'd include any civil marriages in this, never mind gay civil marriages...
    In Ireland, North and South, the Catholic marriage care agency Accord, through its counselling service, offers hope to those whose marriage and relationship are in need of support.|

    If they're not gay, and are prepared to be lectured at about catholic viewpoints on marriage, yeah.
    A culture of support for marriage is not created by simply reducing, or removing, the waiting period before the initiation of proceedings leading to divorce.

    Even if true, that's not an argument for having restrictions on divorce in the constitution where they are difficult and expensive to change when found to be causing difficulties.
    Accord also offers courses to women and men who are preparing to receive the sacrament of marriage.

    Translation - Catholics only and no gays thank you very much.
    The Government should recommit resources to marriage preparation, while investing resources into marriage enrichment, to sustain marriages into the future.

    Perhaps, but they certainly shouldn't be funding Accord to promote its one-eyed view of what marriage and family are or should be. This is just another example of taxpayer funds being used to push the agenda of the RCC in what is supposedly a secular and pluralist republic.
    Denis Nulty is Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin and chairman of Accord

    No sh*t.... :rolleyes:

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #115
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,461 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    I wonder if that includes same-sex marriage?

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    Course it doesn't, :D
    Neither does it include those that have gotten divorces and have re-married.

    Marriage is only important to them....when its the "right kind".
    :rolleyes:


  • #116
    sbsquarepants
    Registered Users Posts: 11,812 ✭✭✭✭sbsquarepants


    If you are in a same sex marriage and then get divorced, is that making things better or worse in the eyes of the church?:confused::confused:


  • #117
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    sbsquarepants wrote: »
    If you are in a same sex marriage and then get divorced, is that making things better or worse in the eyes of the church?:confused::confused:

    I have actually been pondering that very question and the best answer I can come up with is the marriage part is bad if the couple are happy and having lots and lots of "homosex" (as attempts have been made to call it :pac:), however if they are miserable and there is no nooky then by god divorce is worse.


  • #118
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    Have seen several hysterical posts on various social media the last few days, urging people to vote No because if we legalise foreign divorce, we will in return have to legalise foreign marriages.

    Apparently this will mean that not only will we have to recognise child marriages, we will live in a society where child brides are normalised. Irish children will be wedding middle aged men in no time, according to these people.
    We will be forced to acknowledge foreign marriages between children & adults, meaning they can defraud the state of even more social welfare.
    Its state endorsed pedophilia.
    And we'll also allegedly have to recognise polygamous marriages, which will destroy the structure of the family even further & also cost the state millions.

    Its total scaremongering at its finest, I've never seen such hyperbole in my life, but these posts have thousands of shares & likes.
    Its frightening.


  • #119
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 33,854 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Thousands of shares and likes, but how many are shills and bots?

    Life ain't always empty.



  • #120
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,706 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Thousands of shares and likes, but how many are shills and bots?

    And you have to wonder are these well funded shills and bots and paid for by whom? I reckon I might be getting overly cynical in my middle age but I pay about as much heed to anything with thousands of likes or shares as I would to an add for Coke or Fairy liquid. In my humble grumpy opinion, social media has become social engineering for those with deep pockets.


  • Advertisement
  • #121
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Thousands of shares and likes, but how many are shills and bots?
    Rather fewer of them than there used to be:

    "Facebook: Another three billion fake profiles culled"

    https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-48380504

    For a social network with seemingly intractable problems with fake profiles, and a revenue stream which comes from selling advertiser access to very specific market segments on the grounds that their numbers are correct, it's fascinating to see that FB makes so little obvious effort to verify profiles when they're being set up, or, once they are, score them for authenticity.


Advertisement