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

ByfocalPhoto

sup_dude wrote: »

A quick read through the thread in AH (the original one) and you'll see where the true venom and hatred lie. Some of the things the No side have been saying have been horrendous.

I haven't seen any of that but I could easily have missed it.
I will do more research and may have to stand corrected.

I will reiterate, argue vehemently whichever side you're on but for heaven's sake lay off the boycotts and 2 am window bricks. That smacks of petulance.

Both sides need to learn from Voltaire
=============================================

"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Voltaire

timetogo

gravehold wrote: »

The chruch has said they will step up enforce their beliefs more if it passes

thejournal.ie/eamon-martin-same-sex-marriage-2083383-May2015/

I'd be all for that. Imagine if churches stopped doing civil marriages. I don't know how many would just not bother getting married in a church. I would imagine it'd be quite a decent percentage.

Similar for schools. If schools started discriminating against gay, divorcees, unmarried people, people who work on Sundays etc. etc. then suddenly we'd see funding for non denominational schools all over the place.

Ave Sodalis

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

I haven't seen any of that but I could easily have missed it.
I will do more research and may have to stand corrected.

There even had to be a mod warning put on the first post because of the number of people who are voting No because they think gay people are paedophiles, lower class citizens, abusers etc.

timetogo

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

I will reiterate, argue vehemently whichever side you're on but for heaven's sake lay off the boycotts and 2 am window bricks. That smacks of petulance.

It also smacks of petulance that you're telling us to lay off 2am window bricks. Can you point to any poster on this thread calling for boycotts or threatening people because they're going to vote no. Or are you talking about a very very small minority of Irish society that thinks this kind of behaviour is acceptable?

ByfocalPhoto

timetogo wrote: »

Or are you talking about a very very small minority of Irish society that thinks this kind of behaviour is acceptable?

Yes that one - I am not aware of anyone on this thread advocating these but both have been sited as examples of what has been going on.
I was talking generally.

K-9

Mod

Good to see the thread calm down! I'll give the benefit of the doubt to some but attack the post and the contents and points in it, do not attack a poster personally or call somebody a troll.

It's an election campaign and things can get heated so us mods will allow for that, keep it civil and on topic and we'll be fine.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

Huntergonzo wrote: »

After weeks of reading this and talking to people locally it very simply comes down to this = vote Yes if you gave a conscious, vote No if you're gullible enough to believe the lies of the Iona or Catholic institutions and or you're really just homophobic.

Well, not really. The formal No campaign only consists of a few marginal groups, who I expect don't hold much sway with anyone. The Yes campaign, on the other hand, seems to have the public support of just about every major institution. For all that, they don't actually have coherent reasons for why, all of a sudden, this issue is so important.

And Yes voters avoid questions they can't answer. For instance, you may have come across the famous spam list of changes that this referendum will bring in:

http://www.marriagequality.ie/download/xls/marriage_equality_missing_pieces_audit_full_list.xls

This list includes this item.

"Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 15 1, 3 (1) A "sexual act", unless rape, aggravated sexual assault, with a person under the age of 17 is an offence, except when the parties to the Act are married."

The normal minimum age for marriage in Ireland is 18, unless people get a dispensation by the Courts. To give a picture of that, only 11 people aged under 17 got married in 2013.

Most of us would say that's 11 too many. This referendum will open the door to even more marriages by people under 17, as clearly SSM will be allowed in similar circumstances.

I can't find any Yes voter explain to me why increasing, instead of reducing, the situations where under 17s will be able to marry is a good thing.

MrWalsh

timetogo wrote: »

I'd be all for that. Imagine if churches stopped doing civil marriages. I don't know how many would just not bother getting married in a church. I would imagine it'd be quite a decent percentage.

Similar for schools. If schools started discriminating against gay, divorcees, unmarried people, people who work on Sundays etc. etc. then suddenly we'd see funding for non denominational schools all over the place.

Schools and hospitals and any other institution run with funding from the Catholic Church can and do discriminate against people who don't adhere to the ethos. You can't sue on discrimination grounds if you are sacked by such an institution for not meeting with the ethos. It's legal discrimination.

While I agree it'd be a win win if the church refused to do civil registrations it's an empty threat, they need membership so they are not going to turn people away. It's a bluff but as a society we should be pushing for them not to be doing it, I'm not comfortable with priests signing legal documents and acting as instruments of the state.

This referendum passing will be one more step towards loosening the chokehold of the Catholic Church in ireland and that's a good thing.

timetogo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I can't find any Yes voter explain to me why increasing, instead of reducing, the situations where under 17s will be able to marry is a good thing.

Why do we have to? You've said yourself it shouldn't be allowed for heterosexuals either. I agree, under 17 is too young for anybody to be marrying.

So rather than say gays shouldn't marry because 1 or 2 gay people might ask for this permission how about getting rid of that clause for gay people and
heterosexuals. You know, equality.

Instead you're implying that you don't want gays under 17 marrying and you'll ignore the heterosexuals under 17 because ......(I can't think of a valid reason to put here, can you fill in the blank?)

How the hell did they get dispensation from the courts anyway. That's a whole other thread.

Legislation can be changed a lot easier than the constitution.

MrWalsh

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I can't find any Yes voter explain to me why increasing, instead of reducing, the situations where under 17s will be able to marry is a good thing.

It's not a reason to prevent same sex marriage. If you disagree with people under the age of 18 being able to marry then lobby to block it for all, both heterosexual and homosexual.

It's quite pathetic that you would think it a reason to block same sex marriage. It's irrelevant.

LookingFor

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Well, not really. The formal No campaign only consists of a few marginal groups, who I expect don't hold much sway with anyone. The Yes campaign, on the other hand, seems to have the public support of just about every major institution. For all that, they don't actually have coherent reasons for why, all of a sudden, this issue is so important.

And Yes voters avoid questions they can't answer. For instance, you may have come across the famous spam list of changes that this referendum will bring in:

http://www.marriagequality.ie/download/xls/marriage_equality_missing_pieces_audit_full_list.xls

This list includes this item.

"Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 15 1, 3 (1) A "sexual act", unless rape, aggravated sexual assault, with a person under the age of 17 is an offence, except when the parties to the Act are married."

The normal minimum age for marriage in Ireland is 18, unless people get a dispensation by the Courts. To give a picture of that, only 11 people aged under 17 got married in 2013.

Most of us would say that's 11 too many. This referendum will open the door to even more marriages by people under 17, as clearly SSM will be allowed in similar circumstances.

I can't find any Yes voter explain to me why increasing, instead of reducing, the situations where under 17s will be able to marry is a good thing.

We discussed this in another thread with you GCU.

If marriage law has 'warts', pretending we're dealing with them by not extending marriage to more people is a fallacy.

By the logic of 'fewer marriages' = 'fewer marriages of people under 17', we should just get rid of marriage altogether, for everyone. Then it wouldn't happen at all!

Or we could deal with that issue with a scalpel rather than a bazooka.

This is like asking someone in Saudi Arabia who is campaigning for the right of women to drive - "are you for more car accidents? Why don't you answer me that?!". I'm not surprised if 'yes people' are refusing to engage you on playing field built on that logic.

ByfocalPhoto

Paddy Power is yet another business to nail their colours to the mast -
http://www.thejournal.ie/paddy-power-tiocfaidh-ar-la-lorry-marriage-2070957-Apr2015/

GCU Flexible Demeanour

LookingFor wrote: »

We discussed this in another thread with you GCU.

I'm not sure that we have. I was actually told by a Mod on AH that it was off topic, despite the fact that I'm quoting from a list presented by Yes voters from a marriage equality website.

timetogo wrote: »

So rather than say gays shouldn't marry because 1 or 2 gay people might ask for this permission how about getting rid of that clause for gay people and heterosexuals. You know, equality.

I'd like to have the opportunity for a vote to protect the 11 under 17 year olds who married in 2013, but I didn't have the chance. What I can do is vote no and, as you say, at least protect maybe one or two gay people from a similar fate.

A concrete reason for voting No.

MrWalsh wrote: »

It's not a reason to prevent same sex marriage. If you disagree with people under the age of 18 being able to marry then lobby to block it for all, both heterosexual and homosexual.

Ah, like some of you guys say, I can only vote on the subject of this referendum. If they put a "ban all straight marriages under 18" referendum in front of us next, I'll take the same stance that time.

MrWalsh wrote: »

It's quite pathetic that you would think it a reason to block same sex marriage. It's irrelevant.

It's not merely relevant, its an item on the list of differences that Yes posters usually link when asked "what's the difference between marriage and civil partnership".

So, absolutely, you are asking me to vote for SSM for people aged under 17. And I'm voting no to that proposal.

timetogo

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

Paddy Power is yet another business to nail their colours to the mast -
http://www.thejournal.ie/paddy-power-tiocfaidh-ar-la-lorry-marriage-2070957-Apr2015/

Finally a valid reason to vote no. If No wins you could get 5/1.

timetogo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I'd like to have the opportunity for a vote to protect the 11 under 17 year olds who married in 2013, but I didn't have the chance. What I can do is vote no and, as you say, at least protect maybe one or two gay people from a similar fate.

A concrete reason for voting No.

Grand. Can you answer the other bit of my question then

"you'll ignore the heterosexuals under 17 because ......(I can't think of a valid reason to put here, can you fill in the blank?)"

Like you said, it was 11 people under the age of 17 got married in 2013. That's not going to change by you voting No.

I'd argue that the smarter course of action was to fix the legislation. But No to this referendum is enough for you apparently.

gravehold

timetogo wrote: »

Finally a valid reason to vote no. If No wins you could get 5/1.

It was higher a few days ago, put €20 down just the odds where too good to pass up

MrWalsh

So, absolutely, you are asking me to vote for SSM for people aged under 17. And I'm voting no to that proposal.

I'm sorry you don't understand what you are being asked to vote on. Oh wait, you DO! This is your 4th (or maybe 3rd, I'm losing count), silly reason that you are pretending is why you are voting no?

Everyone knows why you are voting no. You're just making an even bigger fool of yourself with all the pseudo concern about unrelated issues.

Remember that this is the internet and the things you post here stay forever.

ByfocalPhoto

I would imagine someone somewhere on the no side will have trotted out the old "marriage for immigration or tax dodging" argument.
In fairness it's already an issue in straight marriage. All we are doing is doubling the pool of candidates.

Did anybody see the episode of Boston Legal where Denny and Alan got married and the the gay lobby slapped an injunction on them ?

Hilarious. ( yes, I know it's fiction ).

GCU Flexible Demeanour

timetogo wrote: »

<..>"you'll ignore the heterosexuals under 17 because ......(I can't think of a valid reason to put here, can you fill in the blank?)"

Oh, very easy. Because I'm not being asked to vote on that on the 22nd.

If I was asked to vote in favour of heterosexuals under 17 continuing to be allowed to contract marriage, I'd vote against that too.

Now, your reason why I should vote in favour of marriage under age 17 for gay couples is......(I can't think of a valid reason to put here, can you fill in the blank?)

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MrWalsh wrote: »

I'm sorry you don't understand what you are being asked to vote on. Oh wait, you DO! This is your 4th (or maybe 3rd, I'm losing count), silly reason that you are pretending is why you are voting no?

Everyone knows why you are voting no. You're just making an even bigger fool of yourself with all the pseudo concern about unrelated issues.

Remember that this is the internet and the things you post here stay forever.

Oh, I've set that out.

This is just me asking you to account for the material commonly presented by Yes voters to defend their position.

I notice you can't.

MrWalsh

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Now, your reason why I should vote in favour of marriage under age 17 for gay couples is......(I can't think of a valid reason to put here, can you fill in the blank?)

Because if heterosexuals can, them it should be open to homosexuals also. Equality. Easy.

MrWalsh

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Oh, I've set that out.

This is just me asking you to account for the material commonly presented by Yes voters to defend their position.

I notice you can't.

Can't what? You've been given the answer yet you seem unable to comprehend it.

gravehold

MrWalsh wrote: »

Because if heterosexuals can, them it should be open to homosexuals also. Equality. Easy.

If it's about equality why add the part about two people that wasn't in the constitution in the first place adding discrimination to polygamous relationships

Ave Sodalis

gravehold wrote: »

If it's about equality why add the part about two people that wasn't in the constitution in the first place adding discrimination to polygamous relationships

This has been answered.

gravehold

sup_dude wrote: »

This has been answered.

Then why are they putting the under 18 marriage part in it's not cause of equality cuase they don't care about equality

GCU Flexible Demeanour

MrWalsh wrote: »

Because if heterosexuals can, them it should be open to homosexuals also. Equality. Easy.

I disagree. Two wrongs don't make a right.

That you would so easily defend marriage of under 17 year olds is, to my mind, irresponsible.

But, sure, that's what we're voting on. You're in favour of teenage marriage, and I'm not.

timetogo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

Oh, very easy. Because I'm not being asked to vote on that on the 22nd.

If I was asked to vote in favour of heterosexuals under 17 continuing to be allowed to contract marriage, I'd vote against that too.

Now, your reason why I should vote in favour of marriage under age 17 for gay couples is......(I can't think of a valid reason to put here, can you fill in the blank?)

I'd answer that it's never OK for anybody under 17 to get married and that I'll be contacting my TDs to see what they can do about it.

As we can only fix one problem at a time I think that's the smarter way to go about it. Otherwise we'd never get anything fixed.

So with this referendum we'll get one problem fixed and we can start lobbying TDs to fix the second. With your solution gay people can't marry and under 17 year old girls and boys still can. That's not really acceptable to me. So can I count on your support?

Luckily we don't need a referendum on young marriage. This could be sorted easier with the right support.

Ave Sodalis

gravehold wrote: »

Then why are they putting the under 18 marriage part in it's not cause of equality cuase they don't care about equality

This has also been answered.

gingerhousewife

gravehold wrote: »

Gay couple cannot adopt a kid atm so it's a repercussion will come once a yes passes, it won't be there if the no place passes

Yes they can. It's covered under the Children and Relationships Act which was recently signed into law.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

timetogo wrote: »

So with this referendum we'll get one problem fixed and we can start lobbying TDs to fix the second. With your solution gay people can't marry and under 17 year old girls and boys still can. That's not really acceptable to me. So can I count on your support?

No, with this referendum we'll have made the problem worse. I'm not aware of any proposal to change this.

I'm not voting in favour of under 17 marriage for anyone.

And, can I repeat, the material linked by Yes voters drawn from a marriage equality website calmly mentions this provision as if it assumes we'd all share the view that it should be open to all.

Sorry, folk. Hoist by your own petards.

MrWalsh

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I disagree. Two wrongs don't make a right.

That you would so easily defend marriage of under 17 year olds is, to my mind, irresponsible.

But, sure, that's what we're voting on. You're in favour of teenage marriage, and I'm not.

Grand. Equality is more important than the tiny number of teenage marriages that happen. But don't let that get in the way of your trolling.

timetogo

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, with this referendum we'll have made the problem worse. I'm not aware of any proposal to change this.

Are you new to Ireland? Just because there's no proposal to fix it doesn't mean we live with it forever. You seem OK to keep allowing under 17 year old girls and boys get married to presumably people older than them. It just seems odd to me.

MrWalsh

People I strongly suggest you report the troll.

timetogo

MrWalsh wrote: »

People I strongly suggest you report the troll.

Yeah, you're right. Will just stop feeding.

GCU Flexible Demeanour

timetogo wrote: »

You seem OK to keep allowing under 17 year old girls and boys get married to presumably people older than them. It just seems odd to me.

No, I've just never been asked to vote on the topic. I've very clearly said that I wouldn't vote to allow anyone to get married under age 17, so I can't understand your statement at all.

I notice this is yet another aspect of the proposal that yes voters can't explain. They're great with the soundbites like "160 differences". Ask them "why is this particular difference a problem" and they haven't a clue.

Persist, as they avoid the question, and they pretend you're trolling. Unbelievable.

MrWalsh

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

No, I've just never been asked to vote on the topic. I've very clearly said that I wouldn't vote to allow anyone to get married under age 17, so I can't understand your statement at all.

I notice this is yet another aspect of the proposal that yes voters can't explain. They're great with the soundbites like "160 differences". Ask them "why is this particular difference a problem" and they haven't a clue.

Persist, as they avoid the question, and they pretend you're trolling. Unbelievable.

Ah GCU, still merrily trolling.

I'd like to welcome you to my ignore list.

JONJO THE MISER

A lot of people im talking to, both young and old are voting no.
The media seems to think most people will vote yes or they want to portray it that way.

ForstalDave

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

A lot of people im talking to, both young and old are voting no.
The media seems to think most people will vote yes or they want to portray it that way.

On the other side everyone i know is voting yes so from my view the media is right

SireOfSeth

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

Very disappointing that there are undemocratic morons on both sides.

Ebay are another example, for some reason they called for a yes vote. Not quite sure what it's got to do with them.

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/work/same-sex-marriage-tech-giant-ebay-backs-yes-vote-1.2203685

Civil rights concerns everyone. I, for one, am happy to see businesses supporting the YES yote.

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

Paddy Power is yet another business to nail their colours to the mast -
http://www.thejournal.ie/paddy-power-tiocfaidh-ar-la-lorry-marriage-2070957-Apr2015/

Good on them.

Also saw that my local pet shop is supporting a YES vote.

traprunner

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

Paddy Power is yet another business to nail their colours to the mast -
http://www.thejournal.ie/paddy-power-tiocfaidh-ar-la-lorry-marriage-2070957-Apr2015/

How so? That is a typical Paddy Power advertising and it even displays odds.

ByfocalPhoto

traprunner wrote:

How so? That is a typical Paddy Power advertising and it even displays odds.

How so ? I think the clue is in the "We will prevail" if my limited Irish serves.

gravehold

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

How so ? I think the clue is in the "We will prevail" if my limited Irish serves.

Just like the actual IRA terrorist group the are comparing gay people to

traprunner

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

How so ? I think the clue is in the "We will prevail" if my limited Irish serves.

I think you are reading too much into it. Tongue in cheek as always. By your thinking the below ad would show support for parties other than UKIP and Lib Dem.

ByfocalPhoto

I was talking to a 23 year old on the weekend who is voting no because he has 50 quid on a no vote with paddy power. I don't see that as commendable at all. Could it be that PP could accidentally slant the result by offering a financial incentive for a no vote ?

Ave Sodalis

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

I was talking to a 23 year old on the weekend who is voting no because he has 50 quid on a no vote with paddy power. I don't see that as commendable at all. Could it be that PP could accidentally slant the result by offering a financial incentive for a no vote ?

I doubt PP are the only bookies offering odds. To be honest, this post makes me rethink the Yes vote on lowering the presidential age...

gravehold

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

I was talking to a 23 year old on the weekend who is voting no because he has 50 quid on a no vote with paddy power. I don't see that as commendable at all. Could it be that PP could accidentally slant the result by offering a financial incentive for a no vote ?

I put 20 down just incase the odds where to great, and I am sure a lot of the vote votes are to scared to say what way they are voting so the polls are skewed

ByfocalPhoto

My friend was just telling me her 101 year old auntie is voting yes. It is clearly not an age thing.

jobbridge4life

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

My friend was just telling me her 101 year old auntie is voting yes. It is clearly not an age thing.

Well every single poll on every matter to do with homosexuality clearly indicates and age bias, with the younger being more accepting and the older you get the less so. So while anecdotes like your friends aunt are great they are exceptions unfortunately.

Sofiztikated

ByfocalPhoto wrote: »

I was talking to a 23 year old on the weekend who is voting no because he has 50 quid on a no vote with paddy power. I don't see that as commendable at all. Could it be that PP could accidentally slant the result by offering a financial incentive for a no vote ?

sup_dude wrote: »

I doubt PP are the only bookies offering odds. To be honest, this post makes me rethink the Yes vote on lowering the presidential age...

Unfortunately there's more than a few idiots about that would slap a few quid down, and vote no, in order to try and win 5/1 back.

My faith in people is ebbing.

jobbridge4life

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Unfortunately there's more than a few idiots about that would slap a few quid down, and vote no, in order to try and win 5/1 back.

My faith in people is ebbing.

Sadly its only barely less legitimate a reason than most of the claptrap offered by the no side.