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

seamus

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

It is an extraordinary lofty ambition, with a tiny amendment. Considering these structures are 1000s of years old.

And over 1000s of years have been fluid and undefined and variously included harems, communities of biologicially unrelated individuals, same-sex relationships, opposite-sex relationships, polygamy and the other thousands of possible configurations in which people can come together and live as a family unit.

I see no reason this amendment makes any difference. It will not change the actual structure of society, in the slightest. It will just codify in law what society is already doing.

That's generally how the constitution and the law in general works - society changes and goes one way and then the law catches up. The law rarely if ever takes the lead.

FixdePitchmark

People using these sad stories.

Lads we are dealing with the constitution - it is an ideal.

If you are a 2 % - a minority , we can't change an ideal for 2 %.

Adoption is another days debate.

So are the yes side saying this is about single mothers and adoption. marriage or equality or family.

If they are saying it is all this, what a strange confusion.

seamus

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

If you are a 2 % - a minority , we can't change an ideal for 2 %.

You haven't explained why not.

So are the yes side saying this is about single mothers and adoption. marriage or equality or family.

Nice attempt at deflection. No, they're not.

In fact, nobody here has said it is.

Ave Sodalis

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

People using these sad stories.

Lads we are dealing with the constitution - it is an ideal.

If you are a 2 % - a minority , we can't change an ideal for 2 %.

Adoption is another days debate.

So are the yes side saying this is about single mothers and adoption. marriage or equality or family.

If they are saying it is all this, what a strange confusion.

Which sad stories?

The Yes side are not saying it's about single mothers or adoption. The Yes side are saying that your logic can be applied to single mothers, and are wondering why it's only a problem when it comes to gay couples.

MrWalsh

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

So are the yes side saying this is about single mothers and adoption. marriage or equality or family.

No, you are saying a family is two heterosexual parents and children. It is being pointed out to you that that is just one version of a family. You dont seem to mind non ideal families unless they are gay couples. So the onus is on you to explain that.

CramCycle

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

So are the yes side saying this is about single mothers and adoption. marriage or equality or family.

They are not though, you keep saying it is about family, you keep giving a definition that is so narrow that it does not fit a wide range of the Irish population.

You keep saying that marriage is defined as one thing. It is not.

You get upset that people are being facetious, they give you real world examples that I find it haard to believe you have never encountered.

You then say its not about those people.

Confusion only seems to be apparent in your posts.

This referendum is not about family. It is about the definition of marriage. You do not need to be married to be a family (although that provides alot of legal protection for a range of issues, that unmarried families and civil partners do not have).

FixdePitchmark

MrWalsh wrote: »

No, you are saying a family is two heterosexual parents and children. It is being pointed out to you that that is just one version of a family. You dont seem to mind non ideal families unless they are gay couples. So the onus is on you to explain that.

I accept that couples that stay together as a family deserve special recognition - as is the case in the constitution. As is the case in law , housing and tax and most western 1st world countries. I think this should be reaffirmed and encouraged more.

I'm not denying support and protections for all others.

But - you can't claim a right and equality - that is invalid.

Clearly - I'm out there on the right wing on this.

But - this whole thing to me - feels like the entitlement generation.

It is gone a bit too far - when you wake up one day and are told a man and a man together is the same as a traditional family.

Not that they want a union - not that they want a civil union - No they want a marriage and to be A Family - because they love love love love each other.

A bit too x-factor for me - I'm out.

sydthebeat

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Not quite. Arguably, the phrase "without distinction" means that a marriage can be contracted between two people without distinction as to their gender, but that does not mean that a marriage of two men or two women is "equal" to a marriage of a man and a woman. So there is equality as regards ability to marry from a sexual orientation point of view, but the article does not necessarily mean that a homosexual marraige and a heterosexual marriage are to be treated equally in all respects.

If anything, one could criticise it for not going far enough.

thats not what i was arguing

i was arguing that the ability of a gay couple entering the contract of civil marriage shall be treated equally by law as to that of a hetrosexual couple

which in my mind is is easier to describe as "marriage equality" in the context of this referendum

every single semantic sentence can be deconstructed to argue against it, but the spirit of the sentance holds.

MrWalsh

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

It is gone a bit too far - when you wake up one day and are told a man and a man together is the same as a traditional family.

Why isnt a man and a man together equal to a "traditional" family?

FixdePitchmark

MrWalsh wrote: »

Why isnt a man and a man together equal to a "traditional" family?

Would you stop.

Look up birds and bees - You Tube.

sydthebeat

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Would you stop.

Look up birds and bees - You Tube.

birds and bees is interspecies sex... thats outlawed in ireland

Ave Sodalis

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Would you stop.

Look up birds and bees - You Tube.

Thankfully, reproductive understanding and technology has progressed further than just one man plus one woman equals baby though. You don't need to be able to have children to have children.

That would only be relevant if that is what the referendum was about, which it isn't.

ForstalDave

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Would you stop.

Look up birds and bees - You Tube.

What matters more when considering family the sex or the bond they have between them, I know families who would happily sell/kill each other why should they get more consideration than two men/women who love each other more than anything

FixdePitchmark

sydthebeat wrote: »

birds and bees is interspecies sex... thats outlawed in ireland

No - I've done a good bit of reading on this (sadly on-line)

Are we honestly saying now

A man and a women who get together to have children in a union is the same
As
A man and a man.

And if you don't agree with that - you are archaic, of the right, homophobic a bigot.

Crazy stuff.

In my opinion, they picked the wrong group to attack.

The movement would have been far better off outside "The Family".

Get popper equality - in a civil partnership. Progress from there.


But anyway - my opinion is irrelevant , as a bit out there and on wrong side of victory.

Ave Sodalis

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

No - I've done a good bit of reading on this (sadly on-line)

Are we honestly saying now

A man and a women who get together to have children in an union is the same
As
A man and a man.

And if you don't agree with that - you are archaic, of the right, homophobic a bigot.

Crazy stuff.

In my opinion, they picked the wrong group to attack.

The movement would have been far better of outside "The Family".

Get popper equality - in a civil partnership. Progress from there.


But anyway - my opinion is irrelevant , as a bit out there and on wrong side of victory.

How about a man and a man who come together and adopt? Or and man and a woman who don't have kids?

Again, nobody, I repeat nobody, has called you a homophobe and I'm struggling to understand why you keep bringing it up.

MrWalsh

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Are we honestly saying now

A man and a women who get together to have children in a union is the same
As
A man and a man.

No one said they were the same, they should be equal in terms of rights and recognitions under law.

Why shouldnt they be?

sheesh

AlphaRed wrote: »

Be a true independent thinker. Think of the implications for society and think about the roots of the yes campaign and what it actually has to do with our society. Don't base your decision on emotional but on a rational and deep understanding of the issue.

What do you think the implications for society will be?

I cannot see what harm it will do to allow same sex couples to get married.
They already have civil partnership.

seamus

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Are we honestly saying now

A man and a women who get together to have children in a union is the same
As
A man and a man.

And if you don't agree with that - you are archaic, of the right, homophobic a bigot.

There you are now. Misrepresenting the issue again.

Why do you keep bringing up children when you've already acknowledged this referendum doesn't affect them?

sydthebeat

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

A man and a women who get together to have children in a union is the same
As
A man and a man.

why not?

what business do you and i have in denying two men / women in a loving childless marriage from having children?

what business do you and i have in denying a man and a woman in a loving childless marriage from having children? oh wait, we dont.

please see the discrimination inherent in the above sentences.

MrWalsh

Ill possibly be banned for saying this but I am really horrified at how many homophobes are popping up and given a voice on boards.ie and other places on the internet recently. It wouldnt be acceptable if it was racism.

CramCycle

MrWalsh wrote: »

Ill possibly be banned for saying this but I am really horrified at how many homophobes are popping up and given a voice on boards.ie and other places on the internet recently. It wouldnt be acceptable if it was racism.

Off topic: It's not acceptable on boards.ie either, if a post is homophobic, you use the report post button for it to be reviewed. It is often the case that mods will not have time to view or read every post in one forum, hence why the button is there.

AlphaRed

AlphaRed wrote: »

They are taking the concept of equality which is of great importance to everyone and like a beer commercial are attaching it to the positive emotions and importance people feel about equality.

Similar to how the No Campaign is making it about adoption and children - which it has little to nothing to do with - and attaching the No-Vote emotionally to the positive emotions and importance people feel about children? You say "If you don't do what they say you are against equality and so, a bad person." but they are making it "If you don't do what they say you are against children and so, a bad person."

BOTH sides are playing games. Both sides play games in EVERY political issue.

YOUR game however appears to be to move from forum to forum on boards.ie pointing out this in the side you disagree with - and entirely ignoring it in your own. You have joined boards.ie with no agenda other than to demonise the Yes Campaign as being manipulative - but you succeed only in being manipulative yourself.

AlphaRed wrote: »

Be a true independent thinker. Think of the implications for society and think about the roots of the yes campaign and what it actually has to do with our society. Don't base your decision on emotional but on a rational and deep understanding of the issue.

Then by all means lay out the implications as you see them. All ears.

OldNotWIse

AlphaRed wrote: »

Lets remember without distortion what we are really voting about. The Yes Campaign has hijacked the referendum by relabeling it "Marriage equality". They are taking the concept of equality which is of great importance to everyone and like a beer commercial are attaching it to the positive emotions and importance people feel about equality.

If you don't do what they say you are against equality and so, a bad person. This is sheer propaganda. We have seen in history how propaganda has been used to manipulate the masses.

Please take the time to fully analyse what that sentence means "marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex". There is no mention of equality in that sentence. That concept has been added by the yes campaign. They are asking you to make a logical leap, because there is no real connection with equality.

Be a true independent thinker. Think of the implications for society and think about the roots of the yes campaign and what it actually has to do with our society. Don't base your decision on emotional but on a rational and deep understanding of the issue.

The No campaign has hijacked the referendum by pretending that it's all about children.

johnnyskeleton

MrWalsh wrote: »

Ill possibly be banned for saying this but I am really horrified at how many homophobes are popping up and given a voice on boards.ie and other places on the internet recently. It wouldnt be acceptable if it was racism.

Banned? Well, maybe politely told not to question moderation on thread, but not banned.

However, there is a difference between homophobia and being aginst the referendum, and I think most people on this thread accept that (in the same way that there is a difference between being anti-immigration and being racist).

If you feel a post is being genuinely homophobic, please report it rather than bring it up on thread.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

YOUR game however appears to be to move from forum to forum on boards.ie pointing out this in the side you disagree with - and entirely ignoring it in your own. You have joined boards.ie with no agenda other than to demonise the Yes Campaign as being manipulative - but you succeed only in being manipulative yourself.

MOD: Stead now, attack the post not the poster.

Magico Gonzalez

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

In my opinion, they picked the wrong group to attack.

The movement would have been far better off outside "The Family".

Get popper equality - in a civil partnership. Progress from there.

.

Equal treatment for all poppers?

I can't go with that, horrible stuff the aul poppers. Terrible buzz.

MrWalsh

Magico Gonzalez wrote: »

Equal treatment for all poppers?

I can't go with that, horrible stuff the aul poppers. Terrible buzz.

I think we should all be equally entitled to take poppers!

FixdePitchmark

MrWalsh wrote: »

Ill possibly be banned for saying this but I am really horrified at how many homophobes are popping up and given a voice on boards.ie and other places on the internet recently. It wouldnt be acceptable if it was racism.

:rolleyes:

QED.

Keep it up - I think every time that card is pulled - 0.01% shifts to No.

MrWalsh

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

:rolleyes:

QED.

Keep it up - I think every time that card is pulled - 0.01% shifts to No.

Homophobes are already voting No.

FixdePitchmark

MrWalsh wrote: »

Homophobes are already voting No.

0.02 %

MrWalsh

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

0.02 %

This is fun!

Homophobes and bigots are voting no.

FixdePitchmark

MrWalsh wrote: »

This is fun!

Homophobes and bigots are voting no.

So get that on a poster.


Seems to be the only clear message from the No side so far.

MrWalsh

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

So get that on a poster.


Seems to be the only clear message from the No side so far.

It certainly is the right message!

No more percentage counting upwards? No fun!

Hyzepher

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I accept that couples that stay together as a family deserve special recognition - as is the case in the constitution. As is the case in law , housing and tax and most western 1st world countries. I think this should be reaffirmed and encouraged more.

I'm not denying support and protections for all others.

But - you can't claim a right and equality - that is invalid.

Clearly - I'm out there on the right wing on this.

But - this whole thing to me - feels like the entitlement generation.

It is gone a bit too far - when you wake up one day and are told a man and a man together is the same as a traditional family.

Not that they want a union - not that they want a civil union - No they want a marriage and to be A Family - because they love love love love each other.

A bit too x-factor for me - I'm out.

I assume you are not homosexual.

Therefore you are either married or have the ability to get married in the future. A marriage in your eyes that, with children, forms a Family and protects the children due to them having a mum & dad combination.

If your next door neighbor isn't married but has kids, it doesn't affect your ability to have the Family you want.
If your next door neighbor is married but cannot have kids, this also doesn't affect you having the Family you want.
If there is a cohabiting gay couple living next door to you, again no impact on your Family.
If the gay couple next door adopt a child - no effect on you.
If your next door neighbor is a single mum - your idea of a Family is not affected.
Married couple next door have only adopted kids - again your Family definition is unaffected.
If the unmarried heterosexual couple next door have no kids - again your ideal Family not affected

Along with your idea of a Family - all the above family scenarios are happening in Ireland with or without the referendum. Your life isn't being affected.

The day after the referendum is passed all the above will still be true but gay couples will be allowed to marry.

You will still be in your house unaffected by anything.

The kids in the gay relationship will encounter no difference to their daily lives. Neither will any of the children in any of the other relationships.

Legally the gay couple will be much better off.

bopper

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

:rolleyes:

QED.

Keep it up - I think every time that card is pulled - 0.01% shifts to No.

Yet you've been just as bad for pulling a similar card. To suggest that every yes voter labels you as a homophobe is just as bad as suggesting that every no voter is one.

CelticRambler

oscarBravo wrote: »

Basically, what you're saying is that there is no connection between love and marriage; the two are completely orthogonal concepts with no relationship between them.

As "no" side arguments go, that's got to take some sort of award.

Seeing as I don't have a vote (in Ireland) I'm not in a position to argue "yes" or "no", but basically yes - there is no connection in law between love and marriage. Marriage is about working together not being in love.

IF the concept of love is brought into the civil contract that we currently call "marriage" then you've got to open the door to all kinds of other unions where "love" can be described - brother and sister, life-long friends, threesomes, single parent & only child, etc.

Two people pledging to live their lives together is a civil partnership, and the mechanism for formalising that is already in place. Are they a family? I would say no, the same as in France, a single parent with one child is not a family (even with two parents, having a single child doesn't entitle you to any "family allowance")

This referendum is pointless because it's trying to adapt the constitution to the lowest common denominator amongst the wide variety of behaviours exhibited by the populace, instead of projecting an ideal that uniquely defines the country. All that will achieve is to leave space for the growth of a movement that does define itself with ideals. In France, it's called Islam ...

desertcircus

CelticRambler wrote: »

Seeing as I don't have a vote (in Ireland) I'm not in a position to argue "yes" or "no", but basically yes - there is no connection in law between love and marriage. Marriage is about working together not being in love.

IF the concept of love is brought into the civil contract that we currently call "marriage" then you've got to open the door to all kinds of other unions where "love" can be described - brother and sister, life-long friends, threesomes, single parent & only child, etc.

Two people pledging to live their lives together is a civil partnership, and the mechanism for formalising that is already in place. Are they a family? I would say no, the same as in France, a single parent with one child is not a family (even with two parents, having a single child doesn't entitle you to any "family allowance")

This referendum is pointless because it's trying to adapt the constitution to the lowest common denominator amongst the wide variety of behaviours exhibited by the populace, instead of projecting an ideal that uniquely defines the country. All that will achieve is to leave space for the growth of a movement that does define itself with ideals. In France, it's called Islam ...

That's a remarkably contorted opposition. Would it not be simpler and more appropriate, if we accept your logic, to just abolish marriage? After all, you haven't explained any actual reason why heterosexual but not homosexual couples should be allowed to marry.

By the way: "love" is a perfectly normal component of marriage, and remains the same between a gay couple as between a straight couple.

FixdePitchmark

Equally, nobody has given a good enough reason why a gay couple need to marry. Not to mention it is flawed.

As was said earlier - If they couldn't marry it would have no impact on the world or their world. They would continue as they are.

If a gay couple was to get full rights inside a civil partnership - would they be happy ? I feel the answer is no - this is an aggressive action of flawed imposition.

The constitution is set up to be protective of the traditional family unit. The traditional family unit - is within the best interest of the state. All other variants of this can be supported , but requires state support , adoptive services, additional child care support. The family unit is in a far superior position to support children. And to create children.

The traditional family unit provides an important role in the state. It deserves recognition. It is totally incompatible with two people getting together with no natural way to reproduce.

Whilst homosexual couples feel their relationship is undervalued - this referendum is an attack on the family unit.

It is not about equality - It is about trying to redefine family.

As it is about redefining family and marriage - we are not being sold what it says on the tin.

ForstalDave

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Equally, nobody has given a good enough reason why a gay couple need to marry. Not to mention it is flawed.

As was said earlier - If they couldn't marry it would have no impact on the world or their world. They would continue as they are.

If a gay couple was to get full rights inside a civil partnership - would they be happy ? I feel the answer is no - this is an aggressive action of flawed imposition.

The constitution is set up to be protective the traditional family unit. The traditional family unit - is within the best interest of the state. All other variants of this can be supported , but requires state support , adoptive services, child care support. The family unit is in a far superior position to support children. And to create children.

The traditional family unit provides an important role in the state. It deserves recognition. It is totally incompatible with two people getting together with no natural way to reproduce.

Whilst homosexual couples feel their relationship is undervalued - this referendum is an attack on the family unit.

It is not about equality - It is about trying to redefine family.

As it is about redefining family and marriage - we are not being sold what it says on the tin.

The reverse is why should they not its make no difference to you or anyone else bar them what reason is there to not allow them to marry?

desertcircus

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Equally, nobody has given a good enough reason why a gay couple need to marry. Not to mention it is flawed.

As was said earlier - If they couldn't marry it would have no impact on the world or their world. They would continue as they are.

If a gay couple was to get full rights inside a civil partnership - would they be happy ? I feel the answer is no - this is an aggressive action of flawed imposition.

The constitution is set up to be protective of the traditional family unit. The traditional family unit - is within the best interest of the state. All other variants of this can be supported , but requires state support , adoptive services, additional child care support. The family unit is in a far superior position to support children. And to create children.

The traditional family unit provides an important role in the state. It deserves recognition. It is totally incompatible with two people getting together with no natural way to reproduce.

Whilst homosexual couples feel their relationship is undervalued - this referendum is an attack on the family unit.

It is not about equality - It is about trying to redefine family.

As it is about redefining family and marriage - we are not being sold what it says on the tin.

Do you ever get bored of repeating arguments that have already been taken down?

FixdePitchmark

Because they can not naturally have children - and that is what the spirit , actual intention , natural intention , constitutional intention of Article 41 is.

This is a confusion of the reality.

shruikan2553

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Equally, nobody has given a good enough reason why a gay couple need to marry. Not to mention it is flawed.

As was said earlier - If they couldn't marry it would have no impact on the world or their world. They would continue as they are.

If a gay couple was to get full rights inside a civil partnership - would they be happy ? I feel the answer is no - this is an aggressive action of flawed imposition.

The constitution is set up to be protective of the traditional family unit. The traditional family unit - is within the best interest of the state. All other variants of this can be supported , but requires state support , adoptive services, additional child care support. The family unit is in a far superior position to support children. And to create children.

The traditional family unit provides an important role in the state. It deserves recognition. It is totally incompatible with two people getting together with no natural way to reproduce.

Whilst homosexual couples feel their relationship is undervalued - this referendum is an attack on the family unit.

It is not about equality - It is about trying to redefine family.

As it is about redefining family and marriage - we are not being sold what it says on the tin.

How will marriage between a man and women be changing?

Timberrrrrrrr

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Equally, nobody has given a good enough reason why a gay couple need to marry. Not to mention it is flawed.

As was said earlier - If they couldn't marry it would have no impact on the world or their world. They would continue as they are.

If a gay couple was to get full rights inside a civil partnership - would they be happy ? I feel the answer is no - this is an aggressive action of flawed imposition.

The constitution is set up to be protective of the traditional family unit. The traditional family unit - is within the best interest of the state. All other variants of this can be supported , but requires state support , adoptive services, additional child care support. The family unit is in a far superior position to support children. And to create children.

The traditional family unit provides an important role in the state. It deserves recognition. It is totally incompatible with two people getting together with no natural way to reproduce.

Whilst homosexual couples feel their relationship is undervalued - this referendum is an attack on the family unit.

It is not about equality - It is about trying to redefine family.

As it is about redefining family and marriage - we are not being sold what it says on the tin.

So should a couple be allowed to marry if it is found out that either the man or woman cannot reproduce? After all they will be "two people getting together with no natural way to reproduce"

Ave Sodalis

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Because they can not naturally have children - and that is what the spirit , actual intention , natural intention , constitutional intention of Article 41 is.

This is a confusion of the reality.

Neither can many straight couples. There are also couples who marry without having children. As asked earlier, why is it only a problem when it comes to gay people?

OldNotWIse

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Because they can not naturally have children - and that is what the spirit , actual intention , natural intention , constitutional intention of Article 41 is.

This is a confusion of the reality.

I am sure my parents will be devastated to learn that they and my adopted brother are not a family.

OldNotWIse

Are there actually people who think that the only reason to get married is to have kids??

FixdePitchmark

so we should reshape our whole society for exceptions.

Great country.


Exception can be handled outside of marriage.

Timberrrrrrrr

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

so we should reshape our whole society for exceptions.

Great country.


Exception can be handled outside of marriage.

Bow will society be reshaped? Give one example please.

OldNotWIse

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

so we should reshape our whole society for exceptions.

Great country.


Exception can be handled outside of marriage.

What does that even mean? Quite the expert with the vague, subjective, buzz lingo aren't we? Saying a lot without actually saying anything.

ForstalDave

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

so we should reshape our whole society for exceptions.

Great country.


Exception can be handled outside of marriage.

What reshaping? This changes nothing for anyone bar those who cant get married currently due to an outdated concept that marriage is for having kids or for religious belief