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

galljga1

gk5000 wrote: »

No, I do not think they shall be fixed by this new law.

The point is we should not change the constitution until we are sure of the consequences of that change, and make sure we fix all when we are doing it.

Read the act, then give an 'informed' opinion.

Maximus Alexander

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Do I think less of my niece and her wife?,No.
Do I approve of their way of life? No.

My question would be, why do you believe that their way of life should be subject to your approval?

galljga1

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

I've seen the homophobic accusations on other threads and the put downs of those who dare to say no.

So onto my reasoning. On the phone so it will be short.
For to consider homosexuals as not being treated as equal under current legislation one needs to believe that people are born homosexual.
I don't believe this.
As a practicing christia I beleive God is tge ultimate authority on the mater. I believe Gods view of homosexuality that it is sin and not the way God intended.
I also believe its a lie which people believe and then give themselves over to.
For the basis of my belief read St Paul's letter to the Romans. For those who don't know , Paul was previously a Jewish religious leader and learned. Not just an ignorant fisherman like Peter. He was also a Roman citizen so had prestige and upbringing. He was very much a critical thinker and able to debate with the most able men of his day.

Its not something to be stoned for as was the case under the old testament law but as we are now in the new testament era, its dealt with by repentance and faith towards God.
Its no worse a sin than any other sin and the remedy is the same.
People who want to say that Jesus never condemded homosexuality ignore the point that He never approved of it either. Anytime He mentioned marriage it was in the context of a man and woman.

Do I think less of my niece and her wife?,No.
Do I approve of their way of life? No.

In brief, that's some of my reasoning.

Well, there we go....that's that settled.

timetogo

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

one needs to believe that people are born homosexual.
I don't believe this.

Each to his own I suppose. For me I'm heterosexual. I believe I was born that way I don't believe I chose to be heterosexual. I don't believe I could choose to be gay. Your post seems to think it's a choice and just a sin. If it wasn't a sin could you choose to be gay? Even if it was demanded in the bible could you choose to be gay?

MrWalsh

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

For to consider homosexuals as not being treated as equal under current legislation one needs to believe that people are born homosexual.
I don't believe this.

So tell me about when you chose to be heterosexual then?

Im not really concerned what religion has to say on the matter, it is civil marriage under discussion.

pwurple

gk5000 wrote: »

But two women could get married and have babies without surrogacy, so how is that covered?

I think that one is even more straightforward.

The biological parents are listed on the birth cert, one of whom is the birth mother, the other is the sperm donor. The mother's spouse is the guardian.

Greyian

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

For to consider homosexuals as not being treated as equal under current legislation one needs to believe that people are born homosexual.
I don't believe this.

I'd be curious what you think of homosexuality in non-human animals in that case.

seamus

traprunner wrote: »

Renaming the box would have huge implications for future genealogists. Only if they are renamed to 'biological mother' and 'biological father' would they be of use. The parents (if not the biological mother or father) have no business being on the birth cert.

The new Act basically ensures the record is as whole as possible. Complete heritage records will be maintained and available to children of donors once they reach the age of 18.

From what I understand surrogacy isn't entirely covered by the new act, and the woman who gives birth to the child is considered the biological mother. I will admit to not having read it fully though, it's quite complicated.

Surrogacy is complicated, especially for genealogy, as in theory a surrogate child may have up to five parents - the birth mother, the biological mother, the biological father and two intended parents.

Bannasidhe

traprunner wrote: »

Renaming the box would have huge implications for future genealogists. Only if they are renamed to 'biological mother' and 'biological father' would they be of use. The parents (if not the biological mother or father) have no business being on the birth cert.

Not necessarily.

I have worked with an incredible historian and genealogist named Ken Nicholls and he has compiled a very comprehensive list of the genealogies of Gaelic and Old English families without the existence of any central registry.

I managed to reconstruct the genealogies of the main branches of the MacUilliam á Búrca of Mayo from 1160 to 1726 using a verity of English and Irish sources and this was in a culture where a woman 'named' the father of her child - who was not necessarily her husband, it being a sexually liberal society.

I put myself through college by working for Eneclann (among other jobs) and on more than one occasion we would find a death cert for a father named on a birth cert that was dated more than 9 months before the birth... or a father that couldn't be traced at all at all - no birth/baptismal/marriage/death..nuttin...like they didn't exist...

It's certainly not a reason to vote No.

pwurple

seamus wrote: »

Surrogacy is complicated, especially for genealogy, as in theory a surrogate child may have up to five parents - the birth mother, the biological mother, the biological father and two intended parents.

Don't forget about the new reproductive technology, with three gametes!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11432058/Three-parent-babies-House-of-Lords-approves-law-despite-fears-children-could-be-sterile.html

MrWalsh

pwurple wrote: »

Don't forget about the new reproductive technology, with three gametes!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11432058/Three-parent-babies-House-of-Lords-approves-law-despite-fears-children-could-be-sterile.html

Be fun to see how they handle the birth certs for those!

BoatMad

gk5000 wrote: »

No, I do not think they shall be fixed by this new law.

The point is we should not change the constitution until we are sure of the consequences of that change, and make sure we fix all when we are doing it.

If that was the attitude of the electorate, then we would have seen no amendments to the constitution

The constitution provides a framework for legislation, too many people , like you , in effect want it to be a legislative document. we have so much trouble as a result.

gk5000

BoatMad wrote: »

If that was the attitude of the electorate, then we would have seen no amendments to the constitution

The constitution provides a framework for legislation, too many people , like you , in effect want it to be a legislative document. we have so much trouble as a result.

No, the proposed ammendment would cause a conflict within this framework.
It's crazy to create unneeded problems.

The drafters and legislators should get this right before sending it to the people, and it should be sent back with a NO vote until its right.

I am not a bad person to want this fully clarified before the ammendment.

MrWalsh

gk5000 wrote: »

The drafters and legislators should get this right before sending it to the people, and it should be sent back with a NO vote until its right.

Eh, voting no doesnt say "send it back until its right", it says "no to same sex marriage".

If you are so concerned about these minor issues I presume you have raised the matter with your local politicians? What have they said in response to your queries?

BoatMad

gk5000 wrote: »

No, the proposed ammendment would cause a conflict within this framework.
It's crazy to create unneeded problems.

The drafters and legislators should get this right before sending it to the people, and it should be sent back with a NO vote until its right.

I am not a bad person to want this fully clarified before the ammendment.

I dont see this referendum creating any specific new problems , that arnt already there. Connecting children to this debate for example is a completely disingenuous tactic by the "No" side. It mirrors similar disgraceful attempts to side track the issue in the divorce and abortion referendum

You cannot have certainly of legislation, rulings by courts, amendments etc , mean that legislation is a changing process, adapting as it goes to the situations at hand. A constitution however is supposed to change relatively infrequently, primarily because it embodies principles rather then specifics.

What legislation appears as a result of this amendment is in itself irrelevant to the referendum. we have many ways to influence legislation in this state.

BoatMad

The drafters and legislators should get this right before sending it to the people, and it should be sent back with a NO vote until its right.

I am not a bad person to want this fully clarified before the ammendment.

This referendum is a simple act to enable the LGBT community to access civil marriage. It does no more or less than that


everything else is a smoke screen

What you want " clarified " is a situation that in effect exists today and will continue to exist after the referendum.

The " NO" side have argued most disingenuously, because they know the simple fact is they cant argue against gender and sexual equality, so the debate is side tracked into intellectual cup-de-sacs, unconnected topics and emotional distractions

LippyCollins

But it is about equality. Where's the equality as it stands? Voting yes will mean LGBT people can be seen as equal. The civil partnership was a good step towards but with marriage they will have the same legal rights as a heterosexual couple. Is that not equality. The only thing the referendum stands for is equality!

Also it shouldn't even need to be up for a vote. it should just be!

uck51js9zml2yt

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

My question would be, why do you believe that their way of life should be subject to your approval?

They don't need my approval but neither do I have to accept sin as being normal.

What I do beieve is that its righteousness which exhaults a nation and sin brings reproach on any people.
In my view and the Bibles, God cannot bless a nation or an individual who exhaults sin. Probably more suited to the Christianity forum but you did ask

BoatMad

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

They don't need my approval but neither do I have to accept sin as being normal.

What I do beieve is that its righteousness which exhaults a nation and sin brings reproach on any people.
In my view and the Bibles, God cannot bless a nation or an individual who exhaults sin. Probably more suited to the Christianity forum but you did ask

indeed you are entitled to your religious beliefs. You are also, one presumes , a member of what professes to be a secular state. Therefore you must set your religion aside and consider the secular perspective,, since the law does not have the concept of "sin"

when you next vote on changes to cannon law, you can of course vote entirely as per your religious convictions:)

uck51js9zml2yt

BoatMad wrote: »

indeed you are entitled to your religious beliefs. You are also, one presumes , a member of what professes to be a secular state. Therefore you must set your religion aside and consider the secular perspective,, since the law does not have the concept of "sin"

when you next vote on changes to cannon law, you can of course vote entirely as per your religious convictions:)

I didnt realise we were a secular state!!!!
As far as I know we haven't gone down that road yet.
Sin is nothing but a transgression of the law. We see that all the time in our courts and the penalties for it.
As for canon law. I'll never get to vote as I'm not roman catholic nor a cleric.:)

K-9

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

It isn't, really. It's just typically how it's done. Here, and in other jurisdictions.

It would actually be ridiculous if we got to the stage of expressing amazement that a married woman had just given birth to her husband's child.

I'd like to see them try to win a referendum using that line.

Mmmmmm, nobody would express amazement because nobody questioned it, that's some leap in logic for referendum debates and I've seen a few in my time!

Family law is long due a tidy up and a move forward, no reason to vote no IMO. There's areas that need addressed that have nothing to do with the referendum because it needs root and branch reform tbh.

Bannasidhe

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

I didnt realise we were a secular state!!!!
As far as I know we haven't gone down that road yet.
Sin is nothing but a transgression of the law. We see that all the time in our courts and the penalties for it.
As for canon law. I'll never get to vote as I'm not roman catholic nor a cleric.:)

We do not have a State or 'Established' religion - we are a Republic whose Constitution guarantees Freedom of Religion.

We are a Secular State.

BoatMad

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

I didnt realise we were a secular state!!!!
As far as I know we haven't gone down that road yet.
Sin is nothing but a transgression of the law. We see that all the time in our courts and the penalties for it.
As for canon law. I'll never get to vote as I'm not roman catholic nor a cleric.:)

sorry , we are most assuredly a secular state, the special position of the catholic church having been removed.

Furthermore Sin is not a transgression of the law. Civil law has no concept of sin. for example I can quite legally " covet" my neighbours wife, its a sin but I break no law.

sin might be compared to " thought crimes", a concept , thankfully our legislature have not introduced here ( yet!)

uck51js9zml2yt

We have a secular society that doesnt make us a secular state.

Bannasidhe

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

We have a secular society that doesnt make us a secular state.

We have no State religion - that does make us a secular state actually.

beeno67

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

They don't need my approval but neither do I have to accept sin as being normal.

What I do beieve is that its righteousness which exhaults a nation and sin brings reproach on any people.
In my view and the Bibles, God cannot bless a nation or an individual who exhaults sin. Probably more suited to the Christianity forum but you did ask

The bible is all in favour of homosexuality. Adam and Eve had two male children and from them the rest of the human race is descended. Now that is some serious hard core homosexuality that all 7 billion of us are descended from 2 men.

BoatMad

do not turn this into a debate on homosexuality and its relation to religion, against a cul-de-sac

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We have no State religion - that does make us a secular state actually.

Yes, and the preamble to the Constitution goes like this:

"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,...."

BoatMad

Godge wrote: »

Yes, and the preamble to the Constitution goes like this:

"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,...."

in itself , the constitution is not 100% secular, it certainly acknowledges the existence of a " God", it is not atheist

However it clearly gives no advantage to any religion nor professes any such advantage , in that it is secular. Our law is equally secular.

uck51js9zml2yt

beeno67 wrote: »

The bible is all in favour of homosexuality. Adam and Eve had two male children and from them the rest of the human race is descended. Now that is some serious hard core homosexuality that all 7 billion of us are descended from 2 men.

If you read the bible you would know that Cain killed Abel. Cain it says also made love to his wife and they had children (genesis 2v17)

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

Yes, and the preamble to the Constitution goes like this:

"In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,

We, the people of Éire,

Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial,...."

2 1° Freedom of conscience and the free profession and practice of religion are, subject to public order and morality, guaranteed to every citizen.

2° The State guarantees not to endow any religion.




The point being we do not frame civil legislation in accordance with religious doctrine - at least not any more.

3° The State shall not impose any disabilities or make any discrimination on the ground of religious profession, belief or status.

ush

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

We have a secular society that doesnt make us a secular state.

Render unto Caesar

uck51js9zml2yt

ush wrote: »

Render unto Caesar

Absolutely.. Pay your water charge. Glad to see you agree:)

oscarBravo

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Cain it says also made love to his wife...

...who was, necessarily, his sister.

galljga1

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

If you read the bible you would know that Cain killed Abel. Cain it says also made love to his wife and they had children (genesis 2v17)

Who was his wife? Where did she come from?

galljga1

oscarBravo wrote: »

...who was, necessarily, his sister.

Quite possibly his mother since there is no previous mention of sister.

sydthebeat

galljga1 wrote: »

Who was his wife? Where did she come from?

Had to have been his mother !!

Eeeewwwwwwww

Timberrrrrrrr

So by biblical sense

Gay sex BAAAAAAD

Incest GOOOOOOD

galljga1

gk5000 wrote: »

No, the proposed ammendment would cause a conflict within this framework.
It's crazy to create unneeded problems.

The drafters and legislators should get this right before sending it to the people, and it should be sent back with a NO vote until its right.

I am not a bad person to want this fully clarified before the ammendment.

Yet you have not even read the recent act. How can you discuss this without having a rudimentary knowledge of the changes that this act invokes.

galljga1

gk5000 wrote: »

But two women could get married and have babies without surrogacy, so how is that covered?

Why are you so lazy?
Read the goddamned act.

galljga1

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So by biblical sense

Gay sex BAAAAAAD

Incest GOOOOOOD

Is that with a sheep?

Winston Tart Rain

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

I've seen the homophobic accusations on other threads and the put downs of those who dare to say no.

I did not suggest they did not exist. Of course you have seen them. There are name callers on both sides of any issue.

My point is they are a minority, but people like yourself focus on them disproportionately to feed this narrative that the yes side are simply throwing insults and personal attacks around.

But as I said the trend by far has been - when someone shows up declaring a no vote - to enquirer as to their reasoning.

Actually I suspect it is a tactic born of the desperation of the "no" side. They have no actual arguments to make coherently. This is why they have decided on a two prong attack of A) making it about children when it has nothing to do with children and Trying to erect a narrative of the yes side as insult flinging invective monkeys.

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

For to consider homosexuals as not being treated as equal under current legislation one needs to believe that people are born homosexual. I don't believe this.

Not only do I think there is good grounds to believe it - even if you do not - I do not see it as being relevant to the debate in any way. You have merely asserted that we would need to believe this - but given absolutely no basis or justification as to why we should.

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

As a practicing christia I beleive God is tge ultimate authority on the mater.

If you wish to evidence the existence of your god - and its authority on anything - then by all means do so. But it appears you are merely making up this "god" in order to rubber stamp an assertion you have no actual arguments for. You are essentially inventing arguments where none exist.

This is the politics forum not the religion forum or the fantasy forum. You do not just get to make up data or facts to suit your agenda. You have to back them up too. Yet you have not only not managed to evidence this god - this gods authority - or this gods opinion - you have not even actually tried.

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

People who want to say that Jesus never condemded homosexuality ignore the point that He never approved of it either.

He never approved of television, nachos, or Peppa Pig either. Whats your point? The opinions of a sole Bronze Aged Peasant is irrelevant to this debate. His opinion is no more or less valid than mine or yours - except for the fact we are voting and he is not. Give your own arguments, not those of a dead man.

If your religion or the rules in your club house demand that you do not engage in gay sex or gay marriage - GREAT - then do not have gay sex or marry someone of your sex. But what you are doing is foisting your religion on others and essentially saying "Because my religion tells me I can not have it - you can not either!"

Ozymandius2011

On the question of religion: we are voting on civil marriage not Church marriage. In 2014 30% of marriages were civil, compared to 4% around 10 years ago. Noone is going to force churches to marry gays. If the rightwing Churches want to wallow in their bigotry that is their business.

endacl

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

On the question of religion: we are voting on civil marriage not Church marriage. In 2014 30% of marriages were civil, compared to 4% around 10 years ago. Noone is going to force churches to marry gays. If the rightwing Churches want to wallow in their bigotry that is their business.

Well. You see. The thing is. Around the facts of this referendum. Apparently....

The facts don't matter, unless one is voting yes.

Ozymandius2011

Some more facts then. Columbia University found that 71 out of 75 studies into gay parenting found the child suffered no disadvantages compared to straight parenting.

uck51js9zml2yt

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

On the question of religion: we are voting on civil marriage not Church marriage. In 2014 30% of marriages were civil, compared to 4% around 10 years ago. Noone is going to force churches to marry gays. If the rightwing Churches want to wallow in their bigotry that is their business.

Does that mean we should leave conscience at the door of the polling station along with our wet umbrellas ( assuming it's raining)?

Ozymandius2011

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Does that mean we should leave conscience at the door of the polling station along with our wet umbrellas ( assuming it's raining)?

Conscience should be based on a moral perspective that lives and lets live where consenting adults are concerned. It should not involve a purient interest in the private lives of consenting adults. The squinting curtains of nosey judgementalism should twitch no more.

sydthebeat

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Does that mean we should leave conscience at the door of the polling station along with our wet umbrellas ( assuming it's raining)?

If your conscience tells you being gay is somehow 'wrong', you should really question further what your conscience is based upon.

MrWalsh

Winston Tart Rain wrote: »

Does that mean we should leave conscience at the door of the polling station along with our wet umbrellas ( assuming it's raining)?

If your conscience is informed by religion and you are voting on a civil matter, then yes, I dont see what the connection between the two is?

Thankfully Ireland is not ruled by the Church anymore so hopefully not too many sufferers of god delusion will be voting based on what they are told to believe.

Maximus Alexander

endacl wrote: »

Well. You see. The thing is. Around the facts of this referendum. Apparently....

The facts don't matter, unless one is voting yes.

I just adore the fact that large parts of the no campaign have genuinely fallen back on a 20 year old Simpsons trope:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh2sWSVRrmo

Imagine being a cliche?