After SSM, what next?

Kevhog1988

arayess wrote: »

I think the 4 year wait for divorce is actually a really good thing, we all know the rebound effect of a break up can have and that 4 year wait prevents you doing something really stupid - again! or at least for 4 years.

hopefully fathers rights will gain some prominence.

I for one have been through family court and while it hasn't worked out too bad in comparison to other - i was given no protection against my ex or in other words there was no sanction against her for her spontaneous decisions to withhold access. It cost me time, money and heart ache and I actually understand why some lads would just walk away cos they can't take the grief. terrible as it sounds.

I know exactly how you feel. I work in the uk. Once spent almost a day travelling home to see my son to be told that they were busy when i arrived at my court allocated time. It was her father who eventually saw the pain she was influcting and things changed overnight

Lollipops23

Geuze wrote: »

Half isn't "sucked up in tax".

Inheritances between spouses are tax-free.

There are generous allowances for parents to children.

The rate is 30% or 33%, after the allowances.

What about step parents? If my mother wanted to leave her property/money to her step sons it would get taxed.

smash

Ush1 wrote: »

No they shouldn't, see, I can play the same game.

Plenty of countries that have it and go further, the solidarity tax in France for instance. Do you not think civil servants should be better paid via more taxes?

In a single word, No!

In two words, Fcuk no!

Ush1

Ush1 wrote: »

Do you not think civil servants should be better paid via more taxes?

Better paid, definitely but not through increased taxes.

Ush1

Bishop Fancy Projector wrote: »

Better paid, definitely but not through increased taxes.

So where's the extra money going to come from?

Kevhog1988

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Facetious comments like that don't really help.


The amendment is not the best wording. It shouldnt have been added atall in my opinion. I remember Mary Robinson's view at the time and it has been borne out I think.

However without some constitutional bar on abortion we'll become a nation of abortion as contraception like a lot of yobs in the UK.

I think we might already be a guy who works in the same company had great delight in telling me that he was in a clinic in manchester with his girlfriend of 7 weeks last weekend and she was the only non irish girl in the waiting room.

smash

Ush1 wrote: »

So where's the extra money going to come from?

We could start taxing religious organisations, or place a tax on winnings....

Ush1

Ush1 wrote: »

So where's the extra money going to come from?

Talks are already ongoing on increasing public sector pay and reducing taxes also so pretty much the opposite of your argument.

Ush1

Bishop Fancy Projector wrote: »

Talks are already ongoing on increasing public sector pay and reducing taxes also so pretty much the opposite of your argument.

You haven't answered my question.

Ush1

Ush1 wrote: »

You haven't answered my question.

Increases in tax take from an improving economy, more income tax being paid as more people working. More money being spent therefore more taxes taken from VAT, VRT, excise etc. Reduction in other costs. Money is dirt cheap at the moment so can be borrowed at very low rates.

There are a few ways.

Ush1

Bishop Fancy Projector wrote: »

Increases in tax take from an improving economy, more income tax being paid as more people working. More money being spent therefore more taxes taken from VAT, VRT, excise etc. Reduction in other costs. Money is dirt cheap at the moment so can be borrowed at very low rates.

There are a few ways.

Right so you'd lower taxes and therefore you reckon there'd suddenly be more jobs with people paying taxes, which would cover the cutting of taxes in the first place?

Is that you Noonan?

The alternative is to increase taxes which is the more viable solution. Increases in tax don't necessarily take from an improving economy anyway, the opposite in fact, money taken in taxes usually remains within the state.

Sleepy

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

That people call their opponents names and stereotype them in an attempt to remove the validity of their opinion is not a recent thing either.

There is no validity in prejudice.

Bishop Fancy Projector wrote: »

Money is dirt cheap at the moment so can be borrowed at very low rates.

Are you seriously advocating borrowing to cover current expenditure? :eek:

Have we learnt nothing in the last decade?!

charlie14

Bishop Fancy Projector wrote: »

Increases in tax take from an improving economy, more income tax being paid as more people working. More money being spent therefore more taxes taken from VAT, VRT, excise etc. Reduction in other costs. Money is dirt cheap at the moment so can be borrowed at very low rates.

There are a few ways.

Simpliest and most economic way is not to increase public sector pay.
Benchmarking favoured them way ahead of the private sector in the past.

Magenta

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

Humanity?
Is the definition of humanity "non-procreative unions and abortions" now?

I think it's something like, not forcing rape victims to go through pregnancy and childbirth.
Or maybe, nor forcing parents with terminally ill foetuses to wait days/weeks/months to go through childbirth against their will.
Or possibly, not forcing families to have their braindead pregnant family members held on life support as a human incubator.

No Voter And Proud

Magenta wrote: »

I think it's something like, not forcing rape victims to go through pregnancy and childbirth.
Or maybe, nor forcing parents with terminally ill foetuses to wait days/weeks/months to go through childbirth against their will.
Or possibly, not forcing families to have their braindead pregnant family members held on life support as a human incubator.

In any of those cases, it's not the child's fault!

Lollipops23

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

In any of those cases, it's not the child's fault!

And many people (myself included) don't agree that a cluster of cells (at 6 weeks gestation) is the same as a full gestated newborn baby.

And it's infinitely kinder to not let a baby be born when they will certainly only die a more painful death upon birth (not to mention how inhumane it is to put the parents through it).

Magenta

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

In any of those cases, it's not the child's fault!

Not the woman's either, but she's just a baby machine, so she doesn't matter, does she? Who cares if she's a sentient being with feelings.

Sleepy

Am I the only one who'd be pro-choice for the societal benefits of not having a load of unwanted children roaming the streets a la 70's New York?

Lollipops23

Sleepy wrote: »

Am I the only one who'd be pro-choice for the societal benefits of not having a load of unwanted children roaming the streets a la 70's New York?

I wondered aloud recently if there would be less social scum in Dublin if we'd legalised abortion in 83. People rightly pointed out that the amount of financial benefits for single mothers over the past few decades means probably not.

folamh

Why, the collapse of Western civilization of course.

LorMal

Btrippn wrote: »

So you want things to change yet your not in favour of referendums, how does that work?

Have you considered running for TD or perhaps emigrating from this insular, self regarding nation?

What do you mean, I'm not in favour of Referendums? I am in favour of referendums - I have no problem with the result of the SSM referendum.
Now, I don't think it was particularly earth shattering and I think a lot of our politicians were grandstanding. I also thing the whole thing was way over hyped. Most of those getting all excited about this monumental and historic and totes amaze balls result don't even care about marriage. It's a lot of old hot air really. Grand result but stop the ridiculous self love about it.

LorMal

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I am very much in favour of health care being provided by the state, so no I don't think so. Taxpayers pay for a lot of health care where the requirement for treatment is a direct consequence of the actions of the patient, and I have no problem with a public healthcare system funding any of it.

Abortion on demand is 'health care'??? No so healthy for the baby is it?

wakka12

LorMal wrote: »

Abortion on demand is 'health care'??? No so healthy for the baby is it?

Healthy for the woman. We need to prioritise the mental and physical health of women who are already living over unborn foetuses. Pregnancy and the subsequent after math (raising it or giving away for adoption etc) Can have very negative effects on the overall health of a woman, if she doesn't want the baby its not up to us to make her have it. Until the baby has a beating pulse and a developed brain with its own thoughts then my sympathies are with the living breathing woman standing before me.

Pocoyo

Fathers rights - YES

Abortion - No

Assisted suicide - Yes.

*In some parts of america in the 80s free morning afters pills were issued without question through pharmacies the abortion rate hugely decreased but ironically it was the only time Planned parenthood wacko's and religious nuts agreed and the 'free pill' policy was removed. It was bad for jesus and planned parenthoods pockets.

darkpagandeath

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/marriage-referendum-plans-to-tap-into-200bn-gay-spend-332666.html

Marriage Referendum: Plans to tap into $200bn gay spend

“The economic spend of the LGBT — lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender — sector is $200bn (€181bn) around the world,” he said. “When New York legalised same-sex marriage, the wedding and honeymoon business generated $165m in the first year.”

:pac:

darkpagandeath

Mangiare wrote: »

It's your opinion that we need to prioritise the health of a woman over the unborn foetus, there is no right or wrong about what the priority should be.

Good luck with that being a walk over...

LorMal

wakka12 wrote: »

Healthy for the woman. We need to prioritise the mental and physical health of women who are already living over unborn foetuses. Pregnancy and the subsequent after math (raising it or giving away for adoption etc) Can have very negative effects on the overall health of a woman, if she doesn't want the baby its not up to us to make her have it. Until the baby has a beating pulse and a developed brain with its own thoughts then my sympathies are with the living breathing woman standing before me.

I really don't want to get into an abortion debate online. I find it a very sensitive and complex subject.
I will say that there is no room for absolutes in this issue. We are dealing with human life which is a beautiful and precious thing. Some situations are so traumatic and difficult for the mother that perhaps abortion is the only option.
But abortion on demand is an outrage as it gives the unborn child no status, no right to exist. (And it seems from your POV the father has no right either)

dxhound2005

darkpagandeath wrote: »

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/marriage-referendum-plans-to-tap-into-200bn-gay-spend-332666.html




:pac:

The danger is that we would move down the list for Muslim visitors. Also a very lucrative market, and one which has a rating system for countries.


http://www.crescentrating.com/crescentrating-press-releases/item/3603-crescentrating-releases-2014-halal-friendly-holiday-destination-rankings.html

darkpagandeath

dxhound2005 wrote: »

The danger is that we would move down the list for Muslim visitors. Also a very lucrative market, and one which has a rating system for countries.


http://www.crescentrating.com/crescentrating-press-releases/item/3603-crescentrating-releases-2014-halal-friendly-holiday-destination-rankings.html

Nah it will be fine, Wonder how them Terrorist groups will view Ireland ?

dxhound2005

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Nah it will be fine, Wonder how them Terrorist groups will view Ireland ?

Our newly married SS couples may want to curtail any celebration of their unions while visiting many foreign climes. In case either or both parties could be flogged or beheaded.

On a serious note their marriages will not be recognised in about 180 countries worldwide and that could present problems for people wanting to work in those countries.

expectationlost

smash wrote: »

So what will be the next big referendum that will have the country divided?

Personally, I'd like to see the divorce laws rewritten. I think the 4yr wait before a divorce can be granted is just crazy. I also want to see fathers rights and abortion laws being revised too.

anybody know what the deal is with the patent court referendum I thought we signed up to it and had to have a referendum on by the end of 2015

dxhound2005

expectationlost wrote: »

anybody know what the deal is with the patent court referendum I thought we signed up to it and had to have a referendum on by the end of 2015

I would speculate that you are the person with the most knowledge on the thread about this subject.

mikeym

smash wrote: »

So what will be the next big referendum that will have the country divided?

Personally, I'd like to see the divorce laws rewritten. I think the 4yr wait before a divorce can be granted is just crazy. I also want to see fathers rights and abortion laws being revised too.

We go after the Westboro Baptist Church

darkpagandeath

mikeym wrote: »

We go after the Westboro Baptist Church

When did they move to Ireland ?

Cold War Kid

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Our newly married SS couples may want to curtail any celebration of their unions while visiting many foreign climes. In case either or both parties could be flogged or beheaded.

On a serious note their marriages will not be recognised in about 180 countries worldwide and that could present problems for people wanting to work in those countries.

The attempts by elements of the "No" campaign to piss on the parade are just hilarious. :pac:

This man says it best:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ

darkpagandeath

Cold War Kid wrote: »

The attempts by elements of the "No" campaign to piss on the parade are just hilarious. :pac:

This man says it best:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5QGkOGZubQ

People who disagree with the lording it up voted no now ? If your talking actual no people then I Agree.

Sleepy

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I wondered aloud recently if there would be less social scum in Dublin if we'd legalised abortion in 83. People rightly pointed out that the amount of financial benefits for single mothers over the past few decades means probably not.

I see the argument but can't say I'd agree with it. While everyone is familiar with the story of the young girl being advised to get pregnant so she can get a "free gaff from the council", I've never seen an unplanned teenage pregnancy celebrated by a family.

I've seen them handled with compassion and love, I've seen them result in young girls being kicked out of their homes and everything in between, but I've never seen one celebrated. That may say more about the circles I move in socially but tbh I'd suspect the level of young women who have children in order to exploit the welfare system is seriously over-stated. While it's also true that many of those young women might not amount to much in their lifetimes thanks to the lack of parenting they've received themselves, reducing the likelihood of them having unwanted children themselves (whether through sex education, free contraception or abortion) is likely to benefit society imo.

The Corinthian

Lollipops23 wrote: »

I wondered aloud recently if there would be less social scum in Dublin if we'd legalised abortion in 83. People rightly pointed out that the amount of financial benefits for single mothers over the past few decades means probably not.

Probably not. Reality is that even if we had adopted the same limits as the UK, which is unlikely, many would still go abroad because of the increased anonymity, at the very least. TBH, I'm not sure I'd want to undergo any medical procedure in Ireland.

Additionally, I remember reading years ago that the more contraceptive options you give a population, the more sexually permissive it becomes. If so, you'd probably see an increase in unplanned pregnancies, many of which would be dealt with through termination, but many would go to term, potentially leading to a zero sum game.

On the other hand, make something legal and you help to legitimize it morally. Had abortion become legal in 1983, then social norms against it would have diminished considerably, making it a more popular option than it is currently.

Remember, Ireland still culturally shies away from screening for things like Down's Syndrome, unlike most of the rest of Europe. Eugenics, which is what you are in effect discussing, is a dirty word.

Overall, there's multiple factors involved. Availability of abortion in Ireland is one, but so are levels of social benefit for single parents, cultural norms and so on. So it could quite easily have made no real difference on balance. Hasn't in the UK.

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Our newly married SS couples may want to curtail any celebration of their unions while visiting many foreign climes.

For a second I thought you were discussing a Lebensborn programme.

Kev W

dxhound2005 wrote: »

In case either or both parties could be flogged or beheaded.
On a serious note...

THAT wasn't a serious note?

Jamsiek

Bishop Fancy Projector wrote: »

Disagree with most.

You disagree with legalizing marijuana but support round the clock drinking.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in this??

The Corinthian

Jamsiek wrote: »

You disagree with legalizing marijuana but support round the clock drinking.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in this??

Probably not if he's been drinking for the last day.

Lollipops23

Sleepy wrote: »

I see the argument but can't say I'd agree with it. While everyone is familiar with the story of the young girl being advised to get pregnant so she can get a "free gaff from the council", I've never seen an unplanned teenage pregnancy celebrated by a family.

Oh I agree that 90% of what you hear (the buggies left at bus stops etc) are urban myths. And plenty of young single mothers of unplanned children simply work hard and do their level best to bring up decent kids.

But we all know there is a type who know exactly how to work the system and have no intention of working or bringing their children up with any sort of value system or work ethic or ambition. It's sad, and these kids don't stand a chance at becoming productive members of society. It's a vicious cycle and I wonder how it could be broken.

No Voter And Proud

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Oh I agree that 90% of what you hear (the buggies left at bus stops etc) are urban myths. And plenty of young single mothers of unplanned children simply work hard and do their level best to bring up decent kids.

But we all know there is a type who know exactly how to work the system and have no intention of working or bringing their children up with any sort of value system or work ethic or ambition. It's sad, and these kids don't stand a chance at becoming productive members of society. It's a vicious cycle and I wonder how it could be broken.

It is an issue that I have with some of those also in the Pro Life campaign. They seem to only care about unborn children and then "once you're born, feck off".

We can't just abandon single mothers, you know?

The Corinthian

No Voter And Proud wrote: »

They seem to only care about unborn children and then "once you're born, feck off".

We can't just abandon single mothers, you know?

Lollipops posted about a particular subset who "work the system and have no intention of working or bringing their children up with any sort of value system or work ethic or ambition" and your response to this is that society should be taking up the responsibility of people who are irresponsible.

Is it just me, or does this reasoning strike others as just a tad fücked up?

seamus

The Corinthian wrote: »

Lollipops posted about a particular subset who "work the system and have no intention of working or bringing their children up with any sort of value system or work ethic or ambition" and your response to this is that society should be taking up the responsibility of people who are irresponsible.

Is it just me, or does this reasoning strike others as just a tad fücked up?

Well, there's a decent amount of logic in it, in that children aren't responsible for the failings of their parents. So it seems only right that if the roll of the dice has left a child with sh1tty parents, then society should pick up the slack.

From a utilitarian point of view, this can help end the cycle of uselessness and so someone who is born to pathetic parents doesn't become a pathetic parent themselves and in the long run, it becomes to society's civil and economic benefit.

Unfortunately in Ireland we've spent far too long bowing to this idea that the parent/child bond is sacrosanct, and had to listen to that same crap for the last four weeks, so it's been traditionally very difficult to protect children from crap parents.

So spending time and money intervening early, and you will hopefully make returns on it in the long run.

No Voter And Proud

Why do you think that the kids of thejunkies in Dublin by Connolly station grow up to be junkies themselves?

Because the state doesn't intervene and take the children off them. The state is not meeting its obligation to care for these (and many) children sufficiently.

Pro Life doesn't end at the birth

Sleepy

Lollipops23 wrote: »

Oh I agree that 90% of what you hear (the buggies left at bus stops etc) are urban myths. And plenty of young single mothers of unplanned children simply work hard and do their level best to bring up decent kids.

But we all know there is a type who know exactly how to work the system and have no intention of working or bringing their children up with any sort of value system or work ethic or ambition. It's sad, and these kids don't stand a chance at becoming productive members of society. It's a vicious cycle and I wonder how it could be broken.

Well, the data suggests that America managed to massively reduce crime in the aftermath of Roe v Wade...
http://freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

Unless we're prepared to either (a) give up on the welfare safety net entirely, (b)re-home any children born to that socio-economic class (c)forcibly sterilize them or (d) engage in mass genocide we're always going to have a number of welfare parasites. Once they're a small enough number relative to the working population, it's not really a major problem so the challenge is to try and keep their numbers as small as possible.

To this end we have a number of options to encourage them not to procreate rather than going for the nuclear options above:

• welfare changes that disincentivise the having of additional children (e.g. decreasing increments of childrens allowance, jobseekers for each additional child etc.)
• Provision of free / heavily subsidized contraception. Without this, the above is punishing rather than incentivising behaviour.
• Legalise Abortion - so that there's a last resort for when contraception fails and the parents-to-be aren't in any position to raise a child
• Education. The silver bullet to all social problems. Penalise parents heavily if they don't bring their kids to school on-time, fed, dressed and rested. Adding to the improved likelihood of more positive outcomes for those kids, you also get the chance to ensure they receive proper sex ed, breaking the chain of ignorance begetting ignorance.
• As part of the above, increase the school term and length of the school day. Malcolm Gladwell summed this up quite well in his chapter of 'Outliers' on education. Basically, the data heavily suggests that background is of little importance to what a child learns in school, but a massive impact on what they learn outside of it. So to balance the scales, the solution proposed by the KIPP schools in the US is, in over-simplfied terms, to increase the time spent learning in school.

The Corinthian

seamus wrote: »

Well, there's a decent amount of logic in it, in that children aren't responsible for the failings of their parents. So it seems only right that if the roll of the dice has left a child with sh1tty parents, then society should pick up the slack.

That's not what 'No Voter And Proud' posted though. He/she specifically suggested additional assistance to the mothers - supposedly the "sh1tty parents" you speak of. If they are so irresponsible, and this is whom Lollipops23 was citing in the post 'No Voter And Proud' responded to, what amount of logic is there that this would not only be a futile gesture, but potentially compound the problem.

Unfortunately in Ireland we've spent far too long bowing to this idea that the parent/child bond is sacrosanct, and had to listen to that same crap for the last four weeks, so it's been traditionally very difficult to protect children from crap parents.

Fair enough, but that's not what 'No Voter And Proud' wrote.

Lollipops23

Sleepy wrote: »

To this end we have a number of options to encourage them not to procreate rather than going for the nuclear options above:

• welfare changes that disincentivise the having of additional children (e.g. decreasing increments of childrens allowance, jobseekers for each additional child etc.)
• Provision of free / heavily subsidized contraception. Without this, the above is punishing rather than incentivising behaviour.
• Legalise Abortion - so that there's a last resort for when contraception fails and the parents-to-be aren't in any position to raise a child
• Education. The silver bullet to all social problems. Penalise parents heavily if they don't bring their kids to school on-time, fed, dressed and rested. Adding to the improved likelihood of more positive outcomes for those kids, you also get the chance to ensure they receive proper sex ed, breaking the chain of ignorance begetting ignorance.
• As part of the above, increase the school term and length of the school day. Malcolm Gladwell summed this up quite well in his chapter of 'Outliers' on education. Basically, the data heavily suggests that background is of little importance to what a child learns in school, but a massive impact on what they learn outside of it. So to balance the scales, the solution proposed by the KIPP schools in the US is, in over-simplfied terms, to increase the time spent learning in school.

I agree with many of your points- particularly the availability of free contraception. In family planning clinics in Ontario there are free condoms for people to help themselves to. The MAP is available and affordable alongside other contraceptives on the shelf.

I think education is above all what will help the situation- this means pumping money and resources into that industry. So many teachers in Ireland are dinosaurs and relics of a time gone by. We're stuck with them while young, modern and idealistic (in a good way) teachers are left with no option but to emigrate for jobs. The whole industry requires an overhaul of epic proportions, and in order to provide effective and useful sex ed they're going to need to dump all influence of the Church.

Wacker The Attacker

We have no need to worry about whats next.

To paraphrase Malcolm Tucker, "the hurricane of piss" that will follow friday should keep the legal profession busy for at least a decade.

TD's state that the legislation will be in place to allow ssm for autumn and while this might be true, wont they have to legislate for separations and divorces resulting from these marriages. I cant see how they can be treated in exactly the same fashion as separation and divorces that result from heterosexual marriages. Anyone who has been through a separation or a divorce will tell you that the court seems likelier to come down on the side of the woman than the man, particularly when it comes to child custody issues. When a case of two women or no women it is impossible for this anomaly to occur. Therefore, it is logical to assume, on the basis of this inconsistency alone that the cases in heterosexual marriages are bound to be treated differently by virtue of the fact that there will either be 2 men or 2 women contesting the case rather than one of each.

The advocates for the yes side that fridays vote had nothing to do with the "children aspect" of this vote. If it didn't, then it will have to be treated separately. Again more legislation will have to be written for this.