pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Ireland votes YES for equal marriage !!  (Read 10382 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Semmick Photo

« on: May 23, 2015, 15:14 »
+6


« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2015, 16:27 »
+3
 Once in a while, to everyone's surprise, the future actually arrives.   


« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2015, 17:19 »
+2
AWESOME NEWS!!  The world  is sure changing fast.  Last month I went to the wedding of two good friends who have been in a committed relationship for 15 years.  About bloody time!

Semmick Photo

« Reply #3 on: May 24, 2015, 13:11 »
+2
Ireland is buzzing for sure. Landslide result. Highest turnout for a referendum in 20 years. It's been called the social revolution.

« Reply #4 on: May 24, 2015, 13:18 »
+12
Well done Ireland.

Now if you'd only extend the same courtesy of dignity and empathy to pregnant women seeking an abortion I'm sure the rest of Europe will cheer you to the rafters.

« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2015, 15:25 »
+5
There won't be a lot of pregnant women from gay marriages, so I suppose they are still being consistent.

Personally, I don't care whether people call themselves husband and wife, husband and husband or wife and wife or partner and partner. Good luck to them. The one thing I would object to is if tax benefits intended to support the upbringing of children are grabbed by people who have no intention of raising children but who just want to game the system for their own profit. And I really don't know if that is a consequence of "gay marriage", maybe someone else does.

dpimborough

« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2015, 04:24 »
+6
It will be a social revolution when ISIS stop throwing homosexual men off buildings strapped to a chair  :'(

When it's no longer a capital offence in Mauritania, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Iran

The silence of the gay community and the media on abuses in Islamic countries is reprehensible!
« Last Edit: May 25, 2015, 04:27 by Teddy the Cat »

« Reply #7 on: May 26, 2015, 00:24 »
+6
There won't be a lot of pregnant women from gay marriages, so I suppose they are still being consistent.

Personally, I don't care whether people call themselves husband and wife, husband and husband or wife and wife or partner and partner. Good luck to them. The one thing I would object to is if tax benefits intended to support the upbringing of children are grabbed by people who have no intention of raising children but who just want to game the system for their own profit. And I really don't know if that is a consequence of "gay marriage", maybe someone else does.

Many straight couples don't have children either nor want them.  On a planet with over 7 billion people, the idea of marriage being only about procreation is outdated.

I don't know what the tax system is in Ireland, but it would be odd to have a system that gives tax benefits for kids to any married couple that don't have them.

« Reply #8 on: May 26, 2015, 02:22 »
+3

I don't know what the tax system is in Ireland, but it would be odd to have a system that gives tax benefits for kids to any married couple that don't have them.


Well, what's the purpose of what used to be called the UK "married man's allowance" then? The Irish seem to have something similar (their tax regime having developed from the UK one) http://www.revenue.ie/en/personal/circumstances/marriage.html#section2.

I think it dates from my parents' era when it was normal to expect a woman to give up work when she got married (or for her not to have worked at all).  I was told, long, long ago, that it was to help couples to deal with their new circumstances and to prepare for a family, Most heterosexual couples in the UK still have kids, about 63% of marriages have dependent children and then there are those whose children have left or who have yet to start a family, so overall it's probably in the 80s or 90s as a percentage. I'd agree that it's an anachronism and ought to be phased out.

Anyway, it seems that this vote does not affect the tax position as the gay community was given the same rights as straight couples when the Dail approved Civil Partnership status for them. Though why other taxpayers should subsidise them is really a mystery to me. It's not insignificant, either - in the UK it can be worth more than 800 a year.


« Reply #9 on: May 26, 2015, 07:51 »
+7
The divorce attorneys love this.  Some years ago one of the mainstream stations (ABC or NBC I think) did a post mortem on gay couple "marriages" to investigate if there was a difference when they split up.  They found that those unions that split or "divorced" were every bit as brutal as heterosexual marriages can be.


Semmick Photo

« Reply #10 on: May 26, 2015, 08:06 »
-1
There's a fantastic positive buzz in this thread.  ???

« Reply #11 on: May 26, 2015, 08:49 »
+4
There's a fantastic positive buzz in this thread.  ???

Ok someone has to spoil the party first , I just hope those who consider to be open minded one one side can accept a different opinion on some of the things written here, that we can have fully argumented conversation  and that topic will not be closed.


 
Well done Ireland.

Now if you'd only extend the same courtesy of dignity and empathy to pregnant women seeking an abortion I'm sure the rest of Europe will cheer you to the rafters.

Im wondering about dignity and empathy on right of a fetus or a new life if you may call it.  Who can be the one to judge when the life really starts and when the conciseness of a human being  is fully formed. Wrong judgment would led to nothing else than a murder of a human being which is not able to defend its interests.

On the other hand there is always an option to give the newborn life to someone who will appreciate it and even an option of changing mind after experiencing the new born, but there is absolutely no irreversible option to abortion.

And yet many women clam they should have never done it and that the fact they did changed their life in the way they suffered mental pains the rest of their life.

What about possible misusing the given option, one example...persuasion of minors by their parents that can be easily hidden in various mental evaluations by the people responsible of approving the procedure or not which can lead to very bad things.



« Reply #12 on: May 26, 2015, 09:00 »
0

« Reply #13 on: May 26, 2015, 09:38 »
+1
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32873562


Now there's an interesting twist! I would have thought that the usage was contrary to the usual terms, since there is no doubt that the issue is controversial and should have required specific consent.
I'm glad I don't shoot people (in any way).

Semmick Photo

« Reply #14 on: May 26, 2015, 14:30 »
0
Marriage has nothing to do with being parents. Just saying.

« Reply #15 on: May 26, 2015, 14:40 »
+7
Marriage has nothing to do with being parents. Just saying.

From the C of E marriage service:
"The gift of marriage brings husband and wife together
in the delight and tenderness of sexual union
and joyful commitment to the end of their lives.
It is given as the foundation of family life
in which children are [born and] nurtured
and in which each member of the family,in good times and in bad,
may find strength, companionship and comfort,
and grow to maturity in love."

OK, I don't care what the Church says about anything, but if marriage isn't about children what is it about? Getting God's blessing on your personal shacking-up arrangments?

I really don't understand what the passion for being allowed to be classed as married is if the legal status is identical with civil unions, which are already available.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #16 on: May 26, 2015, 15:07 »
+2
but if marriage isn't about children what is it about? Getting God's blessing on your personal shacking-up arrangments?

I really don't understand what the passion for being allowed to be classed as married is if the legal status is identical with civil unions, which are already available.

Maybe because a civil union feels somewhat like a second-rate kind of union to some.

Marriage is widely considered to the ultimate form of union between two people, strengthened by a marital contract. Which in essence has nothing to do with being parents / becoming a family. Perhaps the church looks at this in a different way, but the church looks differently at lots of things ;)

Whether or not marriage still holds that same level sacredness or importancy is debatable (looking at the high number of divorces nowadays), but everyone should have a right to be married to his or her lover, whether or not you're going to have children or not.

« Reply #17 on: May 26, 2015, 15:18 »
+2
But marriage is a religious invention, anyway.

« Reply #18 on: May 26, 2015, 15:57 »
+1
There won't be a lot of pregnant women from gay marriages, so I suppose they are still being consistent.

Personally, I don't care whether people call themselves husband and wife, husband and husband or wife and wife or partner and partner. Good luck to them. The one thing I would object to is if tax benefits intended to support the upbringing of children are grabbed by people who have no intention of raising children but who just want to game the system for their own profit. And I really don't know if that is a consequence of "gay marriage", maybe someone else does.

Many straight couples don't have children either nor want them.  On a planet with over 7 billion people, the idea of marriage being only about procreation is outdated.

I don't know what the tax system is in Ireland, but it would be odd to have a system that gives tax benefits for kids to any married couple that don't have them.


There are no tax credits for children in Ireland

« Reply #19 on: May 26, 2015, 16:49 »
+2
I know people have strong feelings on this issue, and I am strongly pro. To put it statistically in perspective, in Canada, where it is legal, there are 10 million male/female married couples, 1.6 million common law male/female couples and 20,000 same sex married couples. The number of same sex marriages is such a small percentage of the population that any economic or other impact is very low. Live and let live. We have bigger issues to worry about in my opinion.

« Reply #20 on: May 26, 2015, 17:10 »
+1
but if marriage isn't about children what is it about? Getting God's blessing on your personal shacking-up arrangments?

I really don't understand what the passion for being allowed to be classed as married is if the legal status is identical with civil unions, which are already available.

Maybe because a civil union feels somewhat like a second-rate kind of union to some.

Marriage is widely considered to the ultimate form of union between two people, strengthened by a marital contract. Which in essence has nothing to do with being parents / becoming a family. Perhaps the church looks at this in a different way, but the church looks differently at lots of things ;)

Whether or not marriage still holds that same level sacredness or importancy is debatable (looking at the high number of divorces nowadays), but everyone should have a right to be married to his or her lover, whether or not you're going to have children or not.

First I would just like to state that more than generally I don't have a single common ideal with ANY single church or religion, quite opposite mostly,  but accidentally coincidence arranged a part of a thought is shared by those institutions and myself in this case but from totally opposite reasons.

I don't know (and I might be wrong even I think I'm not)  but whats the ground on which you base the fact that marriage is considered a ultimate form of a union of two people ?

I mean someone can legitimately claim that the same matter is considered to be an union of a man and a women more widely and that there is a global agenda to warp this institution without any connection to any religious point of views. 

Yet again, hey ....why not between 3 people, why not between 1000 or why not between a man or woman and a tree...why to undercut anyone's free will ?

Standing somewhere in the middle in this matter I sure don't want to play the advocate of a radical opposite party against whos general opinions I spoke oftenly and openly and i sure support every mans dream to equality or anything else until its not doing any objective harm to another man.

But then again I don't get it, it all started about equal rights and all well known things connected with that but than in the middle of global success it had to penetrate into
the field of marriage invented by the leaders of same people opposing even to the institution of civil unions which btw bring same benefits as the marriage itself.

Somehow something tells me there are more parameters behind this story and that the whole deal is being strongly pumped and used used from some third group for a completely different purposes.

And to point out where Im standing...well  I have been in the relationship with my gf for a decade, the institution of marriage really don't mean much to me, if i ever get married it will be for the sole purpose of handling messed up bureaucracy and as I'm concerned it can officially be called strawberry cause I couldn't care less.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2015, 17:13 by Lizard »

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #21 on: May 27, 2015, 01:55 »
+3
OK, I don't care what the Church says about anything, but if marriage isn't about children what is it about? Getting God's blessing on your personal shacking-up arrangments?

This is exactly what it is. In my Anthropology course it was taught that marriage was the form that society has found to regulate and normalize sexual intercourse. This way it would allow women to start their sexual life (which is highly controlled and regulated in many societies) and provide men with steady sex, reducing conflicts regarding the chase of sexual partners. This is very, very roughly put.

Plus, in many societies (including ours until more recent times) the birth of a child was not considered to be linked to the practice of sex, but an action of the deity. Something like a blessing by god or fertility deity to the couple by their union. You have paintings where god is sending a (floating) baby into the belly of a woman.

In Hawaii women bathe in the ocean to receive the baby into their bodies from the deity after the "signal" that It has chosen her to carry a baby. Again, very, very roughly put.

If you go back thousands or tenths of thousands of years ago when the first marriage was performed I'm pretty sure that the knowledge of the relation between sexual intercourse and pregnancy was even less evident to the people than in the recent past in Europe.

I really don't understand what the passion for being allowed to be classed as married is if the legal status is identical with civil unions, which are already available.

Marriage instantly gives all the benefits a married couple has rights to. Civil Unions, at least where I live, require living together for two years before it's recognized being gay or straight couples. This means that if a member of a couple gets sick the other has the immediate right to visit him at the hospital.

There was a case here where a couple had lived for many years together and after the civil union was approved, including for gay couples, they were in the process of being recognized as a couple. But in the mean time one of them got very seriously ill.

The result was that he was in the brink of death for a long time totally abandoned in the hospital. The family renegaded him for being gay and didn't care if he died, and the long life companion was not allowed to get into the visits in the ICU because he was not related to him in any way. Occasionally the staff of the hospital closed their eyes, risking their jobs, and let him visit. If at the time they were allowed to get married he would get immediate rights of visit.

Plus, if the ill partner died he would lose almost everything because the family that renegaded him would be the ones entitled to receive the inheritance. The house and other goods were probably in the name of the ill man, and his partner could not claim anything.

Marriage also allows you to choose to share everything you already had prior to marriage. Civil Unions only allow to share what you acquire after it has been recognized. If you consider many people live as couples for a long time before making the union official, both contributing to the household it's very unfair. And there are many more examples.

Religion has nothing to do with this except if people were claiming the right to marry in church, which they are not. Marriage is nothing more than a type contract like the ones we agree with the stock agencies.

I'm glad Ireland voted yes. In my country some fanatics were screaming that this would be the end of the world and to be true, marriages are happening and no one cares the least or notices any change in any aspect of their lives. Well, except for those holding grudges blinded by the hate that seems to be the central core of religions.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2015, 02:18 by StockPhotosArt »

« Reply #22 on: May 27, 2015, 03:25 »
0
Thanks for that reply, sfa.  The hospital situation is very regrettable, I have no idea if there is a similar time delay in recognising civil partnerships elsewhere - it seems rather odd.
As for getting "god's" blessing, the latest news from the Vatican seems to be that it won't be coming from the god the Pope talks about.

StockPhotosArt.com

« Reply #23 on: May 27, 2015, 04:42 »
0
Thanks for that reply, sfa.  The hospital situation is very regrettable, I have no idea if there is a similar time delay in recognising civil partnerships elsewhere - it seems rather odd.
As for getting "god's" blessing, the latest news from the Vatican seems to be that it won't be coming from the god the Pope talks about.

@ BaldricksTrousers

In Portugal, a Civil Union (Unio de Facto) is recognized after two people filling their tax forms conjointly as a couple for two straight years. After that, I don't know exactly what happens. I have the idea that after these two years the union is automatically recognized, but I don't know if they are entitled to have a document proving the union or even need to ask for that document to be recognized as such. And the union is automatically considered dissolved once they fill the tax forms separately. Thinking about it, the Civil Union may only accept the Separation of Goods. Each property/object belongs to each person, even after the union is recognized to avoid the divorce procedure.

The delay is meant to, among other things, to avoid frauds as they will benefit from the few advantages in terms of taxes, regarding single people.

And since they are equal to an actual marriage in most things it's a way to assert the stability of the relationship since in the worst case scenario one member of the couple may have to make life or death decisions like to shutdown life-support on the partner.

Since marriage is considered a bigger step due to all the fuss around it, I guess that the stability of the relationship is something considered as acquired by the time the contract is signed. In fact, if we look well into it, it looks like the Civil Union ascertains more the stability of a relationship than marriage...   ;D

I think that I'm relatively correct about what happens in the case of Civil Unions in Portugal.

When gay marriage was approved in Portugal, the most important arguments used by those in favor, and hardly had any opposition even among people totally against gay marriage, were the ones referring to health and life and death issues like the one I mentioned in my previous post, and inheritance. Basically no one could argue against the logic and justice of at least those two extremely important issues.

In some conversations with people who were against it, after I explained these issues people changed their opinions. They still do not like the idea of gay marriage much, but can't argue about the fairness and feel bothered on the injustice and cruelty of the discrimination.

By the end, the discussion was basically restricted to semantics, where the only thing people against gay marriage disagreed was about calling that union as "Marriage". If the ones in favor of gay marriage wanted to call it Nutella or Porsche insted, no one would care or seriously oppose about it.

« Reply #24 on: May 27, 2015, 11:04 »
+3
But marriage is a religious invention, anyway.
Have you looked at the history of marriage?  I'm not sure what was invented first, marriage or religion?  I have read that it pre-dates all the mainstream religions.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
30 Replies
8816 Views
Last post August 11, 2008, 07:23
by Nemo1024
1 Replies
3279 Views
Last post February 02, 2010, 02:10
by leaf
33 Replies
6097 Views
Last post July 02, 2013, 07:14
by Gannet77
8 Replies
4120 Views
Last post May 28, 2015, 08:41
by robhainer
6 Replies
2069 Views
Last post November 12, 2018, 09:36
by Uncle Pete

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle