[smegmar]

Let's quickly compare and contrast the differences between "long term committed homosexual relationship" and "same sex marriage"

-------------------------Marriage---------------------long term relationship


legality:--------------long legal proceedings ---------------yep, totally

big party: -----------------wedding day-------------------you can always party

produce children:---------- nope --------------------------still not

raise children:--------------if someone give you one--------ditto

tax breaks:----------------taxpayer money-----------------not annoying taxpayers

love/happiness:------------yep-----------------------------yep

visitation rights:------------yep-----------------------------much shorter legal proceedings

prenuptial agreement:------binding--------------------------freedom

who wears the dress:------another reason to fight-----------who cares.

everyone will love you:-----not the taxpayers----------------stay super you rainbow warriors

[xsiborg]

Originally Posted by smegmar

Please do give examples, I'm just dying to know where you imagined them.

the piece as a whole, comes across as why it is in your opinion, morally wrong to introduce gay marriage.

Originally Posted by smegmar

Maybe not our sole purpose in life, but if you do believe in evolution then you must agree it's pretty high on the list. I might not know what the meaning of life is, but I know I'll make a better world for my children to find out.

i believe in evolution, and i also believe that society evolves and changes, otherwise we'd still be where we were 5000 years ago living in caves and hunting animals for food. i don't know what the meaning of life is myself, but i'd like to think that if one of my future generations of offspring were gay, that they would be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples, and not just "because straight people can get married", but because it will afford them the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples, also in matters of inheritance, etc. gay people are taxpayers too btw!

being gay just happens to be their sexual orientation, it is not who they are as people, in the same way as being straight is just a person's sexual orientation.

Originally Posted by smegmar

As I mentioned earlier adoption by same-sex couples is a different issue when we're talking about their ability to raise children, and I don't want to drag that debate into this one. It should be clear that only Heterosexual couples have the ability to produce a child, and that is the beneficial factor I can talk about in this argument.

you want to leave the issue of adoption out of it, but really, it's an issue that simply can not be left out of the discussion. if you want a scientific slant on it, then there are many more ways besides adoption that a homosexual couple can avail of to have children. society has evolved past merely a "propagation of the species" argument that you put forward.

Originally Posted by smegmar

It's good for a nation to have child bearing couples, it's good to have those couples stay together and focus energies on raising their children properly.

see this just comes across as more moral pontificating right there. are same-sex couples incapable of raising children properly in your opinion? i'd like to see what logic or scientific basis you have for this.

Originally Posted by smegmar

What good is it for anyone outside of a same-sex couple that they be married? What are the positive affects for me, Johnny not-so interested-in-your-happiness O'Public?

well i think you answered your own question all in one there. what "good" is it for anyone outside a heterosexual couple that THEY be married? what are the positive effects for you at all of anyone else whether they choose to marry or not? i dont think any couple have yours or anyone elses happiness in mind when they get married, only their own tbh.

Originally Posted by smegmar

And sure there are married couples that can't conceive, but not allowing them to be married would be discrimination against the "genitalialy" disabled. That is a medical condition; choosing to be in a same-sex marriage is made for ones own personal happiness.

google couldnt even give me a similar word for "genitalialy", so im not sure i understand what you mean there, so i'll just move on to your next point which is up for the captain obvious statement of the year award. the same would be said too about heterosexual marriage, i know i got married for my own personal happiness, or would you rather think i married for tax "benefits". i use the word "benefits" in inverted commas because believe me, anyone you talk to will tell you that the last reason they got married was for tax benefits- there are none! i made the decision to marry my wife for my own personal happiness.

Originally Posted by smegmar

By all means enjoy your long term committed homosexual relationship, but leave it at that.

why should they? because you johnny not-so-interested say so? because it makes no difference to YOUR life?

you started off purporting to base your opinion on science and logic, and quickly descended into morality and your own personal opinion, completely diverging away from your own OP. would you care to circle around again and take another bite of the forbidden apple so to speak?

[Pedant]

Originally Posted by smegmar

Let's quickly compare and contrast the differences between "long term committed homosexual relationship" and "same sex marriage"

-------------------------Marriage---------------------long term relationship


legality:--------------long legal proceedings ---------------yep, totally

big party: -----------------wedding day-------------------you can always party

produce children:---------- nope --------------------------still not

raise children:--------------if someone give you one--------ditto

tax breaks:----------------taxpayer money-----------------not annoying taxpayers

love/happiness:------------yep-----------------------------yep

visitation rights:------------yep-----------------------------much shorter legal proceedings

prenuptial agreement:------binding--------------------------freedom

who wears the dress:------another reason to fight-----------who cares.

everyone will love you:-----not the taxpayers----------------stay super you rainbow warriors

You know you could use that exact same argument for an infertile heterosexual couple. According to your logic, perhaps we ought not to allow infertile heterosexual couples to marry. Would you agree? You should agree, the crux of you argument seems to about reproduction, right?

As for the annoying taxpayers argument, I don't agree that a portion of the money you or your spouse earns is taxpayer's money. Rather it's your money that has been taken either voluntarily or involuntary and placed in government coffers. Regardless, inhibiting marriage equality to prevent a drop in government revenue is not a legitimate argument. I'm sure similar argument could have been used by those against interracial marriage. That's a slippery slop that would pit money and government revenue above the value of fundamental individual human rights.

[baby and crumble]

Smegmar, I have to admit, I have found it incredibly difficult to follow your line of reasoning. You seem to boil the argument against same sex marriage to tax and children. Using your logic, same sex marriage is bad because the two individuals in the marriage cannot spontaneously make a baby, and that straight people will get mad at the tax benefits we would get.

Lots of couples who get married cannot spontaneously make a baby. This doesn't dilute marriage in any way.

Same sex couples are having children, whether that be through sperm donation, adoption, or surrogacy. You cannot stop this unless you forumalate some kind of Orwellian method to objectively measure every single adults sexuality, and only allow the straight ones to procreate.

So now we arrive at a point where now are you discriminating against two people who are in love creating a legally binding relationship together- which is not just about rights, but also responsibility. Responsibilities seem to be forgotten about in this argument- allowing same sex couples will ensure they are responsible to each other, legally. The are also responsible for any children that enter into the family. Without this, children of same sex couples (who exist, there are many children being raised in Ireland and world wide by same sex parents) are discriminated against also- they run the risk of being removed from the only family they know should something happen to their one biological or adoptive parent. They loose both their parents at once. Or they are not allowed to visit their sick or dying parent in hospital, as legally they are not related. Someone, somewhere, tell me how that is in any way looking out for the best interests of the children? Or the sanctity of the family?

As for the tax issue you raise. Is there some kind of tax allowance ceiling I am not aware of? As I understood, anyone who is eligible for tax allowances gets them. It's not like there's 3000 tax allowances in a year, and if some of the gays get them then all the straight folks loose out. I don't personally don't believe that straight people will 'get mad' if gay people have the same rights as them. Why would they? It makes no sense at all.

Also, on a mod note, could you please not use language that is derogatory toward LGBT individuals? "Rainbow warrior", "Who wears the dress" etc are flippant and frankly detracting from any kind of argument you are trying to make.

[pontia]

why do gay people feel the need to keep going on about the fact their gay,i dont see hetrosexual pride marches.live your lives.enjoy it.everyone else doesent want to hear about it

[baby and crumble]

Originally Posted by pontia

why do gay people feel the need to keep going on about the fact their gay,i dont see hetrosexual pride marches.live your lives.enjoy it.everyone else doesent want to hear about it

Why do straight people feel the need to shut us up?

[pontia]

whos trying to shut you up exactly ?

[smegmar]

Ok I'll try clarify once more.

I am not and will not comment on a same-sex couples ability to raise children, that is a different debate.

However their physical ability to produce a child, for the time being, should be consider obviously not possible. Though science may advance later, we will talk about that when it happens.

It is important for this and all other countries to ensure a good birthrate, and good family upbringing for the next generation. This is the future workforce and next level of genii to further our civilisation long after we have passed away. Same-sex couples cannot add to this (yet). (note: this is not moral pontificating, but rational and logical reasoning. Japan is suffering severely right now because it has a very low birthrate and ageing population)

in most cases of "infertile" couples they are not truly infertile, just with such a low sperm or egg count to make the possibility low. There's always IVF.

I can understand that same-sex couples want prison visitation and inheritance rights, but that all could be achieved easily by changing laws regarding to those particular issues, eg rewriting law to read "spouse or partner". That is not a marriage issue.

and here are the ways that gay marriage affects me or anyone else that is an objector.

precedent (incest, object sexuality, and any other weird stuff)

Tax deductions, I'm not going to repeat myself on this.

no possibility of future workforce

increased risk from sham marriages
{not that gay couples are more prone to it, just that it removes some criteria}

psychological affect on children {I don't know if it will be good or bad, but it will be different.}

[1ZRed]

Originally Posted by pontia

why do gay people feel the need to keep going on about the fact their gay,i dont see hetrosexual pride marches.live your lives.enjoy it.everyone else doesent want to hear about it

Who do you think suppresses us in society and casts us out on a different and lower level?

Change doesn't happen if you're not heard.

[baby and crumble]

Originally Posted by pontia

why do gay people feel the need to keep going on about the fact their gay,i dont see hetrosexual pride marches.live your lives.enjoy it.everyone else doesent want to hear about it

Originally Posted by pontia

whos trying to shut you up exactly ?

Erm...

[pontia]

to be honest ive more pressing worries in my own life to care,if you want to marry whoever just get on with it

[baby and crumble]

Originally Posted by smegmar

Ok I'll try clarify once more.

I am not and will not comment on a same-sex couples ability to raise children, that is a different debate.

However their physical ability to produce a child, for the time being, should be consider obviously not possible. Though science may advance later, we will talk about that when it happens.

It is important for this and all other countries to ensure a good birthrate, and good family upbringing for the next generation. This is the future workforce and next level of genii to further our civilisation long after we have passed away. Same-sex couples cannot add to this (yet). (note: this is not moral pontificating, but rational and logical reasoning. Japan is suffering severely right now because it has a very low birthrate and ageing population)

in most cases of "infertile" couples they are not truly infertile, just with such a low sperm or egg count to make the possibility low. There's always IVF.

Why are you so hung up on the act of procreation? There are millions of children, across the world, who need families and homes. The world is unable to sustain it's current rate of growth. In the industrialised world, yes many countries are suffering because of low birth rates- however Ireland actually isn't right now, we have the highest birthrate in the EU (at 2.1) and the birthrate in 2009 was the highest Ireland has seen in 118 years. (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...317059534.html) So declining birthrates is not an argument in Ireland at the current time. And anyway, if you want more babies, then surely opening up marriage, wit it protections for families, will ensure more couple will have children, and raise them to be 'members of the workforce'. Therefore, same sex marriag would actually lead to more children being born.

Originally Posted by smegmar

I can understand that same-sex couples want prison visitation and inheritance rights, but that all could be achieved easily by changing laws regarding to those particular issues, eg rewriting law to read "spouse or partner". That is not a marriage issue.

Here, if you look at the language you choose to use you are clearly attempting to paint homsexuality in a negative way- wanting 'prison visitation' rights suggests that gay people are criminals, and us looking for 'inheritance rights' suggests we just want more money. I would wager that 99% of the concerns that drive same sex couples to want equal marriage rights are hospital visitation rights, next-of-kin powers so that you can continue to care for your loved one should life go against you, and safegaurds for the children. NONE of which you mention.

Originally Posted by smegmar

and here are the ways that gay marriage affects me or anyone else that is an objector.

precedent (incest, object sexuality, and any other weird stuff)

Same sex marriage laws would not suddenly open to floodgates for anyone to marry just anyone or anything. They would be for members of the same gender who are unrelated and can consent to being married, to be married. None of the marriage quality campaigns in Ireland that I am aware of are fighting for their rights to marry their sister.

Originally Posted by smegmar

Tax deductions, I'm not going to repeat myself on this.

Fine, but your argument does not make sense.

Originally Posted by smegmar

no possibility of future workforce

I have shown above how Ireland, with our current high birth rate is not in any danger of loosing our workforce because of a lack of live births. Allowing same sex marriages would not stop straight couples from having sex and therefore having children. Your argument here makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, having a system wherby same sex couple know that their children would be protected no matter what happens would encourage a higher birthrate in the country, if that is still a concern.

Originally Posted by smegmar

increased risk from sham marriages
{not that gay couples are more prone to it, just that it removes some criteria}

They would be subject to the same checks as heterosexual marriages, so I fail to see how this is an issue.

Originally Posted by smegmar

psychological affect on children {I don't know if it will be good or bad, but it will be different.}

All parents effect their childrens upbringing. Most studies show either no difference in the children brought up in same sex unions to those brought up in heterosexual marriages, or by single parents. You cannot legislate for types of parents. I have friends who were brought up by happy straight parents, unhappy straight parents, divorced parents, single fathers, single mothers and by an extended family unit. We all turned out pretty much the same, educationally, psychologically and socially.

[1ZRed]

Originally Posted by smegmar

and here are the ways that gay marriage affects me or anyone else that is an objector.

1) precedent (incest, object sexuality, and any other weird stuff)

Tax deductions, I'm not going to repeat myself on this.

2) no possibility of future workforce

increased risk from sham marriages
{not that gay couples are more prone to it, just that it removes some criteria}

3) psychological affect on children {I don't know if it will be good or bad, but it will be different.}

You seem to be showing up your dislike and ignorance of gay people but anyway,

1) why would gay people be interested in "incest, object sexuality or any other weird stuff"? You seem to have major disillusions on gay behaviour and you're making us out to be immoral, overtly sexual and animalistic which is really denting any hope you have of making a compelling argument if you think so narrow mindedly and insultingly.

2) No possiblity of a work force. Ok let me just make a quick point right here, the future level of workers won't change if you allow gay marriage, if anything it will rise because of other sources of obtaining a child through adoption, sorogacy etc being granted. Gay people can't have children with ease as it is so how would that even effect future workers if the level of gay people without children would only rise because of easier and legalised ways of having children.

3) all I need is to point out the "different" here. That's just your whole argument and why you don't like it. It's different and you're afraid of change and the "what ifs" that arise with it.
But tell me this. Why should you, as a straight man care what I, as a gay man do?
I didn't hassle you when you got married, I wouldn't question your fathering skills or grill you on whether or not you should be allowed to have children or I wouldn't dictate what your legal rights should be between you and your wife.
I wouldn't do these things because I have nothing to gain from doing it and it doesn't effect me in the slightest so I don't. It's your life to live not mine.
But why should you care so much about my rights and tell me what I should and shouldn't be entitled to? What business is it of yours? It's not going to effect you at all because you have nothing to gain but it has the potential to put great stress and strain on my life.
So I ask you, why do you care so much about this and why do you feel you have authority over what is deemed right by your standards?

[1ZRed]

Originally Posted by pontia

to be honest ive more pressing worries in my own life to care,if you want to marry whoever just get on with it

Then why the hell are you posting on this topic then you fckin idiot?

[baby and crumble]

Originally Posted by 1ZRed

Then why the hell are you posting on this topic then you fckin idiot?

Less of the aggression and personal attacks please IZRed