The logical argument

xsiborg

smegmar wrote: »

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.

smegmar wrote: »

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.

smegmar wrote: »

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.

smegmar wrote: »

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.

smegmar wrote: »

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.

smegmar wrote: »

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.

smegmar wrote: »

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

smegmar wrote: »

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

pontia wrote: »

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

pontia wrote: »

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

pontia wrote: »

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

pontia wrote: »

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

smegmar wrote: »

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/ireland/2012/0601/1224317059534.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.

smegmar wrote: »

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.

smegmar wrote: »

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.

smegmar wrote: »

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

Fine, but your argument does not make sense.

smegmar wrote: »

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.

smegmar wrote: »

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.

smegmar wrote: »

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

smegmar wrote: »

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

pontia wrote: »

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

1ZRed wrote: »

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

Less of the aggression and personal attacks please IZRed

pontia

showing your true colours it seems,well done

baby and crumble

Pontia, if you have nothing to add to the discussion at hand, namely the topic of the OP, please don't come in here to antagonise other posters.

1ZRed

pontia wrote: »

showing your true colours it seems,well done

Yep. I seem to have a knack for pointing out false logic and stupidity. I might want to give you a few tips on that:)

foggy_lad

I am not going to comment further on this except to say that the op has shown in posts about the need for procreation and taking about the need for child bearing couples above homosexual couples who can never PRODUCE A CHILD that they are indeed in league with the jesus freaks and also the fascists. The whole thread has shown the op to be homophobic and against any form of legitimacy being placed on any homosexual partnership.

pontia

are same rules not applied to red or is there more leeway because their gay ?

foggy_lad

pontia wrote: »

showing your true colours it seems,well done

Lol 1Zred are you a redhead? Lol call me nice but dim cos I just got that now:D:D

1ZRed

pontia wrote: »

are same rules not applied to red or is there more leeway because their gay ?

I said it with a smile. It's not my fault you took it the wrong way:)

baby and crumble

pontia wrote: »

are same rules not applied to red or is there more leeway because their gay ?

If you look, I gave IZRed an on thread warning. Any problems with mod decisions take it up via PM or at the helpdesk.

Can everyone please stick to the OP, I will start infracting people otherwise. Thanks.

1ZRed

foggy_lad wrote: »

Lol 1Zred are you a redhead? Lol call me nice but dim cos I just got that now:D:D

I'm more red tempered but thankfully I'm no redhead tho!;)

Foggy lad I'll apologise if you're a redhead and I offended you. Apparently discrimination based on hair colour is penalised serverly here so I might as well make amends dude:D

Nebit

As a bio archaeologist and therefore familiar with both past societies and evolution. I would be very interested to see your sources on marriage 5000 BP. Marriage in the past appears to be more about financial stability rather than having children ... In fact in many societies having said children solidifies the FINANCIAL side of things I.e a family would marry into another to keep weath or to gain power ... Having children assured they could maintain this power / finance however again child baring was not the main goal. In recent years marriage has become about love and yes still financial stability. Especially in westernised countries. Leaving power less of a concern since it is gained primarily through education. Ergo children are no longer considered useful in gaining power and by every means not essential to marriage but rather something that coincides usually due to financial stability from both parties incomes.
Being LGBT was frowned upon due to religious reasons in early centuries and therefore same sex marriage never thought about ... However due to the acceptance of LGBTs in recent years and the fact we can interact in today's world openly, It is only logical we would seek marriage for those same reasons of love and financial stability.

Annasopra

smegmar wrote: »

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)

I'm not sure I get your argument on this at all - how does allowing same sex marriage affect the birth rate? Did they bring in same sex marriage in Japan?

smegmar wrote: »

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.

So then your argument should really be - "have a baby, have a tax break"

smegmar wrote: »

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.

That's very understanding of you. But it's about much more than prison visitation rights.

smegmar wrote: »

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)

Bringing incest into the discussion is frankly insulting and proves nothing really - It's kind of like the arguments used by extreme right wingers in the US -"next he'll want to marry his horse"

smegmar wrote: »

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

You're a bit obsessed about it and reproduction. I think you have to justify why heterosexuals who choose not to to have children should not have their marriage licence revoked.

smegmar wrote: »

no possibility of future workforce

Makes no sense whatsoever

smegmar wrote: »

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

Really? really - please explain that one to me

smegmar wrote: »

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

I don't understand this - same sex marriage will psychologically affect all Irish children or those being parented by same sex couples?

Annasopra

For me Justice Albie Sachs in South Africa really explains this issue very well

The exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and responsibilities of marriage, accordingly, is not a small and tangential inconvenience resulting from a few surviving relics of societal prejudice destined to evaporate like the morning dew. It represents a harsh if oblique statement by the law that same-sex couples are outsiders, and that their need for affirmation and protection of their intimate relations as human beings is somehow less than that of heterosexual couples. It reinforces the wounding notion that they are to be treated as biological oddities, as failed or lapsed human beings who do not fit into normal society, and, as such, do not qualify for the full moral concern and respect that our Constitution seeks to secure for everyone. It signifies that their capacity for love, commitment and accepting responsibility is by definition less worthy of regard than that of heterosexual couples.”
—Paragraph 71 of the judgment

stephen_n

In terms of Red Herrings birth rate has to be up there with the greatest of all time, we are overpopulating the planet at a rate of 370,000 people a day and letting gay people have equal rights to marriage is a threat to society and the population how??? Logically I would suggest you get a dictionary and look up the meaning of the word logic!

cgcsb

pontia wrote: »

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

Were you never taught the correct use of the full stop?

To answer your question, EVERY day is straight pride day. Only one day a year is gay pride day.

smegmar

oh wow, I've really been blown away by the amount of misunderstanding and imaginative reasoning in your responses. I think I have to be very clear in my use of words. Please read what I write very slowly and process exactly what I have said, and more importantly what I have not said.

I never said gay marriage would negatively effect the birth rate, I said it would not add to it. Simply there is no benefit there.

----To rebuff Nebit, while marriage was also used to stabilized families and the financial side of it, traditionally life expectancy was so short it was important to have children to take over the business/wealth. Therefore children were a very important aspect of marriage.

----To rebuff mango salsa,
1) There are tax breaks for having children, it's exactly "have baby; have a tax break".

2) Prison visitation is just an example of the other things that have been used as justification for same sex marriage. All of which are not directly dependant on marriage.

3) I'm sorry that you are so disgusted with the idea of incest, but it's absolutely the same issue. If two homosexual brothers wanted to get married would you support it? Remember the only reason we have forbidden incest is because of the children produced. If they're gay anyway it shouldn't matter right?

4) Sham marriages, simply removing criteria for those checks would make it harder to identify. There will of course be some man/woman in money troubles that will marry anyone to make some money. Traditionally he/she could only be matched with someone of the opposite gender.

I'll continue this in a second post.

baby and crumble

smegmar wrote: »

oh wow, I've really been blown away by the amount of misunderstanding and imaginative reasoning in your responses. I think I have to be very clear in my use of words. Please read what I write very slowly and process exactly what I have said, and more importantly what I have not said.

Please stop being condescending to everyone who has taken the time to reply to you.

smegmar wrote: »

I never said gay marriage would negatively effect the birth rate, I said it would not add to it. Simply there is no benefit there.

And I have actually refuted this point above. If there are safeguards in place to ensure that their childrens rights are respected, gay couples who are married would help increase the birthrate. These children would be concieved in various ways.

smegmar wrote: »

----To rebuff mango salsa,
1) There are tax breaks for having children, it's exactly "have baby; have a tax break".

Please reference these tax breaks. I am unaware of the specific tax breaks you mention.

smegmar wrote: »

3) I'm sorry that you are so disgusted with the idea of incest, but it's absolutely the same issue. If two homosexual brothers wanted to get married would you support it? Remember the only reason we have forbidden incest is because of the children produced. If they're gay anyway it shouldn't matter right?

It is not remotely the same thing. You seem to have ignored the points I made in my post above. Marriage, whether open to same sex couples or not, depends on the participants being of age, unrelated and having the capacity to consent to marriage. Children is not the only reason incest is illegal.

smegmar wrote: »

4) Sham marriages, simply removing criteria for those checks would make it harder to identify. There will of course be some man/woman in money troubles that will marry anyone to make some money. Traditionally he/she could only be matched with someone of the opposite gender.

But why are you not protesting straight marriages if you are so concerned about the sham ones?

I'm sorry to have to say this, but your logical argument is completely illogical. Your facts are either wrong or unsupported, which makes them opinions. You are of course entitled to your opinions, but don't try and dress it up as a logical, coherant argument. As far as I can see, your points have been refuted one by one by many individuals here, ye you persist.