Same Sex Marriage (Poll on The Journal)

Polyethanol

Friend Computer wrote: »

Without using a slippery slope (that means no polygamy, incestuous marriage, marrying animals or what have you), why don't you actually outline some of these negatives?

Why do you consider incestuous marriage harmful?

Thats not very tolerant is it.

Billy86

Polyethanol wrote: »

Why do you consider incestuous marriage harmful?

Thats not very tolerant is it.

You're not answering the question.

And explain what has gone so horribly wrong in the countries that have legalised gay marriage, if you have an issue with it.

Friend Computer

Polyethanol wrote: »

Why do you consider incestuous marriage harmful?

I was just implying that hansfrei would see it as negative. But of course you knew that.

Czarcasm

Polyethanol wrote: »

Why do you consider incestuous marriage harmful?

Thats not very tolerant is it.

Friend Computer never mentioned the word "harmful", you came up with that yourself.

All they asked for was for hansfrei to explain the negative effects of LGBT marriage on society, WITHOUT shifting the goalposts and trying to wedge in completely unrelated issues, issues that can be discussed in another thread, should hansfrei or yourself feel the need to do so.

tomdempsey200

shouldn't there be equality for polygamus relationships?


what about bi + gay + hetero 3 way marriages

Canard

tomdempsey200 wrote: »

shouldn't there be equality for polygamus relationships?


what about bi + gay + hetero 3 way marriages

I'm sure there are arguments to be made there, but this is about marriage equality, so stop changing the subject.

Polyethanol

Billy86 wrote: »

You're not answering the question.

And explain what has gone so horribly wrong in the countries that have legalised gay marriage, if you have an issue with it.

I don't, the same as I have no issue with incestuous or polygamous relationships. So long as everyone consents I don't see the issue.

stop animal cruelty

live and let live

hansfrei

Czarcasm wrote: »

Friend Computer never mentioned the word "harmful", you came up with that yourself.

All they asked for was for hansfrei to explain the negative effects of LGBT marriage on society, WITHOUT shifting the goalposts and trying to wedge in completely unrelated issues, issues that can be discussed in another thread, should hansfrei or yourself feel the need to do so.

What negative effects do you want to discuss?

Theres been a continual fallacy. A continual lie being posted. Tolerence, equality? People want nothing of the sort.

Most posters on here want to widen the percentage of people eligible for marriage by a small margin or percentage.

Equality doesnt come into the equation.

mikemac1

Extra tax credits for all!

Friend Computer

hansfrei wrote: »

What negative effects do you want to discuss?

I can't think of any which is why I'm asking you. So, for the second time, do you have any? Again, leaving aside the whataboutery.

Czarcasm

hansfrei wrote: »

What negative effects do you want to discuss?

I don't see any negative effects for society in legislating for marriage equality for LGBT couples.

What negative effects for society do YOU see in legislating for marriage equality for LGBT couples?

Theres been a continual fallacy. A continual lie being posted. Tolerence, equality? People want nothing of the sort.

Yes, your powers of distraction technique and illusion would make David Copperfield blush! Some people want marriage equality for LGBT couples. That's what this thread is about. Now what are your issues with marriage equality for LGBT couples?

Most posters on here want to widen the percentage of people eligible for marriage by a small margin or percentage.

Actually it will widen the percentage of people eligible for marriage by a significant margin or percentage. LGBT couples will then have the same entitlements, rights and recognition in legislation as heterosexual couples. LGBT couples will also have the same responsibilities as heterosexual couples.

Equality doesnt come into the equation.

Marriage equality for LGBT couples means that they will have the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual couples. The equation will remain the same -

1 + 1 = 2

It can't be that hard to understand surely!

Nodin

hansfrei wrote: »

What negative effects do you want to discuss?

Theres been a continual fallacy. A continual lie being posted. Tolerence, equality? People want nothing of the sort.

Most posters on here want to widen the percentage of people eligible for marriage by a small margin or percentage.

Equality doesnt come into the equation.

What on earth are you on about?

K-9

hansfrei wrote: »

No we can't. Already been pointed out numerous times. Mod notes PMs etc...


80 pages and 1200 posts later and no discussion has been had. Theres positives and negatives to every change. Esp. ones that have a wide effect on society.

The way I look at is, people have been shouting about negatives and wide effects for society about gay rights issues for probably a 100 years or more.

People used to get imprisoned for homosexuality, when it was legalised in Ireland 20 or so years ago, I'm sure some people thought it would lead to all sorts of terrible things in society. I haven't seen any adverse effects on decriminalising it.

I can't see any negatives with this referendum. There'a always a lot of FUD in referenda, the big one here and it also came up in the UK, is the fear about the religious bodies having to perform gay marriages. No Government in Ireland is ever going to force homophobic religious institutions to marry gay couples, anybody putting forward that idea is thinking irrationally and lives in an alternative reality, there's no other way of putting it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hansfrei wrote: »

What negative effects do you want to discuss?

Theres been a continual fallacy. A continual lie being posted. Tolerence, equality? People want nothing of the sort.

Most posters on here want to widen the percentage of people eligible for marriage by a small margin or percentage.

Equality doesnt come into the equation.

I.e. - "equality".

hansfrei

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I.e. - "equality".

Slightly less inequality, not equality as is being posted here.


Posting stuff about strawmen or whataboutery and such rubbish is just avoiding a conversation we should be having. The same conversation perhaps that Jewish clerics had a thousand years ago. The same conversation other jurisdictions had when they introduced or repealed gay marriage legislation.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hansfrei wrote: »

Slightly less inequality, not equality as is being posted here.

Nope, equality. All people being subject to same laws.

Posting stuff about strawmen or whataboutery and such rubbish is just avoiding a conversation we should be having. The same conversation perhaps that Jewish clerics had a thousand years ago. The same conversation other jurisdictions had when they introduced or repealed gay marriage legislation.

... and yet you persist...

Friend Computer

You keep posting but I don't see anything about any negatives. If all you have is fallacious arguments then I can see why. That is why we're not having that conversation because no amount of insisting that they're relevant topics will change that they're not. This thread is about same-sex marriage, not polygamy, not incestuous marriage, not anything else. Stop blaming everyone else for your own inability to stay on topic.

Third time's the charm: what are the possible negative consequences of legalising same-sex marriage. Stop dodging the question and give a straight answer.

hansfrei

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Nope, equality. All people being subject to same laws.



... and yet you persist...

So in your view we should have no conversation on the subject?

Czarcasm

hansfrei wrote: »

Slightly less inequality, not equality as is being posted here.


Posting stuff about strawmen or whataboutery and such rubbish is just avoiding a conversation we should be having. The same conversation perhaps that Jewish clerics had a thousand years ago. The same conversation other jurisdictions had when they introduced or repealed gay marriage legislation.

Can you answer a simple, on-topic question without using distraction to avoid it-

What negative effects for society do YOU see in legislating for marriage equality for LGBT couples?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hansfrei wrote: »

So in your view we should have no conversation on the subject?

I've asked you several times for conversation, you have ignored the questions.

hansfrei

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I've asked you several times for conversation, you have ignored the questions.

What questions? I'm an undecided voter who is being stonewalled at every turn.

If people want to change the staus quo they should propose the argument and discuss the issues for and against.

Stalling, stonewalling and belligerently loooking for an argument by putting words in my mouth or posting their opinions based on what they think I think. Its bullsh1t.

hansfrei

Friend Computer wrote: »

You keep posting but I don't see anything about any negatives. If all you have is fallacious arguments then I can see why. That is why we're not having that conversation because no amount of insisting that they're relevant topics will change that they're not. This thread is about same-sex marriage, not polygamy, not incestuous marriage, not anything else. Stop blaming everyone else for your own inability to stay on topic.

Third time's the charm: what are the possible negative consequences of legalising same-sex marriage. Stop dodging the question and give a straight answer.

This is fallacious. The thread is about marriage equality. Thats the topic. Thats the OP, thats whats linked in the OP. Ignoring the conversation and saying everthing else is "off topic" is stonewalling.

poundapunnet

hansfrei wrote: »

This is fallacious. The thread is about marriage equality. Thats the topic. Thats the OP, thats whats linked in the OP. Ignoring the conversation and saying everthing else is "off topic" is stonewalling.

There's a big clue about the topic of the thread in the title, have a read of it there.

The positives and negatives of SSM have been covered fairly extensively, you keep trying to talk about polygamous or incestuous marriages for some reason.

Friend Computer

Really? Because right there, in the title of the thread, is "Same Sex Marriage". The only person stonewalling here is you. You want to discuss everything except what's right there in the title.

Now then, would you care to answer the question--what are the negative consequences of same sex marriage--or are we going to have another couple of pages of this merry-go-round?

hansfrei

poundapunnet wrote: »

There's a big clue about the topic of the thread in the title, have a read of it there.

The positives and negatives of SSM have been covered fairly extensively, you keep trying to talk about polygamous or incestuous marriages for some reason.

Never discussed incest.

Must have missed the pros and cons. Quick recap? .

poundapunnet

hansfrei wrote: »

Never discussed incest.

Must have missed the pros and cons. Quick recap? .

Fair cop on the first one, got you mixed up with some other...poster.

As for the second one, no, are you serious? Go read them. Besides I'm gay and in favour of SSM so I don't think I'm the right person to be summing up the no side's points

edit: I did have a go over 1,000 posts ago!

poundapunnet wrote: »

(Just to be clear, I'm in favour of gay marriage)

The reasons that people present when they're trying to pretend it's not because they're religious or homophobic:

Somebody think of the children

Next thing we'll be marrying goats

Friends will get married for tax reasons (same thing is perfectly possible now ffs)

It's icky

edit to the edit: Just so we're all clear now, have you now got your head around the ACTUAL topic of the thread? Side stepped that one in fairness buddy

K-9

hansfrei wrote: »

What questions? I'm an undecided voter who is being stonewalled at every turn.

How are you getting stonewalled?

If people want to change the staus quo they should propose the argument and discuss the issues for and against.

What are the against arguments?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

hansfrei wrote: »

What questions? I'm an undecided voter who is being stonewalled at every turn.

If people want to change the staus quo they should propose the argument and discuss the issues for and against.

Stalling, stonewalling and belligerently loooking for an argument by putting words in my mouth or posting their opinions based on what they think I think. Its bullsh1t.

What questions? Seriously? Well....

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I never received a mod note or PM telling me I couldn't discuss anything, what are you talking about?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

What, we can't discuss comparions between society now and society in the past...? and also... Or we can't compare societies that have legalsied gay marriage and societies that haven't?

This one in particualr - several times...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If you can give me a good reason as to why equality and tolerance would not improve society, I'll gladly listen to them - as long as your arguments are rational and based on logic.

... and for the second time...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If you want to debate it here, how about explaining why you think it's relevant?

... not to mention the third ...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Perhaps you could point out why polygamy is relevant to the conversation...? Because I sure as hell don;t see the link.

That's six. Well, four if you count the one asked three times only once...

EDIT: can't find numbers seven and eight, so I'll just have to type them:

7 - Why do you think polygamy would have a negative infulence on society if it was legalsied?

and

8 - Where has the legalisation of homosexual marriage ever led to the legalsiation of polygamy?


... THOSE questions.

spank_inferno

Cmon hansfrei..... stop dodging.