SSM Referendum Spring 2015

I Heart Internet

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

A 15 year old is not being discriminated against because they cannot marry. By that logic so is a 4 year old. There is an age where all citizens, regardless of race, gender, religion, sexual orientation or any other reason are considered to reach the age of majority. There is no one group being isolated for separate treatment for any reason. There are rights and protections in law that are specific to childhood, therefore there needs to be an agreed age where this state ends. It is nothing to do with oppression or discrimination. Changing the age of majority is an appropriate subject for a referendum or public vote. Whether the current oppression of a specific minority group should continue is not. I don't really see what's not clear about that difference. Of course ageism exists but it is not relevant to the agreed age where childhood comes to an end for every person.

OK, so what about the minority of people who want to marry their cousins or siblings? Why are they oppressed? Should legislation be enacted to allow them to marry and (as you've suggested) an outright ban on any legal challenge enforced?

As I've said before, I'm in favour of redefining civil marriage to allow for SSM, but when it's suggested that this redefinition be given a free pass and all potential opposition crushed, I begin to doubt if SSM proponents fancy living in a democracy at all.

I Heart Internet

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

And in all honesty I do not support the right of bigots to have a say in whether or not groups that they express hatred toward should have the same rights that they enjoy. Rights are rights and should not be up for discussion.

I support their right to be a bigot and express bigoted opinions, but not to act on them in a way that interferes with the rights and lives of those who are the object of their bigotry.

Do you not see the contradiction here? You're against bigotry and in favour of human rights, but want to prevent people you label (perhaps correctly) as bigots from voting.

You can't have it both ways Kiwi.

old hippy

I Heart Internet wrote: »

OK, so what about the minority of people who want to marry their cousins or siblings? Why are they oppressed? Should legislation be enacted to allow them to marry and (as you've suggested) an outright ban on any legal challenge enforced?

As I've said before, I'm in favour of redefining civil marriage to allow for SSM, but when it's suggested that this redefinition be given a free pass and all potential opposition crushed, I begin to doubt if SSM proponents fancy living in a democracy at all.

I'm doubting you want to keep this discussion on track. What the merry hell has incestuous relations got to do with SSM?

I Heart Internet

shruikan2553 wrote: »

15 year olds are children. Many also don't want to go to school but we oppress them into that too.

Yes. That's kind my point.

I Heart Internet

old hippy wrote: »

I'm doubting you want to keep this discussion on track. What the merry hell has incestuous relations got to do with SSM?

Nothing, other than the fact that it is another group of people who are not allowed a civil marriage.

old hippy

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Nothing, other than the fact that it is another group of people who are not allowed a civil marriage.

It seems to crop up again & again with alarming regularity, though. Are you equating incestuous relationships with homosexual relationships?

I Heart Internet

old hippy wrote: »

It seems to crop up again & again with alarming regularity, though. Are you equating incestuous relationships with homosexual relationships?

No. They aren't the same thing at all.

But why should consenting adult cousins or (even if it may offend your sensibilities) siblings not be allowed a civil marriage if they desire one?

Our society accepts hetrosexual marraige and, increasingly, homosexual marriage, but you turn your nose up at sibling marriage? Even if they are consenting adults. Interesting.

Annasopra

Why are we entertaining pointless discussions about cousins and 15 year olds?

seamus

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Nothing, other than the fact that it is another group of people who are not allowed a civil marriage.

Yes, they are an other group of people. With differing arguments.

Therefore irrelevant to this group of people and their arguments.

Annasopra

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. They aren't the same thing at all.

But why should consenting adult cousins or (even if it may offend your sensibilities) siblings not be allowed a civil marriage if they desire one?

Our society accepts hetrosexual marraige and, increasingly, homosexual marriage, but you turn your nose up at sibling marriage? Even if they are consenting adults. Interesting.

This is just nonsense whataboutery - it usually includes horses

jill_valentine

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. They aren't the same thing at all.

But why should consenting adult cousins or (even if it may offend your sensibilities) siblings not be allowed a civil marriage if they desire one?

Our society accepts hetrosexual marraige and, increasingly, homosexual marriage, but you turn your nose up at sibling marriage? Even if they are consenting adults. Interesting.

...?

Start a pro incest thread if you want to make that argument. You literally just said they aren't the same thing at all, so why on earth would you then ask us to hash it out here? I haven't given it a moment's thought, I'm not informed, invested or interested in having that conversation here any more than I want to debate GMO crops or stem cell research.

Kiwi in IE

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Do you not see the contradiction here? You're against bigotry and in favour of human rights, but want to prevent people you label (perhaps correctly) as bigots from voting.

You can't have it both ways Kiwi.

I do not want to prevent them from voting. I do not think that whether or not minority groups should have equal rights to all other citizens should be put to the public to decide. I do not think I should have a right to vote on the issue, or you, or homophobes, or LGBT people because I do not think it is an issue that should be up for a public vote! I am not suggesting that there should be a vote and one has to pass a 'bigot test' prior to voting.

And yes I aware that for whatever reason this is the way it has to be done. But in my opinion that is due to a glaring fault in the legal and judicial systems that cause that to be the case! Judges should not have the freedom to imagine and assume what the writers of the constitution might have been thinking on issues that they did not particularly specify in that constitution! If during the writing of the constitution they had specified the required gender of married couples, I would be more understanding of the need for a referendum (although I would still consider it wrong).

Daith

Oh lord and it's only bloody July.

Kiwi in IE

I Heart Internet wrote: »

OK, so what about the minority of people who want to marry their cousins or siblings? Why are they oppressed? Should legislation be enacted to allow them to marry and (as you've suggested) an outright ban on any legal challenge enforced?

As I've said before, I'm in favour of redefining civil marriage to allow for SSM, but when it's suggested that this redefinition be given a free pass and all potential opposition crushed, I begin to doubt if SSM proponents fancy living in a democracy at all.

I actually thought you would be above the 'slippery slope' argument. Don't worry when SSM is legalised I won't be campaigning to marry my dishwasher.

Daith

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I begin to doubt if SSM proponents fancy living in a democracy at all.

We live in a Republic hence why the public didn't vote on who could marry in the first place.

Nodin

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. They aren't the same thing at all.

But why should consenting adult cousins or (even if it may offend your sensibilities) siblings not be allowed a civil marriage if they desire one?

Our society accepts hetrosexual marraige and, increasingly, homosexual marriage, but you turn your nose up at sibling marriage? Even if they are consenting adults. Interesting.

Its amazing how the same shite turns up time after time.

shruikan2553

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I actually thought you would be above the 'slippery slope' argument. Don't worry when SSM is legalised I won't be campaigning to marry my dishwasher.

Speak for yourself. I love that machine. (my own dishwasher, not yours)

Annasopra

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Speak for yourself. I love that machine. (my own dishwasher, not yours)

Go start a separate thread on it then.

Ave Sodalis

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. They aren't the same thing at all.

But why should consenting adult cousins or (even if it may offend your sensibilities) siblings not be allowed a civil marriage if they desire one?

Our society accepts hetrosexual marraige and, increasingly, homosexual marriage, but you turn your nose up at sibling marriage? Even if they are consenting adults. Interesting.

Can you really not deferentiate between incest and homosexuality, or are you purposely bringing up something irrelevant and purposeless?

floggg

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I know that Fran is gone and I possibly should not be continuing to draw attention to same, but here lies my opposition to this being done via referendum (and yes IHI, I know that it is going to be whether I like it or not). I do not believe that it is acceptable to allow incitement of hatred via law! Having a vote on whether or not to continue to deprive equal rights based on sexuality is providing an oppurtunity for exactly that!

Allowing homophobes the oppurtunity to veto the legalisation of SSM is no different to having a referendum on whether black people should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else, i.e totally unacceptable.

If the constitution is that problematic that it interferes with equal rights, something should be done about it. It seems however that the main concern is that a judge 'might interpret' the original authors intentions regarding issue x,y or z. I don't see how that is acceptable either unless x,y and z are clearly specified. At the moment there is no mention of the gender of married couples in the constitution so I can't see why a referendum is needed, other than 'what judges might interpret'. Which to me is ridiculous, you cannot have a legal system based on what judges might imagine the authors of the constitution were thinking at the time they wrote it, in areas where they made no particular specification. Now I know enough about Mr Develera to know that he probably did not want equal rights for LGBT people regarding relationship rights, however the fact he didn't specify that in his awful, backward document is tough cookies!

It should (in an ideal liberal democracy) be illegal for any group to bring a legal challenge against a law that has been amended due to the fact that the existing law was discriminating against a minority group. The law should be passed and any attempt at legal challenges should be blocked by an incitement of hatred law!

There is no rational, logical reason to oppose SMM! Not one!

Agree with everything except blocking challenges. It's important for a proper liberal democracy and judicial system that there be a means for aggrieved citizens to challenge perceived wrongs.

The constitution should however contain suffiently robust minority protections to ensure that any attention to discriminate, whether through law or the courts, are doomed to fail.

floggg

Otacon wrote: »

The most rational (though still entirely illogical) argument I have heard against SSM is that it would cost the government money.

Obviously, that is still no basis to continue to deny SS couples the right to marriage and is more of an argument to get rid of the social institution altogether, but it also happens to be the point least raised by the No side. Odd.

It has of course been proven to be enormously beneficial economically - both in terms of the wedding event itself, and in the longer term due to increased productivity and reduced health care costs (the latter is the case in Hetero marriages and there is no reason it wouldn't also hold through for same sex marriages).

Kiwi in IE

floggg wrote: »

Agree with everything except blocking challenges. It's important for a proper liberal democracy and judicial system that there be a means for aggrieved citizens to challenge perceived wrongs.

I agree when citizens are actually or potentially aggrieved. Being unable to oppress others and impose your bigotry via law however is not a grievance!

floggg

I Heart Internet wrote: »

You are forgetting about 15 year-olds that want to marry. The current law prevents them from doing so and everyone who isn't 15 years old gets a say in oppressing 15 year olds.



Fran has a right to vote on the proposed amendment to the constitution whether you, I, Flogg or Redzer like it or not. He may be a bell-end but I will defend his right to vote in a constitutional referendum in Ireland, even if the result of which is that he votes against a proposal to extend marriage rights to same sex couples.



That's not a better analogy. You are assuming that discrimination can only happen on the basis of race or sexual orientation. A person can be discriminated against because of their age. And they are. It is enshrined in our legislation.

Constitutional democracy for the win every time Kiwi.

Few people have issue with Fran having a vote.

The issue with the vote itself - a liberal democracy shouldn't permit the majority to decide the rights of the minority.


Equality should be guaranteed.

Yes, we are stuck with a referendum. Just because something is, doesn't mean it should be though.

floggg

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

extending tax breaks etc would be a cost but thats a moot point given we have civil partnership

As pointed out above, state makes that back and more through a more productive work force, lower health spend and you can also add less reliance on social welfare, pensions etc due to availability of combined resources and financial safety nets and other other things.

floggg

I Heart Internet wrote: »

OK, so what about the minority of people who want to marry their cousins or siblings? Why are they oppressed? Should legislation be enacted to allow them to marry and (as you've suggested) an outright ban on any legal challenge enforced?

As I've said before, I'm in favour of redefining civil marriage to allow for SSM, but when it's suggested that this redefinition be given a free pass and all potential opposition crushed, I begin to doubt if SSM proponents fancy living in a democracy at all.

I don't think you understand the concept of equality IHI.

banning a minority from marrying at all on the grounds of race, religion or is an example of discrimination or inequality. You are treating people in the same or similar positions differently.

Liberal democracies generally disprove of such inequality in the absence of objectively justifiable reasons for maintains it.

Banning all people under the age of 15 from marrying or everybody from marrying their cousins is not inequality or discrimination. It's treating everybody in the same situation in the same way.

Liberal democracies generally permit that unless it violates some other right - and even then only if there is no objectively justifiable reasons for doing so. I won't bother listing the objectively justifiable reasons for banning marriage between kids and or siblings.

It shouldn't be that difficult to understand the difference.




And no, there's no "refinition" of marriage. It's simply extending the existing right to marry to LGBT people.

There is no fundamental chance in the nature of the relationship.

floggg

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. They aren't the same thing at all.

But why should consenting adult cousins or (even if it may offend your sensibilities) siblings not be allowed a civil marriage if they desire one?

Our society accepts hetrosexual marraige and, increasingly, homosexual marriage, but you turn your nose up at sibling marriage? Even if they are consenting adults. Interesting.

Cop yourself on. I thought you were smarter than that.

floggg

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I agree when citizens are actually or potentially aggrieved. Being unable to oppress others and impose your bigotry via law however is not a grievance!

It potentially could be - rights are often a balancing act. E.g. Freedom of speech versus right to a good name.

Or more aptly in thus context - my right to marry and equality should trump your freedom of religion when dealing with civil marriage but my right to marry and equality shouldn't trump your right to freedom of religion where I seek to be married in a church.

You have to allow people to bring to challenge (access to courts is also a constitutional right) but again the trick is to set up your constitution and human rights framework so as to ensure the courts cannot be used to further bigotry.

PopePalpatine

I guess there are some situations where Daz can possibly comment. :pac:

J_E

I Heart Internet wrote: »

But why should consenting adult cousins or (even if it may offend your sensibilities) siblings not be allowed a civil marriage if they desire one?

Our society accepts hetrosexual marraige and, increasingly, homosexual marriage, but you turn your nose up at sibling marriage? Even if they are consenting adults. Interesting.

Genuinely? I'm flabbergasted if you are being serious in this post, or on a sort of ironic train of thought for kicks... Sometimes seeing people's thought patterns regarding gay people and marriage is just awful. I expected something a little above that because I know you're an intelligent poster, IHI.

I Heart Internet

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I actually thought you would be above the 'slippery slope' argument. Don't worry when SSM is legalised I won't be campaigning to marry my dishwasher.

I'm not employing it as a slippery slope argument.

I'm employing the example to counter your hair-brained notion that all minorities must have their desires catered for as a human right and that challenging these rights be forbidden.