How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

Your quote verbatim:

While firstly LGBT couples can and do have children, so any child related purposes of marriage is equally applicable to LGBT couples.

Maybe you can better explain what you mean.

Actually, I think you can better explain. I too have no idea where you got your statement from either

Just because I tax and insure my car, it doesn't mean I HAVE to drive it.

The point of taxing and insuring your car is so you can drive it. The point of marriage is not so you can have children.

Shrap

Love nor Money wrote: »

Make yourself clear (and please, humour me by answering): do you think a mother and (adult) daughter should be allowed to marry?

I shall make myself very clear, not just to humour you, but in the hope of getting through to you.

If there is a massive societal demand for mother/daughter marriage, then I'm sure we shall eventually get to vote on it. However, seeing as mother/daughter relationships are NOT A THING AT ALL (unless you have some evidence to the contrary?), it is clearly a moot point.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

Your quote verbatim:

While firstly LGBT couples can and do have children, so any child related purposes of marriage is equally applicable to LGBT couples.

Maybe you can better explain what you mean.



Hyperbole aside, no.



You are contradicting yourself.



Just because I tax and insure my car, it doesn't mean I HAVE to drive it and your attempt to downplay the role of family in marriage is absurd.



As we are trying to divine the original purpose of marriage, the "should not" element of your response looks almost like a Freudian slip.



So failure to provide for the marriage of brothers was seen as obviously pointless, but there was a pointed jab at same sex couples? I'm not buying that.

Honestly, I really have no idea what you are trying to say with much of that, or what reasoning you are attempting to apply.

Im particularly confused about the Freudian slip comment. Are you suggesting I want to marry my brother or something?

I have no idea why you are attempting to interpret my words in the particular ways you are, so please do explain.

reprise

sup_dude wrote: »

Actually, I think you can better explain. I too have no idea where you got your statement from either

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94000482&postcount=351

sup_dude wrote: »

The point of taxing and insuring your car is so you can drive it. The point of marriage is not so you can have children.

My analogy works. Yet, you reckon children were an after thought?

Wildlife Actor

sup_dude wrote: »

I can honestly say that I didn't misunderstand you as siding for no, I'm pointing out that this referendum is about gay marriage, not incest marriage or anything else. Just gay marriage.
It's not flawed logic. It's been extremely difficult to get the referendum to referendum. Why would anyone bite off more than they can chew by including everything? The same logic you've come up with can be applied to inter-racial marriage. Why didn't they fight for gay marriage at the same time? Because it wasn't relevant. I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to the last line.

I don't recall the old inter racial marriage referendum.....but in the parallel universe where it happened, I'm sure that when Breda O'Brien said "well, sure there'll be them gays marrying next" I didn't scuttle off like a coward and say it's not relevant.

Strategically, I suppose you're perfectly right: you'd scare the grannies if they thought that voting for gay marriage meant they'd be be getting an invitation to a wedding between their son, their grandson and their niece.

Wildlife Actor

eviltwin wrote: »

What has that got to do with it? Are you suggesting that because marriage won't be available to every conceivable type of relationship that it's a valid enough reason to continue to deny marriage to same sex couples?

NO! How many times do I have to say I'm voting yes!

Thanks for not answering my question.

conorh91

sup_dude wrote: »

Gay people having the same right to marriage as straight people. Not more right, not less. Equal.

Sure, but that's not marriage equality.

Defending the use of the term marriage equality in this way is a bit like claiming there was racial equality in the USA in the early 20th century, because Jim Crow laws did not apply to Asians.

You'd accept that would be a spectacularly foolish and inappropriate use of the term "racial equality", yes?

And that's aside from the fact that marriage equality is a contradiction in itself.

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94000482&postcount=351



My analogy works. Yet, you reckon children were an after thought?

I've read it and still don't get where you're coming from.

How? An after thought to what? Marriage? Are you saying that children cannot be born outside of marriage and that marriage's sole purpose is to produce children? Because you're getting dangerously close to couples who can't have child, couples who don't want children, children from unmarried parents, and single parent territory there. And I don't know why you are. Whether this referendum goes through or not, a gay couple can still adopt so they clearly aren't just getting married for children, same as many straight couples.

Ave Sodalis

conorh91 wrote: »

Sure, but that's not marriage equality.

Defending the use of the term marriage equality in this way is a bit like claiming there was racial equality in the USA in the early 20th century, because Jim Crow laws did not apply to Asians.

You'd accept that would be a spectacularly foolish and inappropriate use of the term "racial equality", yes?

And that's aside from the fact that marriage equality is a contradiction in itself.

Not when you're drawing analogies that don't exist.

eviltwin

Love nor Money wrote: »

NO! How many times do I have to say I'm voting yes!

Thanks for not answering my question.

What question? Do you mean should a mother and daughter be allowed marry? Yeah why not? Incest doesn't offend me. But what's this got to do with SSM

Ave Sodalis

Love nor Money wrote: »

I don't recall the old inter racial marriage referendum.....but in the parallel universe where it happened, I'm sure that when Breda O'Brien said "well, sure there'll be them gays marrying next" I didn't scuttle off like a coward and say it's not relevant.

Strategically, I suppose you're perfectly right: you'd scare the grannies if they thought that voting for gay marriage meant they'd be be getting an invitation to a wedding between their son, their grandson and their niece.

No, there wasn't but inter racial marriage was not allow due to racism culture. When they were fighting for their rights, shouldn't they have included gay marriage in with in since they were also a minority? What about women's rights?
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, quite simply, other types of marriages are not relevant.

reprise

floggg wrote: »

Honestly, I really have no idea what you are trying to say with much of that, or what reasoning you are attempting to apply.

Im particularly confused about the Freudian slip comment. Are you suggesting I want to marry my brother or something?

I have no idea why you are attempting to interpret my words in the particular ways you are, so please do explain.

I can condense. I am of the belief that marriage, by design, was simply not intended for same sex couples as it was focused and based on biological parentage and children within a defined set of parameters.

If you wish to change those parameters, you must be prepared to defend your reasons. Trying to make out that changing the parameters can redefine marriage and alter the original intent is simply disingenuous. Hence my question asking about the marriage of brothers.

AlanS181824

Yes Yes Yes!

Doesn't affect me as such but everyone deserves the right to be happy!

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

I can condense. I am of the belief that marriage, by design, was simply not intended for same sex couples as it was focused and based on biological parentage and children within a defined set of parameters.

If you wish to change those parameters, you must be prepared to defend your reasons. Trying to make out that the parameters can redefine marriage is disingenuous. Hence my question asking about the marriage of brothers.

But that is not accounting for couples who cannot have children, couples who don't want children, children born to unmarried parents and single parents. You don't need a marriage to have a child, so why is that what marriage is about? You're entitled to your opinion but you're going to have to explain the gaps in it because I don't understand it.

reprise

sup_dude wrote: »

I've read it and still don't get where you're coming from.

How? An after thought to what? Marriage? Are you saying that children cannot be born outside of marriage and that marriage's sole purpose is to produce children? Because you're getting dangerously close to couples who can't have child, couples who don't want children, children from unmarried parents, and single parent territory there. And I don't know why you are. Whether this referendum goes through or not, a gay couple can still adopt so they clearly aren't just getting married for children, same as many straight couples.

And again, marriage has a primary focus on providing the best possible environment for the children that it may produce.

Just so we are clear - that's the children that it may produce.

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

And again, marriage has a primary focus on providing the best possible environment for the children that it may produce.

Just so we are clear - that's the children that it may produce.

You're still ignoring children born outside of marriage to unmarried and single parents.

Shrap

reprise wrote: »

I can condense. I am of the belief that marriage, by design, was simply not intended for same sex couples as it was focused and based on biological parentage and children within a defined set of parameters.

If you wish to change those parameters, you must be prepared to defend your reasons. Trying to make out that the parameters can redefine marriage is disingenuous. Hence my question asking about the marriage of brothers.

You're wrong. It was based on land and inheritance rights. Not biological parentage at all. The parameters have changed many times since daughters were basically swapped for land, and the reason we change the parameters so much is because they have proved to be unfair to people who gained rights in the meantime. Such as the right of a woman not to be sold off for land. That kind of thing.

Venus In Furs

conorh91 wrote: »

Sure, but that's not marriage equality.

Defending the use of the term marriage equality in this way is a bit like claiming there was racial equality in the USA in the early 20th century, because Jim Crow laws did not apply to Asians.

You'd accept that would be a spectacularly foolish and inappropriate use of the term "racial equality", yes?

It's marriage equality in context. Is that not enough? In the Deep South, racial segregation was between whites and blacks - that's why only that context was used to define racial equality.

eviltwin

reprise wrote: »

And again, marriage has a primary focus on providing the best possible environment for the children that it may produce.

Just so we are clear - that's the children that it may produce.

Do you think it's appropriate that society places a higher value on children born in a traditional marriage over all other circumstances because that's a horrible way to view children.

reprise

sup_dude wrote: »

You're still ignoring children born outside of marriage to unmarried and single parents.

So?

Marriage isn't compulsory.

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

So?

Marriage isn't compulsory.

No, but if the sole purpose of marriage is to set up for the best possible environment for children, are you saying that children of unmarried and single parents are in lesser environments? Are you saying people who cannot have children shouldn't bother getting married as it would be pointless?

This is still irrelevant and, by your account, just furthers the argument for SSM anyway as gay couple will be able to adopt, married or not.

reprise

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you think it's appropriate that society places a higher value on children born in a traditional marriage over all other circumstances because that's a horrible way to view children.

That's a misrepresentation. I believe that society and the state encourage marriage as the best possible environment for the children first and the parents, second.

It doesn't always work out that way but the aspiration is sincere.

eviltwin

reprise wrote: »

That's a misrepresentation. I believe that society and the state encourage marriage as the best possible environment for the children first and the parents, second.

It doesn't always work out that way but the aspiration is sincere.

Do you think I am any better a parent to the child I had in marriage vs the one I had before marriage? I fail to see how a 15 minute ceremony has changed the outcome for my subsequent children. Marriage doesn't make you a good parent. Your parenting skills are what makes you a good parent.

conorh91

Venus In Furs wrote: »

In the Deep South, racial segregation was between whites and blacks

No it wasn't, see the 'segregated prom' phenomenon. The southern states had a deep-rooted system of racial segregation between all races, with blacks and hispanics being the main victims. The only difference with hispanics is that it was never formalised.

But if someone cited the inapplicability of Jim Crow laws to the hispanics, implying in any way that this amounted to racial equality, they would be laughed out of the room. It would be totally grotesque. The statement would probably become a symbol of how bonkers and short-sighted the whole regime was.

Now I am not opposed to gay people seeking equal treatment. Nor do I deny the rights of individual groups to pursue their individual interests without regard to others' needs. But pursuing enhanced rights for oneself at others' cost, and dressing it up as "equality" is just plain misleading.

Ave Sodalis

conorh91 wrote: »

But pursuing enhanced rights for oneself at others' cost, and dressing it up as "equality" is just plain misleading.

At the cost of whos rights, exactly?

conorh91

sup_dude wrote: »

At the cost of whos rights, exactly?

Unmarried individuals in conjugal relationships who cannot marry for reasons of affordability or law. They are effectively burdened with higher taxes than married couples. Is that equality? Can it ever be described as such?

Ave Sodalis

conorh91 wrote: »

Unmarried individuals in conjugal relationships who cannot marry for reasons of affordability or law. They are effectively burdened with higher taxes than married couples. Is that equality? Can it ever be described as such?

How is that in any way related to this discussion? Do you honestly think people want to get married only because of taxes?!

You're the one who wanted definitions. This is marriage equality, not tax equality

Ozymandius2011

One of the arguments I have heard the Religious Right use against gay marriage (which was also used against decriminalisation in 1994) is that gay men are promiscuous. However, a married relationship is more likely to be monogamous because the couple wouldn't be marrying in the first place if they didn't want to make a commitment.

StewartGriffin

B_Wayne wrote: »

The opposition to the referendum have already referred to incest and marrying one's relative in the last week.

I think they view it as a valve - either leave it as it is - or open it fully.
At the moment, all that is allowed through, are accepted male/female marriages,if we are going to tweak it, may as well open it up to full equality. Perhaps in 40 years time sister/brother love may be as normal as a man/man, or woman/woman love is now?

It is only a LEGAL issue. I don't see why any loving relationship should be denied a legal contract.

conorh91

sup_dude wrote: »

How is that in any way related to this discussion?

The discussion is being framed in terms of equality.

Do you honestly think people want to get married only because of taxes?!

No, there are other financial benefits.

Financial reasons are a relevant motivation to marry, but I've never said that these are the only reasons. Where did you get that idea?