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

Ctrl Alt Delete

floggg wrote: »

See, Yes side stood up for you. Feel better now? Need a hug?

Hugs are good :D:D:D

Ave Sodalis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

In western culture, EU and even Irish culture.

What is the accepted number of people in a marriage?

Huh? Seriously? That's not even what the poster was talking about. Are you finished with that argument and moving back into polygamy again? That's not going to work out well...

Steppenwolfe

WoolyJumper wrote: »

When these studies are done they are published in scientific journals, where other scientists/researchers can read and critique them. Often certain groups with their own agenda will heavily scrutinise these studies to try and find some flaw in their research and prove them wrong. When they can't do this, they do the next best thing. Come out with their own heavily biased, poorly done research which will give them the answer they are looking for.

Just in case you are wondering in this case the heavily biased research was carried out by the Christian fundamentalist when they couldn't poke holes in the research carried out by the "liberal gays" (ie the APA + Many others)

Interesting article here regarding the research you are refering to. It opened my eyes somewhat to all the research in this field. It's not as black and white as some on here are advocating.

The perils of politically incorrect academic research. http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/revenge-sociologists_648829.html?page=3

Zubeneschamali

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

What is the accepted number of people in a marriage?

Two, both now and after the referendum passes.

Is this where you start arguing about whether it will be OK for a man to marry both his cats if they are sisters?

Ctrl Alt Delete

jobbridge4life wrote: »

argued that his homosexuality should preclude him from any involvement in the ongoing debate/work regarding MSM blood donation. I am merely replicating your logic and applying it to this situation. If you are uncomfortable with the results then with respect it is your logic you should confront and challenge not me. Instead however you are continuing the downward spiral your argument has been on and are resorting to personal insults.

Well if your going to bring up another thread at least quote me properly.

I believe what I said was he needed to take steps to mitigate any conflict of interests in line with Standard in Public Office policy. - you will of course note the post has been unedited

But again dont let what I actually said get in the way of you trying to misrepresent again :rolleyes:

Sheldons Brain

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Umm, don't civil partnerships already get the same as marriage when it comes to tax?

If civil partnership already does everything, why are we wasting money on a referendum?

In any case, what is the justification for a single person supporting by their taxes two people in a civil partnership sharing a house who have shared expenses as a consequence.?

Ctrl Alt Delete

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

We're not voting to change the number of people accepted in a marriage.

What the hell are you going on about?

So we are all agreed two people is a marriage yes ???

floggg

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Legally, obviously yes but morally they have been just as offensive to the institute of marriage

They havent been offensive to the institute of marriage. They have been offensive to your conception of it. They haven't been offensive to their own (except the cheaters).

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

In my eyes I'd have no issue with it no and would vote yes on that basis.

Im not asking you to explain your position, because you wont, but can you asnwer whether you think there is any logical consistency between your stances whatsoever?



You accept that gay people are equally capable parents as straight people. You object to same sex marriage because gay people can't procreate without assistance. You don't object to opposite sex marriage between people who can't or will not procreate. You also have no issue with gay people marrying as long as they won't have kids

Does any of that make sense to you?

jobbridge4life

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Well if your going to bring up another thread at least quote me properly.

I believe what I said was he needed to take steps to mitigate any conflict of interests in line with Standard in Public Office policy. - you will of course note the post has been unedited

But again dont let what I actually said get in the way of you trying to misrepresent again :rolleyes:

Since you asked...

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

At the risk of being labelled a homophobe (as is the current trend these days for someone who says anything remotely anti gay).

The Minister should not be having any hand, part or play in relation to this because he is gay and has a conflict of interest. The blood ban for gays has been in place for years for a good reason.

People can be tri-sexual for all I care but he is going on a very "fairy" stance since coming out on Radio between this and stating he is going to the New York paddys days gay pride parade and it is frankly unbecoming of a minister.

Ave Sodalis

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If civil partnership already does everything, why are we wasting money on a referendum?

In any case, what is the justification for a single person supporting by their taxes two people in a civil partnership sharing a house who have shared expenses as a consequence.?

Why are you so concerned about money? Why does it not apply to a straight couple?

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

So we are all agreed two people is a marriage yes ???

We are all agreed we aren't changing the number of people in a marriage through this referendum. This argument has been gone over. Go look back

Zubeneschamali

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

So we are all agreed two people is a marriage yes ???

We agree that the number of people getting married is two.

But before your train of thought leaves the rails altogether, this does not mean that once married, only their spouse can do their tax returns, carpentry, car maintenance, dentistry or fertility treatment.

Ctrl Alt Delete

sup_dude wrote: »

We are all agreed we aren't changing the number of people in a marriage through this referendum. This argument has been gone over. Go look back

OK so we all accept the number is two.

What then do we do when same sex couples who marry want to procreate ??

Do we all just accept that the minority has now redefined marriage from 2 to more than 2 ???

Bannasidhe

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Firstly, I'm not trying to twist your words. I knew exactly what your response would be when I first asked you

I am taking your non married example and putting into a marriage scenario because that is exactly what would continue to happen.

I'm not not was I under any illusion that your the first person to concieve this way

You say non-married - I say not-allowed-to-get-married.

Big difference.

Sheldons Brain

sup_dude wrote: »

Why are you so concerned about money? Why does it not apply to a straight couple?

Why shouldn't I be concerned about money? And never mind the whataboutery, this is worse than the Northern Ireland threads. Please provide a positive case for a single person supporting by their taxes two people in a civil partnership sharing a house.

floggg

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

In western culture, EU and even Irish culture.

What is the accepted number of people in a marriage?

sup_dude wrote: »

Huh? Seriously? That's not even what the poster was talking about. Are you finished with that argument and moving back into polygamy again? That's not going to work out well...

I think he is saying that if you used assisted reproduction the doctor/donor/surrogate then becomes a party to your marriage.

Which is funny, because I never heard of an IVF doctor suing a heterosexual couple for maintenance.

If a husband uses viagra to help them in the bedroom, does that mean they aer both now married to Pfizer? What about if it helps them conceive?

Ave Sodalis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

OK so we all accept the number is two.

What then do we do when same sex couples who marry want to procreate ??

Do we all just accept that the minority has now redefined marriage from 2 to more than 2 ???

What? They aren't getting married to another person. The other person doesn't have any say in their marriage. Two people get married, two people are in the marriage. That's the same as saying that once you get married you can't have close friends...

quainy

I am not homophobic, nor am I going to become a priest any time soon. I have friends and families that are of all kinds of sexual orientation and put quite simply, I don't give a f*** who they f***.

I have no idea how I'm going to vote, or if I'm even going to vote in the referendum, simply because (pause for hate to be generated) I agree that people of all sexual orientations should have the right to equality in life, however, marriage being a religious thing, I don't believe that homosexual marriage should be approved of. The church has been set in its ways for thousands of years, marrying men to women and only that. I don't feel that they should have to change their approach or outlook on the matter, however, on the flip side I do feel like civil partnership should be granted to those who are of all sexual orientations.

Ave Sodalis

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Why shouldn't I be concerned about money. And never mind the whataboutery, this is worse than the Northern Ireland threads. Please provide a positive case for a single person supporting by their taxes two people in a civil partnership sharing a house.

It's not whataboutery... It's a genuine and valid question. Why do you not mind paying the same for straight couples?

jobbridge4life

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Why shouldn't I be concerned about money. And never mind the whataboutery, this is worse than the Northern Ireland threads. Please provide a positive case for a single person supporting by their taxes two people in a civil partnership sharing a house.

Provide a positive case for a single person supporting two people in a marriage sharing a house. If you can't your argument has no worth in this debate.

Ave Sodalis

quainy wrote: »

I am not homophobic, nor am I going to become a priest any time soon. I have friends and families that are of all kinds of sexual orientation and put quite simply, I don't give a f*** who they f***.

I have no idea how I'm going to vote, or if I'm even going to vote in the referendum, simply because (pause for hate to be generated) I agree that people of all sexual orientations should have the right to equality in life, however, marriage being a religious thing, I don't believe that homosexual marriage should be approved of. The church has been set in its ways for thousands of years, marrying men to women and only that. I don't feel that they should have to change their approach or outlook on the matter, however, on the flip side I do feel like civil partnership should be granted to those who are of all sexual orientations.

It's not religious and in this case, it's nothing to do with the church...

floggg

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

If civil partnership already does everything, why are we wasting money on a referendum?

Not everything, just tax.

Also, why was Rosa Parks not content to sit at the back of the bus?

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

In any case, what is the justification for a single person supporting by their taxes two people in a civil partnership sharing a house who have shared expenses as a consequence.?

Probably the same justification for supporting married couples (with or without children).

Zubeneschamali

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

What then do we do when same sex couples who marry want to procreate ??

The same thing we do when straight couples want to procreate: mind our own business and let them at it? (Providing they don't scare the horses).

Ctrl Alt Delete

floggg wrote: »

I think he is saying that if you used assisted reproduction the doctor/donor/surrogate then becomes a party to your marriage.

Which is funny, because I never heard of an IVF doctor suing a heterosexual couple for maintenance.

If a husband uses viagra to help them in the bedroom, does that mean they aer both now married to Pfizer? What about if it helps them conceive?

Again being obtuse. IVF is expensive as hell and odds aren't always in the favor of the receiver. Thats medical intervention and I've no issue which is different and I've not argued that (even in regards to gay couples)

I was trying to be polite in how I put it however another gay poster provided an example on this thread of the "easier" option that will be taken.

That easier option then brings in the 3rd party to the marriage

Sheldons Brain

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Provide a positive case for a single person supporting two people in a marriage sharing a house. If you can't your argument has no worth in this debate.

Enough of the whataboutery, I am not at this point discussing marriage and support for it. I posed a question and you should be able to answer it without my having to provide arguments for other things.

Ave Sodalis

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

That easier option then brings in the 3rd party to the marriage

No, it doesn't

jobbridge4life

quainy wrote: »

I am not homophobic, nor am I going to become a priest any time soon. I have friends and families that are of all kinds of sexual orientation and put quite simply, I don't give a f*** who they f***.

I have no idea how I'm going to vote, or if I'm even going to vote in the referendum, simply because (pause for hate to be generated) I agree that people of all sexual orientations should have the right to equality in life, however, marriage being a religious thing, I don't believe that homosexual marriage should be approved of. The church has been set in its ways for thousands of years, marrying men to women and only that. I don't feel that they should have to change their approach or outlook on the matter, however, on the flip side I do feel like civil partnership should be granted to those who are of all sexual orientations.

No hate just some frustration.

Firstly civil marriage has precisely zero to do with religion. Civil secular, completely non-religious, marriage already occurs in this country, just not for gay people.

This referendum will not force any church to preform a wedding against their will no more than permitting muslim marriage forces the Catholic church to marry muslims.

Thirdly your point about the intransigence of the church is also a lot less solid than you may believe, firstly the church often married men to multiple women, secondly there is even evidence of same sex unions being blessed.

Fourthly what if my church wants to hold a marriage for me and my partner? Why is this any less valid than another religions?

Ctrl Alt Delete

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The same thing we do when straight couples want to procreate: mind our own business and let them at it? (Providing they don't scare the horses).

Ahhh I see so be damned you have an opinion on the redefining of marriage and shut up so the yes agenda can have its way.

Yes I got that message a few times now :rolleyes:

quainy

sup_dude wrote: »

It's not religious and in this case, it's nothing to do with the church...

To me it is religious, I view marriage as a religious bond whereby you ask God to bless the relationship of you and your partner. I said I don't feel that should change.

Ave Sodalis

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Enough of the whataboutery, I am not at this point discussing marriage and support for it. I posed a question and you should be able to answer it without my having to provide arguments for other things.

You cannot answer your question without answering ours... Why are you only concerned about taxes when it concerns gays. Why, when it's the exact same taxes, is it fine with straight couples?

Zubeneschamali

quainy wrote: »

marriage being a religious thing

Civil marriage isn't a religious thing, and the referendum won't affect religious marriage.