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

Ave Sodalis

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Allusion to me is not a proper answer to my question. What justifies an unmarried person contributing financially through taxation to a single sex relationship? And do not waste time talking about the value of marriage, this is not the same thing.

You're the one who brought up value? What justifies an unmarried person contributing financially through taxation to a single sex relationship is the same that justifies an unmarried person contributing financially through taxation to a straight relationship. Find out what that is, and you have your answer.

Daith

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

What justifies an unmarried person contributing financially through taxation to a single sex relationship?

You already are. Civil Partnered couples avail of tax breaks.

Penn

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Allusion to me is not a proper answer to my question. What justifies an unmarried person contributing financially through taxation to a single sex relationship? And do not waste time talking about the value of marriage, this is not the same thing.

The same thing that justifies a married person contributing financially through taxation to an unmarried person.
The same thing that justifies an unmarried person contributing financially through taxation to a heterosexual relationship.
The same thing that justifies a married person contributing financially through taxation to another married person.
The same thing that justifies an unmarried person contributing financially through taxation to another unmarried person.

It's called taxation. You don't get to chose where the money goes or which aspects of it you do or do not wish to support.

I'm unmarried. Why should MY taxes go to support heterosexual marriages? Oh yeah, it's because that's part of how society works.

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

And as for discrimination, the State promote some things, this is not "discrimination". It funds IT courses, but not hairdressing courses, this is not "discrimination". It funds insulation of of houses, but not getting a new kitchen, this is not "discrimination".

No, but the State treating people differently based on that person's sexuality or gender IS discrimination.

If you want a good comparison, substitute sexuality with "race", not "kitchens".

B_Wayne

Erm, CTRL ALT Delete, the logical conclusion of your argument is that we have fertility tests for all people marrying and nullify their marriage if there's any sign of infertility. For they can also use fertility treatments and utilise surrogacy etc...

floggg

Steppenwolfe wrote: »

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

Its not really.

That article tries to downplay the fundamental weakness in the study, which is the fact it didn't actually study children raised by a same sex couple. He studied children from broken homes where one parent may have had some form of same sex encounter and measured them against children raised in stable, in tact heterosexual families.

To the extent it acknowledges the sampling flaw, it just puts it down to him trying to make up for the lack of children raised by in stable intact households for him to study.

But to use the apple and oranges analogy from the article, if you can't find enough apples to study, you don't fill the basket with oranges and then claim to have learned something about apples.

The other counter-criticism contained in the article is who has criticised it, not the substance of the criticisms itself. But as far as I am aware, it has been broadly panned by nearly all commentators, gay or straight - and has been rejected as not being credible in federal court proceedings in the US.

Also, the Weekly Standard is itself a conservative magazine, so its criticisms of partisan bias are equally applicable to its own opinions (as well as obviously the institute that funded the original study).

Sheldons Brain

Penn wrote: »

It's called taxation. You don't get to chose where the money goes or which aspects of it you do or do not wish to support.

It is a democracy, I'm surely entitled to question the categories of people who get favourable tax treatment, am I not?
Over in the Economy forum there are lots of people posting about the use of their taxes.

Penn wrote: »

No, but the State treating people differently based on that person's sexuality or gender IS discrimination.

If you want a good comparison, substitute sexuality with "race", not "kitchens".

The State does not discriminate against the individual, anyone is free to avail of marriage if they find a person of opposite gender to marry them. Some people do not avail of this because they lack commitment, some haven't met anyone, some have unusual sexual interests, some don't believe in it, but there is no "discrimination". What is proposed is an extension of the range of things that attract favourable treatment, not a change in the rules about availing of it.

Bannasidhe

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Oh I see and thats defined in law then ???

So for example I decide to help donate sperm using the "budget" option, there is no legal recourse to me what so ever?

How has this been tested in court and what was the outcome?

Do we see similar cases to this appearing here?

It's all covered in the Heads of the Child and Family Relationship Bill - I would say which head but your 'anything Straights can do Gays are forbidden' double standards is irksome so you can read the whole thing and if you will find that it has made provision for the case of a Civil Partnership between two women where one becomes pregnant. IT can only make provision for CP as it will become law before the Referendum.

I think you said you are an unmarried father (?) if so reading it would be a good idea for you as it radically changes the current legal situation.

I will supply a link (again) - http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/General%20Scheme%20of%20a%20Children%20and%20Family%20Relationships%20Bill.pdf/Files/General%20Scheme%20of%20a%20Children%20and%20Family%20Relationships%20Bill.pdf

floggg

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

And as for discrimination, the State promote some things, this is not "discrimination". It funds IT courses, but not hairdressing courses, this is not "discrimination". It funds insulation of of houses, but not getting a new kitchen, this is not "discrimination".

Yes it does

http://www.fas.ie/en/Training/Traineeships/Traineeship+Courses/Personal+Service+Occupations/Beauty+Therapist+Traineeship.htm

And if UCDwanted to offer a hairderssing course or degree, I am pretty sure the state would also be obligated to fund that on equal terms as it does IT courses, arts or ancient latin.

Failure to do so would in fact be discrimination, because it is not offering education funding on equal terms, but based on its own subjective assessment of value or merit.

jobbridge4life

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The State does not discriminate against the individual, anyone is free to avail of marriage if they find a person of opposite gender to marry them. Some people do not avail of this because they lack commitment, some haven't met anyone, some have unusual sexual interests, some don't believe in it, but there is no "discrimination".

Sheldon would be embarrassed.

PopePalpatine

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The State does not discriminate against the individual, anyone is free to avail of marriage if they find a person of opposite gender to marry them. Some people do not avail of this because they lack commitment, some haven't met anyone, some have unusual sexual interests, some don't believe in it, but there is no "discrimination".

Not this bullshit again.

Sheldons Brain

And if UCDwanted to offer a hairderssing course or degree, I am pretty sure the state would also be obligated to fund that on equal terms as it does IT courses, arts or ancient latin.

The State, quite properly, might take the view that this was not a good use of public money.

floggg wrote: »

Failure to do so would in fact be discrimination, because it is not offering education funding on equal terms, but based on its own subjective assessment of value or merit.

Nevertheless, the government has had an Advanced Skills Programme doing exactly that, for skills it believed would benefit the economy,

Any policy has to be discerning, otherwise it is a waste of time.

floggg

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The State does not discriminate against the individual, anyone is free to avail of marriage if they find a person of opposite gender to marry them. Some people do not avail of this because they lack commitment, some haven't met anyone, some have unusual sexual interests, some don't believe in it, but there is no "discrimination". What is proposed is an extension of the range of things that attract favourable treatment, not a change in the rules about availing of it.

The State of Virgina did not discriminate against an individual, anyone was free to avail of marriage if they found a person of opposite gender and the same race to marry them. Some people did not avail of this because they lacked commitment, some hadn't met anyone (of the same race), some had unusual sexual interests, some didn't believe in it, but there is no "discrimination". What was proposed by Richard and Mildred Loving and those who advocated the repeal on the ban on inter-racial marriage was an extension of the range of things that attracted favourable treatment, not a change in the rules about availing of it.

Wonder how that argument went - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Sheldons Brain

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The State does not discriminate against the individual, anyone is free to avail of marriage if they find a person of opposite gender to marry them.

That exact screed was tried not that many years ago in another country - in a similar context - and it failed then. Doubt it is going to convince anyone in the homosexuality context either.

seamus

I'm gonna do it again.

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The State does not discriminate against the individual, anyone is free to avail of marriage if they find a person of the same colour to marry them. Some people do not avail of this because they lack commitment, some haven't met anyone, some have unusual sexual interests, some don't believe in it, but there is no "discrimination". What is proposed is an extension of the range of things that attract favourable treatment, not a change in the rules about availing of it.

Tell me how the above is not OK, but banning same sex marriage, is?

floggg

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Nevertheless, the government has had an Advanced Skills Programme doing exactly that, for skills it believed would benefit the economy,

Any policy has to be discerning, otherwise it is a waste of time.

It increased funding and availability. That doesn't mean it can decide not to fund certain courses it doesn't see as meritorious.

It can certainly promote some courses over others in accordance with economic and other imperatives, but it can't decide what people should or should not be allowed study.

(I'll admit "on equal terms" wasn't quiet accurate, but it can't pick and choose which educational courses students availing of state funding can do).

Penn

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The State does not discriminate against the individual, anyone is free to avail of marriage if they find a person of opposite gender to marry them.

False equivalence is not equivalence.

Daith

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

The State does not discriminate against the individual

It discriminates against a couple. As only a couple can get married.

If a hotel banned same sex couples from staying in one room but allowed one gay person to stay in a room it would still be discrimination.

floggg

Daith wrote: »

It discriminates against a couple. As only a couple can get married.

If a hotel banned same sex couples from staying in one room but allowed one gay person to stay in a room it would still be discrimination.

Technically not true as rights are individual in nature.

But we don't need to make that argument to establish the discriminatory nature of the distinction.

If for example we introduce a rule that everybody is entitled to adhere to any religion they wish provided it is a monotheistic religion, it is clear that that rule applies to everybody equally, and each person has the same freedom of choice.

But is it not patently discriminatory towards Hindus and other polytheistic religions, or non-theistic religions?

Daith

floggg wrote: »

Technically not true as rights are individual in nature.

Are you suggesting if a hotel had a policy banning same sex couples from staying in rooms but not single people they wouldn't be discriminating?

MrPudding

Daith wrote: »

Are you suggesting if a hotel had a policy banning same sex couples from staying in rooms but not single people they wouldn't be discriminating?

They would be, and there has been a case in the UK on this very thing.

MrP

K4t

ToddyDoody wrote: »

I'm voting no... For the children.

What about the child who grows up in a loving mother and father family and who wants to marry their partner who is of the same sex and they have no intention of adoption or having kids? Please tell me how you are protecting that child.

Daith

MrPudding wrote: »

They would be, and there has been a case in the UK on this very thing.

MrP

Yep

Lord Dyson concluded that the decision in the Preddy case, where the court decided there was direct discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation, compelled the conclusion that, by her policy of only offering double rooms to married couples, Mrs Wilkinson directly discriminated against homosexual couples on the ground of their sexual orientation.

She also indirectly discriminated against homosexual couples on the grounds of their sexual orientation by applying a policy which put them at a disadvantage as compared with heterosexual couples and she could not reasonably justify by reference to matters other than their sexual orientation.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/bb-owner-loses-appeal-over-banning-gay-couple-29406932.html

floggg

Daith wrote: »

Are you suggesting if a hotel had a policy banning same sex couples from staying in rooms but not single people they wouldn't be discriminating?

no. But it would be violating the rights of each individual, not those of the couple.

A "couple" isn't a recognised legal person and so doesn't have rights independent if the persons who form it.

It was just seeking to correct a technical error in your description of the scenario. I got accused of making the same on yesterday (through careless use of langu) and wanted to correct the record before it was jumped on and became another red herring argument.

shruikan2553

Maybe Sheldons Brain has a point. Why should he pay for couples without children (only SS couples though, and regardless of if they had children), the sick, elderly and disabled? They are financially draining us, why does Chewbacca live on Endor?

All very important questions we should be asking ourselves when deciding to vote on something which will have 0 difference to those things.

Daith

floggg wrote: »

no. But it would be violating the rights of each individual, not those of the couple.

A "couple" isn't a recognised legal person and so doesn't have rights independent if the persons who form it.

It was just seeking to correct a technical error in your description of the scenario.

Can your read the below part where the Judge specifically references the couple?

An individual has rights but that doesn't stop discrimination against a group.

She also indirectly discriminated against homosexual couples on the grounds of their sexual orientation by applying a policy which put them at a disadvantage as compared with heterosexual couples and she could not reasonably justify by reference to matters other than their sexual orientation.

floggg

Daith wrote: »

Can your read the below part where the Judge specifically references the couple?

OK. Can you read the Constitution and the Equal Status Acts and find the word couple?

I'm not Disagreeing with the decision, but a "couple" doesn't have any legal rights or standing. The individuals who make up the couple do.

Rights of couples is a lay mans terms description but technically not correct.

Hint: there's one mention of couples in the Equal Status Act, but no rights are conferred on them

Daith

floggg wrote: »

I'm not Disagreeing with the decision, but a "couple" doesn't have any legal rights or standing. The individuals who make up the couple do.

Rights of couples is a lay mans terms description but technically not correct.

I'm not arguing about rights of a couple.

I'm saying a couple or entity or group can be discriminated against.

floggg

Daith wrote: »

I'm not arguing about rights of a couple.

I'm saying a couple or entity can be discriminated against.

Sure, it can certainly be described as such if you want.

Daith

floggg wrote: »

Sure, it can certainly be described as such if you want.

I'm just using a Judges words to describe it. I'm not a solicitor.

Given that same sex marriage is not a right, I tend to be careful not to bring rights into it to be honest.

jaja321

I'll be voting yes, and cannot wait to do so. If I'm not mistaken, if this passes we'll be the first country in the world to pass it by popular vote? As in all other countries/states have done it through the courts. Will be something to be genuinely proud of, if it passes. People just need to get out and vote, my biggest worry is apathy.