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

Ctrl Alt Delete

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Or you could, you know, pull him up on it yourself since you're the one who has issue with it?

I dont need to pull him up on it because I respect his decision to vote yes and his rationale behind it.

My point that you are clearly trying to avoid is that the yes side will not apply the same standards to ducksauce that they will apply to me because it suits their agenda and they don't mind double standards when it suits

WoolyJumper

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Like I said I've zero problems with his decision to vote yes or his rationale behind it.

I'm just waiting to see if anyone here who is pro yes will of course "take him to task" for his ill thought out logic or rationale or is that just reserved for the no votes?

He doesn't want to deny me my rights because me or my relationship has nothing to do with him and will have no effect on his life what so ever. I agree with that...

Ctrl Alt Delete

COYVB wrote: »

Theirs reason for voting yes has plenty of logic. It amounts to: it doesn't affect me so I've got no problem in affording these rights to everyone in the name of equality.

Yours is the equivalent to "I dislike tomatoes, they're not to my liking, and as such I'm going to back the campaign to prevent everyone else in the country from having tomatoes"

So I have no right to formulate a decision to vote no based on your crude example when in the same example the rationale for yes is just as "flawed"

Ctrl Alt Delete

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I and others have made it perfectly clear why we find one viewpoint objectionable and the other acceptable.

Indeed you have but you and others are perfectly willing to shout down and round on no voters when they express their opinion with an "equal" amount of "lack of reasoning"

COYVB

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

So I have no right to formulate a decision to vote no based on your crude example when in the same example the rationale for yes is just as "flawed"

There's no flaw in voting yes because it doesn't affect you, in the case of something that relates to the rights of a person. It should, to any right minded, sane individual, be the default position.

The no vote is the only one that needs ANY rationale behind it

WoolyJumper

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

So I have no right to formulate a decision to vote no based on your crude example when in the same example the rationale for yes is just as "flawed"

No one has said you dont have the right to vote no. You can vote no if you wish. If you come on a public forum saying you are going to vote no, expect people to ask you why. You don't have to answer, your perfectly entitled to leave the debate anytime you want. Yet you insist on engaging, so people reply and you accuse them of shouting you down.

From what i can see you spend more time saying things like this than actually engaging in what people are saying to you

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

Oh right I see so because I'm voting no any debate I try and have is invalid and doesnt count ????

Good demonstration of understanding of equality again by posters on this thread,

pro yes = you can talk
pro no = your opinion doesnt matter

Sheldons Brain

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

How you can't see the equivalence between racial and gender-based marriage discrimination is beyond me.

An inter race marriage is as likely to result in offspring from that union as one of people of the same race, so there is no difference. The same cannot be said of a same sex "marriage". But I think you know that, but are deliberately choosing to ignore it.

Zen65

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

I'm just waiting to see if anyone here who is pro yes will of course "take him to task" for his ill thought out logic or rationale or is that just reserved for the no votes?

His logic is not ill thought out.

It's not thorough, perhaps, but it is in fact a very accurate assessment of the impact of his vote. By voting 'yes' he gives others rights that he is already free to enjoy as a citizen, and does not remove rights from anyone else. By voting 'no' he perpetuates the denial of a right to some citizens, while offering no additional rights or benefits to any other citizen. His logic is to choose the voting option which offers the greater collective improvement in rights.

Why should anyone pull him up on that rationale?

Of course there are some in the country who state that children will lose rights if a 'yes' vote carries; such accusations are blatantly wrong and can be seen as wrong by anyone who is open to the facts. Some say that their heterosexual marriage is affected by allowing SSM, but cannot offer any logic nor evidence to support that assertion. Some say that they would be offended by the introduction of SSM, but there is no inherent civil right to not be offended. If there were, the Islamic militants who protest and murder indiscriminately when a cartoonist draws a picture of Muhammed would actually have an argument worth listening to.

Sheldons Brain

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

This discussion has nothing to do about the number of offspring produced by a marriage though. I'm not ignoring it, it is simply irrelevant to the discussion.

It is absolutely not irrelevant to the discussion, the reason why society has provided legal mechanisms for marriage and the reason why it interests itself in the matter at all is the interests of children.

shruikan2553

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

It is absolutely not irrelevant to the discussion, the reason why society has provided legal mechanisms for marriage and the reason why it interests itself in the matter at all is the interests of children.

Why dont I have to provide a cert from my doctor saying I am capable of producing children when I get married? My girlfriend has a condition that reduces fertility and may not even be able to get pregnant, why is nobody wanting to stop us get married?

COYVB

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

the reason why society has provided legal mechanisms for marriage and the reason why it interests itself in the matter at all is the interests of children.

That's not even remotely true. Society originally provided legal mechanisms for marriage (long before same sex marriage was disallowed) was because of possessions and land

COYVB

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

The other thing that's confusing me though, is that this still doesn't explain why you've moved the goalposts from 'redefining marriage' to 'think of the children'.

Exclusively opposite sex marriage actually IS redefined marriage, historically. Re-allowing same sex marriage is returning the definition of marriage to its original form

shruikan2553

If it is about procreation then why arent we splitting couples into capable of procreating (allowed to marry) and not capable of procreating (not allowed to get married)

A couple who produces children and gives them all up for adoption can be married but a couple who adopts those children and raises them should not.

If procreation doesnt matter in straight couples but matters in gay couples then it isnt about procreation as procreation makes no difference to the majority of couples qualifying for marriage. It is the about the gender of the couple.

Sheldons Brain

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Shruikan has covered that argument better than I could. The other thing that's confusing me though, is that this still doesn't explain why you've moved the goalposts from 'redefining marriage' to 'think of the children'.

Shruikan has provided the usual trite answer, that is in no way a response the question. In general, marriages of men and women have a procreative capacity, and same sex ones do not, the details of anyone's individual situation doesn't affect that point at all.

And I haven't moved any goalposts.

hat's not even remotely true. Society originally provided legal mechanisms for marriage (long before same sex marriage was disallowed) was because of possessions and land

Thank you for proving my point. Possessions and land are essentially concerns of inheritance and what will happen the next generation,

And when exactly was same sex marriage disallowed?

shruikan2553

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Shruikan has provided the usual trite answer, that is in no way a response the question. In general, marriages of men and women have a procreative capacity, and same sex ones do not, the details of anyone's individual situation doesn't affect that point at all.

And I haven't moved any goalposts.



Thank you for proving my point. Possessions and land are essentially concerns of inheritance and what will happen the next generation,

And when exactly was same sex marriage disallowed?

If men and women can marry each other regardless of ability to procreate then how does procreation matter?

What about actually raising the children once they are born? Wouldnt that be more important?

COYVB

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Thank you for proving my point. Possessions and land are essentially concerns of inheritance and what will happen the next generation,

No, they're not actually. They're concerns of the male in the relationship taking control of assets formerly controlled by the female's family

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

And when exactly was same sex marriage disallowed?

SSM was banned by the church in the 4th century, although it maintained an office specifically for SSM when it decided it was going to allow it, which was in operation up as far as the 17th century I believe. In terms of generalisation, though, you're looking at around 370AD when it was banned

shruikan2553

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

How is 'why do you think some couples incapable of procreating should be allowed to get married while others should not' not an answer to 'procreation is the reason for marriage'?


You have, you initially said SSM is redefining marriage then quickly dropped that stance without explanation when it was should to be flawed.





Not necessarily, another reason is protection of the couple's land and posessions in the event of one dying.

Dont forget the tax thing. He doesnt want to pay for anyone who doesnt provide him a financial benefit.

Zen65

marienbad wrote: »

There is no question that many on the yes side has tried to sideline debate and dismissed opposition as simply homophobic .

Has anybody seen an argument in favour of a 'no' vote which is not, at its core, simply a homophobic position?

That is not to suggest that everyone who votes 'no' is in fact homophobic. The problem is that very many people are going to vote 'no' because they believe that same sex marriage is bad for society. They cannot express in words why they hold this belief. They look for evidence to support their views and in most cases they cling to arguments that are specious at best.

The reason that they cannot articulate a logical argument for their position is that they do not hold their position through a process of reasoned thought; they hold that belief because in their formative years they were taught that it is wrong for a man to love a man the way a man loves a woman, and likewise for women to love women. These teachings came almost exclusively from "Christian" religious teachings based on old testament. These scriptures do not explain why it is wrong for a man to love a man, they simply name-call it ("an abomination"). Through those teachings homophobia is passed from generation to generation and given a status that it does not deserve i.e. that it was the word of God. The fact that scriptures do not record Christ ever expressing anything remotely supportive of that view has not dampened the vitriol of the homophobic teachings.

Muslim and Jewish teachings about sexuality have the same philosophy, but also fail to offer a logic to support the view. It is always purported to simply be against the will of whichever god they worship. That is extremely convenient, and allows ancient homophobia to indoctrinate generation after generation, without the need to explain itself. I have said in an earlier post on this thread that I am well aware of my own deep-rooted homophobic feelings, but I choose not to allow them to dictate my actions in dealing with others.

I recall President Mary McAleese once made the same comment about sectarianism being handed down from generation to generation - the children did not really understand the hatred, but they inherited it anyway.

Inherited homophobic beliefs are like second-hand cigarette smoke, offering nothing but harm to those unfortunate enough to grow up surrounded by it. Maybe a 'yes' vote will help to break that circle of hatred.

Zen65

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

In general, marriages of men and women have a procreative capacity, and same sex ones do not, the details of anyone's individual situation doesn't affect that point at all.

Okay, but if a group of people can be shown to be unable to procreate, should we refuse to grant them the right to marry?

shruikan2553

Zen65 wrote: »

Okay, but if a group of people can be shown to be unable to procreate, should we refuse to grant them the right to marry?

Only if they are not straight it would seem.


Its like me only letting people who can shoot lasers from their eyes into my party, but only asian people get asked. Im not racist, not my fault Asian people can't shoot lasers from their eyes!

Sheldons Brain

COYVB wrote:

Exclusively opposite sex marriage actually IS redefined marriage, historically.

Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence, not that same sex relationships existed or were approved of in history, but that they had exactly the same legal status as marriage.

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Dont forget the tax thing. He doesnt want to pay for anyone who doesnt provide him a financial benefit.

Well nobody has explained why I should, other than that I already pay tax for other things, which is no explanation at all. Perhaps you would like to explain why I should?

WoolyJumper

Zen65 wrote: »

Has anybody seen an argument in favour of a 'no' vote which is not, at its core, simply a homophobic position?

That is not to suggest that everyone who votes 'no' is in fact homophobic. The problem is that very many people are going to vote 'no' because they believe that same sex marriage is bad for society. They cannot express in words why they hold this belief. They look for evidence to support their views and in most cases they cling to arguments that are specious at best.

The reason that they cannot articulate a logical argument for their position is that they do not hold their position through a process of reasoned thought; they hold that belief because in their formative years they were taught that it is wrong for a man to love a man the way a man loves a woman, and likewise for women to love women. These teachings came almost exclusively from "Christian" religious teachings based on old testament. These scriptures do not explain why it is wrong for a man to love a man, they simply name-call it ("an abomination"). Through those teachings homophobia is passed from generation to generation and given a status that it does not deserve i.e. that it was the word of God. The fact that scriptures do not record Christ ever expressing anything remotely supportive of that view has not dampened the vitriol of the homophobic teachings.

Muslim and Jewish teachings about sexuality have the same philosophy, but also fail to offer a logic to support the view. It is always purported to simply be against the will of whichever god they worship. That is extremely convenient, and allows ancient homophobia to indoctrinate generation after generation, without the need to explain itself. I have said in an earlier post on this thread that I am well aware of my own deep-rooted homophobic feelings, but I choose not to allow them to dictate my actions in dealing with others.

I recall President Mary McAleese once made the same comment about sectarianism being handed down from generation to generation - the children did not really understand the hatred, but they inherited it anyway.

Inherited homophobic beliefs are like second-hand cigarette smoke, offering nothing but harm to those unfortunate enough to grow up surrounded by it. Maybe a 'yes' vote will help to break that circle of hatred.

I think there are some people who have genuine concerns and don't completely understand what this referendum is about. That number will probably grow the more we here from IONA. I'm more than happy to hear peoples concerns and explain why they dont need to be concerned, what this referendum is actually about and how in the end all the children will be okay and the sun will continue to rise in the morning.

Its when you find your self having to talk in circles with someone, who keeps jumping back and forth from issue to issue. Somehow always manages to avoid the point you are making and refuses to accept any evidence that is contrary to their position and then makes themselves out to be the victim in this whole situation because people have an opinion on their opinion. These guys have something deeper going on behind there objection to same sex marriage thats not at all based on rationality...Still though, at this time its not helpful to use the "h" word as it isolates those that do have genuine concerns.

Still though, i find it bizarre that i as a gay person have to be careful how i express what i experience as homophobia, in case i offend a homophobe. As panti said " we now find ourselves in a position where gay people are not the victims of homophobia, homophobes are"

Zen65

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Possessions and land are essentially concerns of inheritance and what will happen the next generation,

Inheritance primarily affects adults, not children.

In the vast majority of cases a parent who dies will have their possessions divided between their spouse (who is an adult) and their adult children (because average age of death is around 70 years for men & women now). The number of children who lose both parents and therefore take an inheritance is very small.

This referendum is not about children, it is about marriage. The only side-effect of the referendum which affects children is actually a benefit (automatic transfer of guardianship rights in the case of a biological parent dying).

Zen65

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Still though, at this time its not helpful to use the "h" word as it isolates those that do have genuine concerns.

I think you mean 'deeply held convictions' rather than 'genuine concerns'?

I have not yet heard nor read a genuine concern, and I've read a lot of these forums.

shruikan2553

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Well nobody has explained why I should, other than that I already pay tax for other things, which is no explanation at all. Perhaps you would like to explain why I should?

I dont know why. It is how the government and many others deal with it. Have you tried asking your local TD? If enough people complain about paying taxes for married couples, Irish language, elderly, disabled etc then they might see a demand for change. None of that will be changing in the referendum.

You missed:

If men and women can marry each other regardless of ability to procreate then how does procreation matter?

What about actually raising the children once they are born? Wouldnt that be more important?

Zubeneschamali

Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »

So I have no right to formulate a decision to vote no based on your crude example when in the same example the rationale for yes is just as "flawed"

You have a perfect right to formulate anything you like. You can vote any way you like. People have repeatedly told you that in this thread.

What you can't do is come up with any reason for voting no that doesn't come from prejudice against gays.

COYVB

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

Perhaps you would like to provide some evidence, not that same sex relationships existed or were approved of in history, but that they had exactly the same legal status as marriage.

Legal status is only a relatively new thing, to be fair, and you're asking me to prove the legal documentation surrounding SSM from 1700 years ago? You can do better than that

Sheldons Brain

shruikan2553 wrote:

I dont know why. It is how the government and many others deal with it. Have you tried asking your local TD? If enough people complain about paying taxes for married couples, Irish language, elderly, disabled etc then they might see a demand for change. None of that will be changing in the referendum.

You are asking me to extend marriage, which carries with it a lot of rights and privileges, including tax privileges. But you "don't know" why those in this extension are deserving of my paying more tax for them. This isn't exactly convincing.

COYVB wrote: »

Legal status is only a relatively new thing, to be fair, and you're asking me to prove the legal documentation surrounding SSM from 1700 years ago? You can do better than that

You made a statement that same sex marriage existed and was abolished. This is not common knowledge, so please back it up.

PopePalpatine

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

You are asking me to extend marriage, which carries with it a lot of rights and privileges, including tax privileges. But you "don't know" why those in this extension are deserving of my paying more tax for them. This isn't exactly convincing.

Let me repeat this very loudly and clearly: civil partnerships have the same tax status as married couples.

shruikan2553

Sheldons Brain wrote: »

You are asking me to extend marriage, which carries with it a lot of rights and privileges, including tax privileges. But you "don't know" why those in this extension are deserving of my paying more tax for them. This isn't exactly convincing.

You have some reason to believe why married couples shouldnt get certain rights, that's fine. I'm not trying to convince you that married couples should get those rights. You keep going on about tax rights which both straight and gay couples can avail of already. Whats the point in complaining about them in a thread about a referendum about allowing gay people to get married when your problem is with the rights they already have? You might as well bring in the price of oil.

You're still avoiding:

If men and women can marry each other regardless of ability to procreate then how does procreation matter?

What about actually raising the children once they are born? Wouldnt that be more important?

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Let me repeat this very loudly and clearly: civil partnerships have the same tax status as married couples.

If you yell loud enough you might reset him back into procreation mode. It's all about procreation, except when its not about procreation.