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

silverharp

reprise wrote: »

On what grounds? is the de facto child of an incestuous relationship not worthy of married parents and family life?

its as simple as some "taboos" are justified, im pretty sure 100% of parents not brainwashed by a cult would not endorse a legal system that would allow their kids to marry each other or any other crazy combination including grandparents or whatever other silly combinations you can think of.

A gay marriage is a positive step for gay people. You can see the difference right?

floggg

reprise wrote: »

I give you, the No side.

Incest supporters?

reprise

floggg wrote: »

So can rape. Doesn't mean we need to provide any rights to rapists, now does it?

wtf

floggg wrote: »

Again, the arguments for granting women the right to vote could be fine tuned to support granting 4 year olds the right to vote.

Should we have refused to grant women the right to vote on that basis?

We're sticking to mariage if that's ok.

reprise

floggg wrote: »

Incest supporters?

No, the man woman, legal marriage gig.

conorh91

MrPudding wrote: »

We can distinguish between same-sex and incestuous relationships on the basis that there is no apparent harm to society in same-sex relationships, whereas there are apparent harms in incestuous relationships.

In the early 20th century, a belief that homosexuality threatened to undermine society and the family was so universally subscribed to, that any dissent was considered inflammatory and neurotic.

By the late 20th century, there remained an opinion that homosexuality was a threat that caused jarm to society. Even today, people might reference sexual promiscuity amongst homosexual men and the transmission of HIV-AIDS as an inherent danger disproportionately associated with homosexual sex as against heterosexual sex.

What exactly is the increased societal harm caused by acknowledging the conjugal relationship between two siblings of the same sex?

shruikan2553

reprise wrote: »

wtf



We're sticking to mariage if that's ok.

Originally it was about a referendum but I suppose we'll use your limits instead.

B_Wayne

reprise wrote: »

I give you, the No side.

That's incorrect if you quoted his full post. Same sex relationships are not harmful. While with incestuous relationships have major ethical issues including consent which two gay men/women are unquestionably capable of. Psychological and potential genetic issues as result of relationship are also two other effects.

The negative effect of gay people marrying is nil....

reprise

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Originally it was about a referendum but I suppose we'll use your limits instead.

Yes, the Marriage Equality referendum. Let's stick to er "my" limits.

shruikan2553

reprise wrote: »

Yes, the Marriage Equality referendum. Let's stick to er "my" limits.

Which doesnt prohibit related couples getting married. Happy now?

You never seemed concerned about limits until it suited you.

Annasopra

reprise wrote: »

Yes, the Marriage Equality referendum. Let's stick to er "my" limits.

Ah ok. You can do whataboutery derailing but others can't

reprise

B_Wayne wrote: »

That's incorrect if you quoted his full post. Same sex relationships are not harmful. While with incestuous relationships have major ethical issues including consent which two gay men/women are unquestionably capable of. Psychological and potential genetic issues as result of relationship are also two other effects.

The negative effect of gay people marrying is nil....

Mr.P kindly conceded " that If one can distinguish between the different forms of relationship, then the difference in treatment becomes non-arbitraty, if it ever was arbitrary at all."

I am entitled to conclude that marriage between man and a women fits that very definition quite well and is so catered for in marriage.

reprise

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah ok. You can do whataboutery derailing but others can't

I'm letting you marry your horse aren't I?

WoolyJumper

reprise wrote: »

I am inverting your argument. You are avoiding my question by advancing a bizarre theory that no-one ever consented to incest.



On what grounds? is the de facto child of an incestuous relationship not worthy of married parents and family life?

Look buddy if you want to marry your sister you should start your own campaign. Incestuous marriage is a completely unrelated issue and brining up here serves nothing but to distract from the main issue at hand. If after days of debating the best you can come up with is "but what about incest" "yes side has double standards" "and people are shouting me down" then that says it all really.

Word of advice though, before you begin your campaign to allow incestuous marriage you will have to decriminalise incest first. In that sense legalising same sex marriage won't help you achieve your goals.

reprise

WoolyJumper wrote: »

Look buddy if you want to marry your sister you should start your own campaign. Incestuous marriage is a completely unrelated issue and brining up here is serves nothing but to distract from the main issue at hand. If after days of debating the best you can come up with is "but what about incest" "yes side has double standards" "and people are shouting me down" then that says it all really.

Word of advice though, before you begin your campaign to allow incestuous marriage you will have to decriminalise incest first. In that sense legalising same sex marriage won't help you achieve your goals.

Dude, I'm taken and anyway, the incest thing is no more personally appealing than homosexuality, but the polygamy thing, now there's a thought.....

K4t

conorh91 wrote: »

In the early 20th century, a belief that homosexuality threatened to undermine society and the family was so universally subscribed to, that any dissent was considered inflammatory and neurotic.

And? We have advanced as a society, humanity as advanced. It does that you know, despite religion's best attempts.

By the late 20th century, there remained an opinion that homosexuality was a threat that caused jarm to society. Even today, people might reference sexual promiscuity amongst homosexual men and the transmission of HIV-AIDS as an inherent danger disproportionately associated with homosexual sex as against heterosexual sex.

And people who do are clearly idiots. Unless you conform to the classic conservative argument that "all homosexuals will f**k everything in sight" and have no regard for theirs or anyone else's "sexual health". Give me a break. If the mods did their jobs correctly they wouldn't even give you a platform to spout that homophobic nonsense.

What exactly is the increased societal harm caused by acknowledging the conjugal relationship between two siblings of the same sex?

And now you're equating non-incestuous relationships to incestuous relationships in some crazy attempt to question the right to same sex marriage.. You really have some strange ideas of the world.

Annasopra

reprise wrote: »

I'm letting you marry your horse aren't I?

I thought at one stage you were genuinely interested in discussing this referendum. It seems I was wrong.

WoolyJumper

reprise wrote: »

Dude, I'm taken and anyway, the incest thing is no more personally appealing than homosexuality, but the polygamy thing, now there's a thought.....

Fair enough, I just assumed since you brought it up on a completely unrelated issue. Again though if you want to start a separate campaign for polygamous marriage you should go do that. Now personally I'm more of a one man kind of guy, but each to there own

walshyn93

K4t wrote: »

And now you're equating non-incestuous relationships to incestuous relationships in some crazy attempt to question the right to same sex marriage.. You really have some strange ideas of the world.

It's funny how they change from wanting "marriage equality" to wanting "same sex marriage" based on what argument is put to them.

Some people are still more equal than others it seems.

conorh91

K4t wrote: »

And people who do are clearly idiots. Unless you conform to the classic conservative argument that "all homosexuals will f**k everything in sight" and have no regard for theirs or anyone else's "sexual health". Give me a break. If the mods did their jobs correctly they wouldn't even give you a platform to spout that homophobic nonsense.

I thought you were a big proponent of freedom of expression, K4T; and now you want the mods to come down on someone advancing a perfectly rational point with available evidence.

I am not the one who introduced the concept of societal harm. That, I believe, was Mr Pudding. I am merely pointing out a rather obvious problem with the concept of societal harm: that it can easily be extended to homosexuals on account of public health statistics. I am not saying that it should be, I am saying that this is where the "societal harm" argument leads us.

DeVore

Amazingly I still haven't been answered.

If they cant have kids.. so what?

floggg

reprise wrote: »

wtf



We're sticking to mariage if that's ok.

I see. If the answer undermines your whole argument, just ignore the question. .

Ave Sodalis

walshyn93 wrote: »

It's funny how they change from wanting "marriage equality" to wanting "same sex marriage" based on what argument is put to them.

Some people are still more equal than others it seems.

It's funny how you can't see that SSM is a part of marriage equality and that if other parts want equality, they should fight their own campaign.

silverharp

DeVore wrote: »

Amazingly I still haven't been answered.

If they cant have kids.. so what?

at this stage you might need to clarify "they"? at this stage "they" include siblings , grannies, horses and probably cars and home furnishings

floggg

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah ok. You can do whataboutery derailing but others can't

I object to that. My question wasn't whataboutery.

His was.

reprise

floggg wrote: »

I see. If the answer undermines your whole argument, just ignore the question. .

like this?

floggg wrote: »

So can rape. Doesn't mean we need to provide any rights to rapists, now does it?

Ok, to the best of my knowledge, rapists can marry, just subject to the same rules as everyone else.

What was your point?

reprise

sup_dude wrote: »

It's funny how you can't see that SSM is a part of marriage equality and that if other parts want equality, they should fight their own campaign.

So this isn't about marriage equality at all. That was after all, his point.

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

So this isn't about marriage equality at all. That was after all, his point.

Did you read my post at all?

floggg

reprise wrote: »

like this?



Ok, to the best of my knowledge, rapists can marry, just subject to the same rules as everyone else.

What was your point?

Your argument seemed to be that incest could produce kids so therefore was somehow positive deserving of recognition via marriage.

Just because something produces kids, doesn't mean it's a positive thing.


Care to address the other point? Would you have voted no to women's right to vote in case it lead to 4 year olds voting?
Or tourists present on the day of the election ?

K4t

conorh91 wrote: »

I thought you were a big proponent of freedom of expression, K4T; and now you want the mods to come down on someone advancing a perfectly rational point with available evidence.

I am but you were very close to expressing extremely damaging homophobic views and I don't think boards should be offering a platform for that. It wasn't clear at all that you were simply attempting to advance your point.

I am not the one who introduced the concept of societal harm. That, I believe, was Mr Pudding. I am merely pointing out a rather obvious problem with the concept of societal harm: that it can easily be extended to homosexuals on account of public health statistics. I am not saying that it should be, I am saying that this is where the "societal harm" argument leads us.

And likewise societal harm could lead us to the amount of calls to child line from children of mother father marriages each year. 'Societal harm' can be used to suit any and all arguments. Why not stick to the issue of same sex marriage? And I apologise for accusing you of being homophobic if it came across that way.

conorh91

K4t wrote: »

I am but you were very close to expressing extremely damaging homophobic views and I don't think boards should be offering a platform for that.

The last time I debated something with you, you told me you favoured "absolute" free speech. Now you don't think I should be allowed refer to public health studies indicating public health concerns relevant to homosexuals which, to the credit of gay advocacy services, they fully engage with and acknowledge as part of their public health commitments.

Sounds like you are burying your head in the sand.

Societal harm' can be used to suit any and all arguments.

Exactly. Which is why I think it undermines the anti-incest argument

So, lets get back to investigating the consistency here. Why impose our values on one set of conjugal partners (homosexual brothers) and not others (homosexual non-relatives)?