Some Thoughts on the Referendum

myons1 · 20-05-2015 3:55pm #1

My purpose is to address those with uncertainty about the upcoming marriage referendum on Friday (22nd May), of any kind, and to any degree – which I expect should be anyone who is not 100% certain about how they will vote (or not vote as the case may be). Anyone who is this certain I cannot expect this piece to have any bearing on – still you might find it a worthwhile read in any case. Although in particular I wish to address those in a position to vote, I invite anyone who has already elected to read this far to continue, as it should hopefully provide a basis for a lot of significant thinking.

Part 1 – Preliminaries

1.I. Should you bother reading this?

Regardless of whether you are currently sympathetic to the ‘Yes’ campaign, or to the ‘No’ campaign, or too confused/unsure to be so to either, I think it’s important to put as much critical thinking into how you decide to vote (or indeed into deciding whether to vote) as possible. At the very least, it certainly seems important irrespective of what stance you have to make an active decision to either vote ‘Yes’, vote ‘No’, or not to vote at all.

If you end up not voting at all without deciding to, it seems undoubtedly obvious that whatever the outcome, you will either continue not to care sufficiently about the issues, or you will come to regret not contributing to the result either way (even an active abstention would qualify), which must surely be worse than the possibility of regretting which decision you make, since at least then you would have considered it? So unless you are somehow certain you will never care enough to think about it, in which case it’s very unlikely that you’ll have even seen this, let alone have read to this point, it seems at least sensible to consider making a decision about the referendum. Moreover, if it’s worth making a decision at all, it seems indubitable that the decision ought to be what you would deem the most reasonable whilst as informed as necessary.

I will not be addressing the religious approach to the issues at hand for three reasons:

1) I am insufficiently equipped to do so adequately. My methodology will be philosophically minded, rather than religiously.

2) There are number of advocates of both the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns already speaking out who if not sufficiently equipped are far more equipped than I to consider the issues from a religious perspective.

3) The issues do not feature within the religious domain alone. As such, I hope that anything I might have to say on the matter can be considered in the context of any religious considerations, such that any further mention of religion will serve no particular purpose.

This will end up being a rather long piece, but I think by being so it should at least provide a sufficiently balanced platform to consider the referendum on a reasonable and unbiased basis, regardless of what position you might have on the issues already. My intention is to neither advocate prejudice, nor assume it at any point. I will also not be making any emotional appeals on anyone’s behalf. So in that light, I hope to consider the matter completely from scratch, withholding all of my own opinions and intuitions, up until the point at least it might be appropriate to reveal them. I accept that certain assumptions will have to be made for the sake of expediency, though I hope you will agree that they are reasonable ones to make.

1.II. Should you vote?

First of all, assuming now that you ought to make a decision about the referendum, you need to decide whether to vote or not. Again I think, irrespective of your current position on the issue, it seems like the most sensible approach to take is to consider the issues with a view to make a vote. It seems like the only reasonable basis to decide to abstain from voting (assuming you are in a position to do so), is that there are no arguments that convince you that it’s best to vote either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, and so you cannot decide which is the more reasonable vote to make. Even if you disagreed with whatever either vote would entail, it seems unlikely that you could disagree to the exact same degree with each vote (I for one cannot see how that could be). Even if you disagreed with the institution of marriage as a whole, unless your purpose is to minimise the number of marriages that take place (and if it is, voting ‘No’ does not seem to be exactly the most appropriate or effective method to do so), this point of disagreement has no relevance to the genuine question at hand. The continuation of the practice of marriage is not subject to debate here. In any case, I honestly think that the only way you can establish either to be the case is if you have pursued and engaged with all the reasonable arguments on both sides of the debate. So on this basis alone, it may be worth at least deciding to try to make a decision to vote either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.

Moreover, there do seem to be some very good reasons to vote. It seems reasonably clear that whatever the result of the referendum, it’s unlikely to directly result in the immediate moral destruction of the marriage institution and/or subsequently society as a whole, or indeed in solving all the problems within either. Nevertheless, it seems equally clear that the result of this referendum can nevertheless act as a stepping stone in either direction towards either result, whatever significance it ends up having.

There’s no certainty about what will happen afterwards, but what is certain now is this: those who are in a position to vote are fortunate enough to be given the opportunity to have a say that will be of equal weight to everyone else’s who can vote on this issue in Ireland. So even if you aren’t sure if you will ever be able to make up your mind, the possibility to have your voice heard on an issue that may be of historical importance is too good an opportunity to miss.

Since no one has voted yet, there is absolutely no certainty on the outcome of the referendum, no matter what the polls might say. You need only look at the UK’s most recent general election to support this view. I think therefore that you should at least proceed with the intention to vote. For should you make your mind up either way, it seems important to do what you can to make sure you get an input on how Ireland proceeds on this matter.

Part 2: How Should You Vote?

2.I. On the case for voting ‘Yes’

Perhaps interestingly enough, one does not need to spend a lot of time going over the arguments in favour of the ‘Yes’ vote. If one values and respects the individual’s freedom to live one’s own life according to one’s values, so long as they do not harmfully impact the lives of others, it seems suitable to respect an individual’s freedom to get married irrespective of their gender and sexual orientation. You might not accept this principle, but given how it seems to sit as a core foundation of Irish society (and indeed Western society in general), there does not seem a need to defend it here. Even it you disagree with this ‘harm principle’, it’s difficult to understand how one could fail to at least see the motivation behind it, and subsequently the motivation behind the ‘Yes’ campaign.

All things being equal, voting ‘Yes’ would be voting in favour of allowing a couple, who are in love enough to make a life-long commitment to one another, to make themselves recognised legally as one family unit through the institution of marriage, without this legal recognition being dependent on their sexual orientation. This institution is one that ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ voters alike deem to be a valuable one.

So it seems almost transparently evident that, if you ignore the case in favour of the ‘No’ vote, and accept for the most part what forms the rest of the content of the Irish constitution, and indeed what might be said to constitute ‘common-sense morality’, the reasonable default position may be to vote ‘Yes’, simply because it provides people in loving relationships the freedom to have it recognised in law with a status that would not be provided otherwise. Whilst there is the opportunity to form civil partnerships, this opportunity by necessity of its very purpose and nature must be of an unequal status to marriage – for if it were equal, the only purpose for it would be to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and discriminating in such a way by definition is not exactly conducive to equal treatment.

Now a ‘No’ voter will undoubtedly take issue with the basic case presented here in favour of the ‘Yes’ vote, and perhaps will disagree with the view that the ‘Yes’ vote ought to be treated as the default position. However, the rationale for doing so would be on the basis of arguments in favour of the ‘No’ vote case. Were the situation to be reverse, and the ‘No’ vote were taken to be the default position, for instance because the ‘No’ vote represented the constitutional status quo, defenders of the ‘Yes’ campaign are likely to contest the claims that the ‘No’ campaigners rely upon.

Whilst there may be some who might argue that giving individuals the freedom to marry the person they love is not inherently a good thing, given how the ‘No’ vote is a direct act of wishing to defend certain features of the institution of marriage, it’s reasonable to take it as an implicit defence of the marriage institution itself, which seems to rely on the notion that marrying the person you love is a good idea. In short, since there is no fundamental disagreement between the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaigns on whether marriage is a good thing, and the principal motivation behind voting ‘Yes’ is simply to provide more people the opportunity to get married, then it seems the crux of the issue seems to truly lie on whether or not there are problems with disregarding gender and sexual orientation, and if so, are they sufficiently significant that a ‘No’ vote is more reasonable. In other words, the question of whether to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ depends entirely on the plausibility of the case for voting ‘No’.

2.II On the case for voting ‘No’

So the motivation for voting ‘No’ does not seem to be down to any particular problem with same-sex couples inherently being happily married, rather what direct implications it might have for the meaning of marriage, and for everyone as a whole. Whilst there will be those opposed to this prospect inherently, it seems as if the basis for being so would make them also be inherently opposed to civil partnerships. This however is not the issue at hand, and to treat it as such would seem to be on no other basis than a perceived need to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

All the same, one can still be committed to a harm principle, I.e. that everyone should have the freedom to do whatever they wish with their lives so long as it does not harm others, and nevertheless be motivated to vote ‘No’, as the prospect of an overall ‘Yes’ result might be seen to be harmful. Not only does this seem to constitute the core motivation behind the ‘No’ case, but also since this potential harm seems to be taken to be a significant one, it seems to provide a strong level of motivation to those sympathetic to the ‘No’ campaign. So what is this harm?

The referendum at its most specific level concerns Article 41 of the Irish constitution, which describes the Family as the “natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society” (41.1.1). Whilst this is not disputed by the ‘Yes’ voters, the referendum is undoubtedly a question of understanding this definition of family, assuming its dependence on the definition of marriage. According to the ‘No’ campaign, allowing same-sex couples to marry would be not just altering this definition, but undermining it, to the point where an overall ‘Yes’ result would result in a kind of attack on the marriage and family institutions themselves. Since according to 41.3.1, the State has pledged to “guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack”, voting ‘Yes’ would not only be harmful, but even in fact unconstitutional.

If these claims made by the ‘No’ campaign are correct, then it would definitely seem like the most reasonable thing to do would be to vote ‘No’. If a ‘Yes’ result would constitute an attack on the institutions of marriage and family, and the State (and its members naturally) ought to protect these institutions from attack, then it seems to immediately follow that one ought to prevent an overall ‘Yes’ result, and therefore ought to vote ‘No’. So the real question that has to be answered in order to determine how to vote in this referendum seems to be: does altering the definition of marriage, and subsequently family, constitute an attack on either institution in any sense? Though I accept that there are other arguments in favour of the ‘No’ vote that don’t seem to depend on this question directly, it does nevertheless seem as if the viability of these arguments will entirely depend on an answer to this question.

For instance, the ‘No’ campaign object to same-sex relationships and marriages being discussed in school lessons, on the basis of wishing to “keep ideology out of schools”. Whether it is appropriate for same-sex relationships and marriages to be discussed as an accepted practice in schools seems to be dependent on whether the practice itself is appropriate. As entitled as parents are to believe what they like, it seems only appropriate to accommodate certain beliefs when it is reasonable to. If the practice of same-sex relationships and marriages is appropriate, then preventing discussion about them in schools because some parents incorrectly believe the practice to be inappropriate or wrong cannot be reasonable. For it cannot be any more reasonable than preventing discussion of romantic relationships and marriages of any kind in school because some parents incorrectly believe that the practice of romantic relationships or marriages or any kind is for some reason inappropriate or wrong. Since preventing discussion of marriages of any kind in school seems completely unwarranted, so must it be for discussions of same-sex marriage, unless there is something problematic about same-sex marriage in particular.

This brings us back to the question at hand: does altering the definition of marriage, and subsequently family, to allow same-sex marriage to exist, constitute an attack on either institution in any sense? In order to answer this question, it seems like we need to determine how both marriage and family ought to be defined.

2.II.I. How should ‘marriage’ be defined’?

So according to the ‘No’ voters, aside from the other necessary conditions, a marriage should be between a man and a woman. Why should we think this is true? The first step to answering this question might to be to understand the precise nature of this requirement, before considering whether the requirement itself is warranted. So first of all, what specifically is being required here for marriages to consist of a man and a woman? At the primary level, it seems what determines whether you are a man or a woman is whether you have a Y-chromosome. This however does not specifically seem to be relevant to the issue of marriage. If it were the case that our entire understanding of DNA is incorrect, that would not have any particular impact on the debate. Were the world such that women possessed Y-chromosomes and men didn’t, or even that we all shared the same chromosomes, that still wouldn’t necessarily prevent this debate taking place – our biological structure might just have been slightly different. In any case, we certainly do not require grooms to prove their possession of a Y-chromosome or brides their lack thereof during a wedding ceremony.

So if it’s not specifically about our DNA, then perhaps it’s about what particular organs we possess? Equally however, although in certain cases it might be more visible than in others, it does not seem to be the case that we specifically require proof of possession of any particular organ or set of organs in any particular combination for a wedding to take place either. If a man or woman happens to have been born without certain organs that might be expected of their sex, or perhaps with additional unexpected organs, or else suffer some misfortune along the way that might cause them to lose any and/or all of these organs, that does not seem to have any impact on their ability to identify as a man or a woman, and subsequently their ability to marry or be married to another person. Or indeed, if an already married person for whatever reason finds himself/herself with a different combination of organs than the one they started their marriage with, having not consented to the matter, for instance as a result of an accident, that doesn’t immediately by necessity put their marriage by definition into question.

Even if this were the case, and the legitimacy of a marriage depended upon the allocation of certain organs between the two parties, technological advances are making it more and more possible for acquisition and removal of the relevant organs to take place. So even if somehow this was the genuine point of objection to the ‘Yes’ vote, then all that would be required is for either same-sex couples or couples with an excess or deficiency of the necessary organs to have the relevant surgery to result in the required distribution of organs to make it possible for them to be married. Even if this could not be implemented on a mass scale now, there’s no reason why perhaps it couldn’t be in the future. On the one hand, this would certainly be a ridiculous demand to consider putting on to people, but on the other, it would seem to be a rather arbitrary – for the status of being married in itself does not seem to require the usage of any particular organs.

Nevertheless, even if ‘No’ voters fully agreed with these points, they might nevertheless argue that it is a requirement for the two parties wishing to be married to identify as a man and a woman. So in other words, it’s not just a biological requirement on the definition of marriage specifically, but a social one. Given that the discussion at hand concerns a social institution, a social requirement for the definition of marriage seems by far to make the most sense.

So why might there be even this requirement for the two parties to identify as a man and a woman? To answer this question, it looks like a closer look at what the social significance is of identifying as a certain gender. I don’t think it will be required here to go over the social differences between men and women, for two reasons. First of all, it is somewhat obvious that Irish society is governed with social conventions about how men and women do and ought to behave. Secondly, in spite of these expected differences, no two people are the same, whatever their sex or gender may be, and there seems to be nothing impossible about any person having any particular personality trait or behaving in any particular way. No conceptual contradiction is generated from a man with supposedly ‘feminine’ qualities, or from a woman with supposedly ‘masculine’ qualities. An important consequent of this for the discussion at hand is that no two relationships as a result are the same. Equally, for a relationship to be a permanently happy one, it does not seem to be a prerequisite for there to be a specific distribution of personal qualities.

Again a ‘No’ voter might be perfectly happy to accept this, but nevertheless still insist that the two parties must identify as a man and a woman. It does not look like this could be justified on the grounds of some necessary distribution of social practices across the two parties for their marriage to thrive. Whilst this might seem obvious, as it’s not in question here whether same-sex couples are conceptually capable of permanently happy relationships (otherwise there wouldn’t be a need for civil partnerships in the first place), it is indicative of something significant: the grounds for objecting to same-sex marriage does not concern the nature or the functionality of the relationship between the couple.

So then in order to defend the requirement for two parties to be a man and a woman to be married, the argument must be to do with something other than their relationship. Since married couples are not at least conceptually required to interact with others in any substantial way, it doesn’t seem as if the requirement can have anything to with their public status. However, there is a third alternative – ‘the family’. Whilst the argument may not have to do with the relationship between the two parties themselves, or their relation to society in general, it may be down to a conceptually expected relation to potential children. Even if same-sex couples never intend to have children, it could be argued that the practice of getting married is there to provide a foundation for a family unit. If a same-sex couple cannot or should not constitute a family unit, with or without children, then it may be argued that marriage’s definition ought not to be changed. So the question of whether or not changing the definition of marriage would be of any harm seems entirely dependent on how the family should be defined. Perhaps it’s not that marriage requires a husband and wife, but instead a potential father and mother.

2.II.II How should ‘family’ be defined?

To start with, it might seem like perhaps asking for a definition of ‘family’ is a redundant one, since I expect a number of us grew up in one. However, what we really need to be asking here is what is it about families that makes them families? What do families have that would otherwise make them fail to be a family if they lacked it?

At first, one might think that a family by definition needs parents and children. However, in response one might ask the following: Are couples who are unwilling or unable to have children in any sense less of a ‘family unit’, than those that do have children? In order to answer this question, it might be worth considering the schematics of a family. Now, it goes without saying that the traditional family is one featuring a man and woman married to one another, and their biological child/children. However, there are plenty of ways in which a family might not fit this particular model. It might include additional members, who may or may not be blood relatives, there may be no biological children to include at all, but instead adopted ones. It does not seem problematic to ‘No’ voters to consider such deviations to the traditional model as family units. However, it does seem as though there are two pertinent questions that arise here:

1) Should a household formed by just a couple be considered a family unit?

2) Does the gender of the married (or else would-be-married) couple have any relevance to the question of whether they constitute a family unit?

Whilst we might all agree that the ideal circumstances for a child to be born into is a family formed by a marriage (though it might not necessarily be the case that these always are the ideal circumstances), that doesn’t seem to make couples without children ‘not a family’, or ‘only a family in a different sense’. Why might couples without children be a family? For the most part, because the presence of both parents and biological children in one household alone does not seem to be sufficient for the existence of a family. For if each member of the family led a completely separate existence from all the other members of the family, apart from the fact that they all share a roof, this group would not seem to be a family in a usual sense. It might still be sensible to call them a family on biological grounds, but this is not the social institution that requires protection here. They would not have ‘family trips/days out’ or have ‘family meetings’; one could not say that they ‘act like a family’ or ‘live as a family’. So in this respect it makes little sense to consider them a family at all.

What does this indicate about how a family should be defined? It seems as if it indicates that the definition should not be a question of who are the members (or else would-be-members), but how they are socially related to each other. Whilst we can discuss relatives in a purely biological sense, for someone to be a social relative seems to be something else entirely. To be a sibling, parent, son or daughter in this social sense might be said instead to be a result of love. To be a sister is to love as a sister, to be a son is to love as a son, and to be a mother is to love as a mother. This is not just a question of sentiment; all family members have different kinds of responsibility to one another. Whilst there is certainly far more to families than what I can describe here, they all nevertheless seem to be founded on love. Again, it seems that since the family is meant to be a social institution, the necessary conditions for its existence should also be purely social in nature. In this respect, given how this relational definition of family seems to be most plausible, it looks reasonable to argue that a family need not include children, but only the love and companionship that keeps it together. So a couple may acknowledge themselves as a family solely in virtue of getting married, without necessarily the intention of having any children.

If this argument were rejected, and a marriage were assumed to be a foundation for forming a family with children, a ‘No’ voter would still be in a position to defend the relevance of gender; they could insist that all children should have a father and a mother, and therefore same-sex couples should not be married. How might they do so? The most appropriate way is to claim that mothers and fathers have conceptually different roles in the family, and that each needs to be filled by a certain gender. This is where the case for the ‘No’ vote seems to be at its strongest, as it is at this point where the ‘No’ voter can point to the importance of every child having the opportunity to have a father and a mother, which in their view would be conceptually undermined by the existence of same-sex marriage. This point is somewhat weakened by the acceptance of single-parent families in society, since it undermines the view that two parents are required, let alone two parents of different genders. Nevertheless it does not diminish the point entirely, for a ‘No’ voter might well still argue that even if single-parent families ought not to be legislated against, the inclusion of same-sex marriage would conceptually undermine the importance of a father and mother to a child.

So if you insist that marriage is by definition a foundation for having a family with children, the ultimate hinging point of the entire referendum debate will seem to end up based on the following question: do children need ideally a father and a mother? In order to answer this question, again it seems like one ought to examine what it means to be a father or a mother. One should also keep in mind that again, no two relationships are the same, even between a parent and child. Given also that the arguments already applied for what a happy and permanent romantic relationship requires (i.e. love) seem equally fitting to the parent-child relationship, it seems like we should conclude that there are no specific and particular personal qualities that are conceptually necessary to be an ideal parent. Whatever specific and particular qualities one might have before having a child, one can temper those that might need to be tempered, and foster those that might be helpful.

Even still, a ‘No’ voter might argue that even if there are no specific personal qualities required to be a mother or a father, there are nevertheless certain responsibilities to a child that only a mother or father can fulfil. If this were true, and marriage were necessarily a foundation for forming families with children, then the case for the ‘No’ vote would still stand. Interestingly enough though, I have yet to encounter in the ‘No’ campaign any particular responsibilities or duties that a father is ideally meant to fulfil that a mother cannot fulfil, nor do I think they exist. Mothers can provide financially, and they can participate in what might be called ‘masculine’ activities – this is as far as the specifically paternal duties seem to go. One might possibly consider having a parent of the same gender (or of the opposite gender) as oneself some kind of benefit, so that one can have a role model one can relate to (or else one that represents the ideal qualities of the opposite gender). However, the need to have either kind of role model presupposes that only an individual of a certain gender can demonstrate the ideal qualities of that gender, which does not seem warranted. In spite of this, a ‘No’ voter might (and indeed does often) stress that there are certain responsibilities that a mother would ideally fulfil rather than a father – those that are usually associated with being a child’s primary caregiver. Why is a mother ideal? The potential answer seems to be more than anything due to how humans have evolved. It could be more than just a matter of possessing certain bodily organs – one might even go as far as to claim the existence of a ‘maternal instinct’ that mothers possess and fathers do not.

This all being said, a ‘Yes’ voter might even agree with all of this – except on one implicit point: need ‘mothers’ be women? Yes, it might be accepted that women have evolved to be primed for primary caregiving, but does this mean that a woman is always an ideal primary caregiver over a man? To mother as primary caregiver is to be more than just a woman loving a baby. To mother as primary caregiver is to be the one above all others who brings up the child, who is there to look after the child, and be there for the child more than anyone else is. If you argue that one parent has to spend more time managing the upbringing of the child than the other, as opposed to equal division of upbringing management, and therefore deny the possibility of a child having two primary caregivers, there seems to be nothing about the primary caregiving role that requires the lack of a Y-chromosome, possession of certain bodily organs, or identifying as a woman. Even if, from a evolutionary perspective, women might be said on the whole to make better primary caregivers than men, there does not seem to be any conceptual reason to believe that no one can mother better than a mother. In some heterosexual cases, the couple decide that the man is best suited to be primary caregiver on this basis.

‘No’ voters may still hold concerns on the matter of surrogacy, and the supposed right of same-sex parents to be provided with children, which a ‘Yes’ vote would provide. This is however not at issue here: the state will be no more required to provide the means for same-sex couples to have children than they are the means for heterosexual couples with fertility problems to have children. Being unmarried does not prevent a same-sex couple from availing of surrogacy. So irrespective of whether you are equally opposed to surrogacy as a whole, or how it is managed in practice in Ireland, this does not constitute a genuine objection, since this does not seem directly to be at issue. Even if one wished to selectively deny surrogacy or adoption solely to same-sex couples, which would be made impossible with an overall ‘Yes’ result, there cannot be a reasonable basis for this wish without some significant flaw in the arguments already presented here.

Given this discussion of what makes a family a family, i.e. the relations between members rather than the members themselves, it seems to make most sense to think that the position of the two parents need not be gender specific, since there is still no reason to conclude that a child’s parents must be a man and a woman. In which case, there seems to be no good reason to think that the relational account of family I have suggested here is not the most appropriate, and indeed it seems preferable to a biologically grounded one. It allows for families to be founded on love without blood relations, as many of the best kinds are.

Since what I think the best definition of family is not at all undermined by same-sex marriage, and therefore the definition of marriage is not either, I do not think there is any reason to consider same-sex marriage to be unconstitutional. It’s just another one of many ways for a marriage and the family it builds to be different, special, but a marriage and family nevertheless.

Part 3 – Conclusion

All in all, what I have hoped to have done is to have critically engaged with the best reasons in favour of the ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ campaign. I have concluded that not only should you aim to vote on Friday, but, since giving people the freedom to marry when they couldn’t otherwise is a good thing, and since same-sex marriages would not change the definition of marriage or family in any problematic way, the most reasonable way to vote is to vote ‘Yes’. If there is no way to defend the ‘No’ vote, voting ‘No’ will be denying many Irish people their right to marry the love of their life.

Now, I fully accept that while I made my best efforts to argue without any kind of prejudice, and on a purely impartial basis, considering only the arguments at face value, I have no means by which to claim with certainty that I wrote up this piece without any bias whatsoever. Even so, unless there’s something about what I wrote that you have good reasons to disagree with, I think the case I made eventually in favour of the ‘Yes’ vote stands on its own. So unless you can formulate or else present a viable counter argument, you should vote ‘Yes’ on Friday. To those who still think that they should vote ‘No’, or are simply not fully convinced, I urge you to reflect, discuss, and try and identify where my arguments are problematic. If you can’t, I implore you to vote yes.

Geniass · 20-05-2015 3:57pm

WTL/DR

W = WAY

MagicMarker · 20-05-2015 3:57pm

I can safely say, tl;dr.

myons1 · 20-05-2015 4:28pm

First of all, thank you to both you for the comments.

Secondly, whilst I certainly appreciate that it's a lengthy read, perhaps if you read a little you might understand the motivation for it being so.

Godge · 20-05-2015 4:30pm

myons1 wrote: »

Even still, a ‘No’ voter might argue that even if there are no specific personal qualities required to be a mother or a father, there are nevertheless certain responsibilities to a child that only a mother or father can fulfil. If this were true, and marriage were necessarily a foundation for forming families with children, then the case for the ‘No’ vote would still stand. Interestingly enough though, I have yet to encounter in the ‘No’ campaign any particular responsibilities or duties that a father is ideally meant to fulfil that a mother cannot fulfil, nor do I think they exist. Mothers can provide financially, and they can participate in what might be called ‘masculine’ activities – this is as far as the specifically paternal duties seem to go. One might possibly consider having a parent of the same gender (or of the opposite gender) as oneself some kind of benefit, so that one can have a role model one can relate to (or else one that represents the ideal qualities of the opposite gender). However, the need to have either kind of role model presupposes that only an individual of a certain gender can demonstrate the ideal qualities of that gender, which does not seem warranted. In spite of this, a ‘No’ voter might (and indeed does often) stress that there are certain responsibilities that a mother would ideally fulfil rather than a father – those that are usually associated with being a child’s primary caregiver. Why is a mother ideal? The potential answer seems to be more than anything due to how humans have evolved. It could be more than just a matter of possessing certain bodily organs – one might even go as far as to claim the existence of a ‘maternal instinct’ that mothers possess and fathers do not.

This all being said, a ‘Yes’ voter might even agree with all of this – except on one implicit point: need ‘mothers’ be women? Yes, it might be accepted that women have evolved to be primed for primary caregiving, but does this mean that a woman is always an ideal primary caregiver over a man? To mother as primary caregiver is to be more than just a woman loving a baby. To mother as primary caregiver is to be the one above all others who brings up the child, who is there to look after the child, and be there for the child more than anyone else is. If you argue that one parent has to spend more time managing the upbringing of the child than the other, as opposed to equal division of upbringing management, and therefore deny the possibility of a child having two primary caregivers, there seems to be nothing about the primary caregiving role that requires the lack of a Y-chromosome, possession of certain bodily organs, or identifying as a woman. Even if, from a evolutionary perspective, women might be said on the whole to make better primary caregivers than men, there does not seem to be any conceptual reason to believe that no one can mother better than a mother. In some heterosexual cases, the couple decide that the man is best suited to be primary caregiver on this basis.

‘No’ voters may still hold concerns on the matter of surrogacy, and the supposed right of same-sex parents to be provided with children, which a ‘Yes’ vote would provide. This is however not at issue here: the state will be no more required to provide the means for same-sex couples to have children than they are the means for heterosexual couples with fertility problems to have children. Being unmarried does not prevent a same-sex couple from availing of surrogacy. So irrespective of whether you are equally opposed to surrogacy as a whole, or how it is managed in practice in Ireland, this does not constitute a genuine objection, since this does not seem directly to be at issue. Even if one wished to selectively deny surrogacy or adoption solely to same-sex couples, which would be made impossible with an overall ‘Yes’ result, there cannot be a reasonable basis for this wish without some significant flaw in the arguments already presented here.

Given this discussion of what makes a family a family, i.e. the relations between members rather than the members themselves, it seems to make most sense to think that the position of the two parents need not be gender specific, since there is still no reason to conclude that a child’s parents must be a man and a woman. In which case, there seems to be no good reason to think that the relational account of family I have suggested here is not the most appropriate, and indeed it seems preferable to a biologically grounded one. It allows for families to be founded on love without blood relations, as many of the best kinds are.
.

You have tried to be comprehensive but you have missed one obvious role a mother can do which a father can't - breastfeed.

myons1 · 20-05-2015 4:46pm

Godge wrote: »

You have tried to be comprehensive but you have missed one obvious role a mother can do which a father can't - breastfeed.

Many thanks for the comment Godge.

Given that my account of motherhood that I advocated did not require a mother to be capable of breast feeding, I didn't consider it necessary to bring the matter up.

I take it however that you consider it to be a significant point? Is there any chance you would be able to explain why you take it to be so?

I imagine that you won't argue that a mother who cannot breastfeed cannot be a mother at all, but perhaps you might argue that there's something about the ability to breastfeed that's nevertheless important. I think however technically at least in theory since it's possible for men to lactate, breast feeding is not conceptually impossible either.

However you might consider there something significant about the social practice of breast feeding? Even still I might just have concerns about whether we ought to consider breast feeding a duty or responsibility of a mother.

As far as I can tell at least, there's no conceptual reason why you cannot be an ideal mother who chooses not to breastfeed for instance.

If you could articulate your point further I would greatly appreciate it though. Thanks again for the comment anyway.

Geniass · 20-05-2015 5:21pm

myons1 wrote: »

Many thanks for the comment Godge.

Given that my account of motherhood that I advocated did not require a mother to be capable of breast feeding, I didn't consider it necessary to bring the matter up.

I take it however that you consider it to be a significant point? Is there any chance you would be able to explain why you take it to be so?

I imagine that you won't argue that a mother who cannot breastfeed cannot be a mother at all, but perhaps you might argue that there's something about the ability to breastfeed that's nevertheless important. I think however technically at least in theory since it's possible for men to lactate, breast feeding is not conceptually impossible either.

However you might consider there something significant about the social practice of breast feeding? Even still I might just have concerns about whether we ought to consider breast feeding a duty or responsibility of a mother.

As far as I can tell at least, there's no conceptual reason why you cannot be an ideal mother who chooses not to breastfeed for instance.

If you could articulate your point further I would greatly appreciate it though. Thanks again for the comment anyway.

Seriously, I'm a 100% yes voter, and think breast feeding is irrelevant to the referendum. However, to deny the importance of breastfeeding is an incredibly stupid stand point.

Oh, and I did start to read your opus, but gave up when it didn't seem to be worth the effort.

BoJack Horseman · 20-05-2015 5:27pm

Brevity is underrated.

Godge · 20-05-2015 6:02pm

myons1 wrote: »

Many thanks for the comment Godge.

Given that my account of motherhood that I advocated did not require a mother to be capable of breast feeding, I didn't consider it necessary to bring the matter up.

I take it however that you consider it to be a significant point? Is there any chance you would be able to explain why you take it to be so?

I imagine that you won't argue that a mother who cannot breastfeed cannot be a mother at all, but perhaps you might argue that there's something about the ability to breastfeed that's nevertheless important. I think however technically at least in theory since it's possible for men to lactate, breast feeding is not conceptually impossible either.

However you might consider there something significant about the social practice of breast feeding? Even still I might just have concerns about whether we ought to consider breast feeding a duty or responsibility of a mother.

As far as I can tell at least, there's no conceptual reason why you cannot be an ideal mother who chooses not to breastfeed for instance.

If you could articulate your point further I would greatly appreciate it though. Thanks again for the comment anyway.

If you don't understand the importance of breastfeeding for child nutrition and health, I can't help you.

myons1 · 20-05-2015 7:25pm

Geniass wrote: »

Seriously, I'm a 100% yes voter, and think breast feeding is irrelevant to the referendum. However, to deny the importance of breastfeeding is an incredibly stupid stand point.

Oh, and I did start to read your opus, but gave up when it didn't seem to be worth the effort.

Many thanks for the comment Geniass. I actually hoped that my response could stand without denying the importance of breast feeding, and so I took myself not to be making this denial. However, it does seem as if I have given that impression - is there any chance you could explain where specifically this impression came from? That would be of great help.

myons1 · 20-05-2015 7:28pm

Godge wrote: »

If you don't understand the importance of breastfeeding for child nutrition and health, I can't help you.

Many thanks for the response Godge. I guess what I said in response to Geniass applies here as well - is there any chance you could elaborate on why the view that breast feeding is important is inconsistent with the points I was considering in my original response?
I certainly wouldn't wish to deny that breast feeding is important. Thanks again for the comments.

Geniass · 20-05-2015 7:39pm

myons1 wrote: »

but perhaps you might argue that there's something about the ability to breastfeed that's nevertheless important.

However you might consider there something significant about the social practice of breast feeding? Even still I might just have concerns about whether we ought to consider breast feeding a duty or responsibility of a mother.

As far as I can tell at least, there's no conceptual reason why you cannot be an ideal mother who chooses not to breastfeed for instance.

Breastfeeding is the ideal if possible. That's just nature, fact.

You're also using very emotive language, such as ideal (in the context you used it) and responsibility.

myons1 wrote: »

I think however technically at least in theory since it's possible for men to lactate, breast feeding is not conceptually impossible either.

That's just a bizarre comment. I think of only one case where a man was documented as breastfeeding. That was in an extreme case and noteworthy by the fact it was unique. (maybe there are other instances, but they are inconsequential)

tipparetops · 20-05-2015 7:48pm

Geniass wrote: »

Breastfeeding is the ideal if possible. That's just nature, fact.

You're also using very emotive language, such as ideal (in the context you used it) and responsibility.

That's just a bizarre comment. I think of only one case where a man was documented as breastfeeding. That was in an extreme case and noteworthy by the fact it was unique. (maybe there are other instances, but they are inconsequential)

most women do not breast feed, fact.
there is a high chance you were bottled.

breast vs bottle is a debate that has no answer. fact.

Geniass · 20-05-2015 8:04pm

tipparetops wrote: »

most women do not breast feed, fact.
there is a high chance you were bottled.

breast vs bottle is a debate that has no answer. fact.

I was bottle fed. What has that to do with anything?

Fact means a different thing to you I take it. Even Ireland, which has low breast feeding rate, has 56% of respondents that breastfed their baby at some stage. In Europe it is closer to 90%. Can you imagine it being lower than that in poorer countries?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/ireland-has-worlds-lowest-rate-for-breastfeeding-30912066.html

As to your other fact, really. Children have evolved to be fed from the breast and be breast fed.

Not sure why we're having this debate, but there you go.

tipparetops · 20-05-2015 8:10pm

56%. Priceless. You know the line about stats. Replace Fact with reality if it helps.

Geniass · 20-05-2015 8:10pm

tipparetops wrote: »

56%. Priceless. You know the line about stats. Replace Fact with reality if it helps.

Run along now, it's nearly bed time.

tipparetops · 20-05-2015 8:13pm

Geniass wrote: »

Run along now, it's nearly bed time.[/QUOTE

but its breakfast time back home.
as i said priceless. 56%.
lols

bpmurray · 20-05-2015 8:17pm

tipparetops wrote: »

most women do not breast feed, fact.
there is a high chance you were bottled.

breast vs bottle is a debate that has no answer. fact.

Actually that's incorrect. The vast majority of women do indeed breastfeed. I think you meant to say "most women in Ireland do not breast feed"

And clearly you haven't hear of colostrom.

Geniass · 20-05-2015 8:19pm

tipparetops wrote: »

but its breakfast time back home.
as i said priceless. 56%.
lols

You're from Tip, so I'll break it down for you in bite size pieces.

56% is greater than 50%.
Anything above 50% is greater than the remainder.
You said most (meaning more than 50%) of women don't breastfeed.
The linked article quotes 56% of Irish women breastfeeding their children.
Therefore More women breastfeed than don't.

If figures intimidate you, that's okay. Just let the rest of us run the country for you. We'll make sure plenty of daysul makes it's way to Tip so you'll be able to run the tractor.

Geniass · 20-05-2015 8:22pm

bpmurray wrote: »

I think you meant to say "most women in Ireland do not breast feed"

Even in Ireland more women do than don't. I'd mention the percentage again, but it makes our Tip friend a bit giddy, and his mum might need to put him to bed.

tipparetops · 20-05-2015 8:24pm

bpmurray wrote: »

Actually that's incorrect. The vast majority of women do indeed breastfeed. I think you meant to say "most women in Ireland do not breast feed"

But i live in Ireland.
Where do you live.
If the answer is Ireland, do you talk about all issues from an international viewpoint.

tipparetops · 20-05-2015 8:29pm

Geniass wrote: »

You're from Tip, so I'll break it down for you in bite size pieces.

56% is greater than 50%.
Anything above 50% is greater than the remainder.
You said most (meaning more than 50%) of women don't breastfeed.
The linked article quotes 56% of Irish women breastfeeding their children.
Therefore More women breastfeed than don't.

If figures intimidate you, that's okay. Just let the rest of us run the country for you. We'll make sure plenty of daysul makes it's way to Tip so you'll be able to run the tractor.

Enda, is that you. Dublin sure has changed you.

bpmurray · 20-05-2015 8:33pm

I tried to read it but it's definitely much tl;dr. I think you're right when you say that the Yes side doesn't need much explanation, but then you go on and on and on about loopy stuff the No side claim: there's only one answer to their claims that gay marriage will destroy the family, and that's to point out that in all those countries where it's allowed, there has been zero impact on the family. So that should have been treated with the same brevity. As for defining the family, it's clearly whatever people want it to be, not what I or you or anyone else wants it to be, and if someone claims to have the ultimate decision as to what the family should be, that should immediately disqualify them from having any input whatsoever.

Basically, it all comes down to religion: if you're religious and want to impose your religious beliefs on all and sundry, irrespective of their own fervently held beliefs, then vote No. On the other hand if you don't believe in enforced belief in your point of view, vote Yes.

Interestingly the bishops are making much more noise about this than they did about the rape of children, so their guidance has got to be a bit suspect.

And there's an excellent article in the IT today by Kathy Sheridan which all the religious should read carefully.

bpmurray · 20-05-2015 8:35pm

tipparetops wrote: »

But i live in Ireland.
Where do you live.
If the answer is Ireland, do you talk about all issues from an international viewpoint.

You were the one who used the term most women - I presumed you were referring to the human race.

tipparetops · 20-05-2015 8:39pm

Geniass wrote: »

Even in Ireland more women do than don't. I'd mention the percentage again, but it makes our Tip friend a bit giddy, and his mum might need to put him to bed.

I cannot do links as a new member, but check the hse figures on this. They say 50% will actually try with numbers dropping below 50% after that.

Are you afraid of numbers, do you have nightmares about numbers,
well I am here to help.

tipparetops · 20-05-2015 8:43pm

bpmurray wrote: »

You were the one who used the term most women - I presumed you were referring to the human race.

Why stop there, I was referring to all women of all races of all species in the whole Universe.
If you cant beat them, join them.

myons1 · 20-05-2015 10:14pm

Geniass wrote: »

Breastfeeding is the ideal if possible. That's just nature, fact.

You're also using very emotive language, such as ideal (in the context you used it) and responsibility.

That's just a bizarre comment. I think of only one case where a man was documented as breastfeeding. That was in an extreme case and noteworthy by the fact it was unique. (maybe there are other instances, but they are inconsequential)

Ah I see perhaps where I might have generated some confusion. Whilst I don't think I'm committed to the view that it's not the case that breastfeeding is ideal, I think I am committed to the view that breastfeeding does not constitute a duty or responsibility of an ideal mother, which I think might be sufficient to render the matter of breastfeeding irrelevant to the discussion, since lots of things might be ideal for a child but aren't necessarily relevant here.

Regarding your point about the use of emotive language, I'm not quite sure that I understand it. Is it that the strength of the claims must be grounded in emotion in some way? In other words, are you saying that to talk about 'responsibility' and 'ideal' in the way that I am relies upon some emotional response to the ideas at hand? Perhaps the argument has been applied in an emotive way by 'No' voters, but the manner in which I was hoping to engage with what I took to be the strongest arguments for the 'No' vote was not meant to be grounded in any appeals to emotion. Is there some way in which it's inescapable, and if so, does that inescapability generate some problem for the original discussion I was meaning to have?

Thanks again for the comments.

myons1 · 20-05-2015 10:27pm

bpmurray wrote: »

I tried to read it but it's definitely much tl;dr. I think you're right when you say that the Yes side doesn't need much explanation, but then you go on and on and on about loopy stuff the No side claim: there's only one answer to their claims that gay marriage will destroy the family, and that's to point out that in all those countries where it's allowed, there has been zero impact on the family. So that should have been treated with the same brevity. As for defining the family, it's clearly whatever people want it to be, not what I or you or anyone else wants it to be, and if someone claims to have the ultimate decision as to what the family should be, that should immediately disqualify them from having any input whatsoever.

Basically, it all comes down to religion: if you're religious and want to impose your religious beliefs on all and sundry, irrespective of their own fervently held beliefs, then vote No. On the other hand if you don't believe in enforced belief in your point of view, vote Yes.

Interestingly the bishops are making much more noise about this than they did about the rape of children, so their guidance has got to be a bit suspect.

Many thanks for the comments bpmurray.

My purpose as I said was to try and make the most out of the arguments on both sides of the debate, irrespective of what opinions might be had about them. I guess a principled 'No' voter might disagree with you by claiming that even if families haven't 'been destroyed' in countries with same-sex marriage, in the sense that family ties have not broken down as a result, the principles of what a family is and should be have been undermined. It was this kind of reasoning that I was making best efforts to engage with.

Of course, if there is some way to establish some fundamental incoherence in this reasoning without having to consider it in the depth that I have, then of course my considerations would no longer be necessary. I certainly haven't established any incoherence of the kind at this point, and I'm not sure I will be able to, which is why again I thought it best to consider it in detail. If you have or can, I certainly invite you to.

Thanks again

myons1 · 20-05-2015 10:29pm

bpmurray wrote: »

I tried to read it but it's definitely much tl;dr. I think you're right when you say that the Yes side doesn't need much explanation, but then you go on and on and on about loopy stuff the No side claim: there's only one answer to their claims that gay marriage will destroy the family, and that's to point out that in all those countries where it's allowed, there has been zero impact on the family. So that should have been treated with the same brevity. As for defining the family, it's clearly whatever people want it to be, not what I or you or anyone else wants it to be, and if someone claims to have the ultimate decision as to what the family should be, that should immediately disqualify them from having any input whatsoever.

Basically, it all comes down to religion: if you're religious and want to impose your religious beliefs on all and sundry, irrespective of their own fervently held beliefs, then vote No. On the other hand if you don't believe in enforced belief in your point of view, vote Yes.

Interestingly the bishops are making much more noise about this than they did about the rape of children, so their guidance has got to be a bit suspect.

Many thanks for the comments bpmurray.

My purpose as I said was to try and make the most out of the arguments on both sides of the debate, irrespective of what opinions might be had about them. I guess a principled 'No' voter might disagree with you by claiming that even if families haven't 'been destroyed' in countries with same-sex marriage, in the sense that family ties have not broken down as a result, the principles of what a family is and should be have been undermined. It was this kind of reasoning that I was making best efforts to engage with.

I also think that there atheists who intending to vote 'No', I certainly know people who are in principle against same-sex marriage and are atheist. Do you think there is some inconsistency with that combination? If so, could you perhaps explain it?

Of course, if there is some way to establish some fundamental incoherence in this reasoning without having to consider it in the depth that I have, then of course my considerations would no longer be necessary. I certainly haven't established any incoherence of the kind at this point, and I'm not sure I will be able to, which is why again I thought it best to consider it in detail. If you have or can, I certainly invite you to.

Thanks again

myons1 · 21-05-2015 11:24am

For those who are interested, I have made some small corrections on a Wordpress version of the original post, which you can find here: ontheirishmarriagereferendum[dot]wordpress[dot]com

Thanks again to everyone for the comments.

bpmurray · 22-05-2015 1:30pm

myons1 wrote: »

Many thanks for the comments bpmurray.
I guess a principled 'No' voter might disagree with you by claiming that even if families haven't 'been destroyed' in countries with same-sex marriage, in the sense that family ties have not broken down as a result, the principles of what a family is and should be have been undermined.

But that is untrue. My point is that there has been absolutely zero impact on families, other than the rights of gays to marry. It has not undermined anything whatsoever. Even the priest in the local church in Copenhagen was married to his male partner, and nobody batted an eyelid there - no effect to anyone except themselves.

I also think that there atheists who intending to vote 'No', I certainly know people who are in principle against same-sex marriage and are atheist. Do you think there is some inconsistency with that combination? If so, could you perhaps explain it?

Of course there are those who are so terrified of their own sexuality that they oppose anything gay, and that spans all parts of society, religious, agnostic and atheist alike. However without hearing their arguments, it's impossible to answer.

myons1 · 22-05-2015 2:40pm

bpmurray wrote: »

But that is untrue. My point is that there has been absolutely zero impact on families, other than the rights of gays to marry. It has not undermined anything whatsoever. Even the priest in the local church in Copenhagen was married to his male partner, and nobody batted an eyelid there - no effect to anyone except themselves.

Thanks for the response bpmurray. Naturally given what I have argued I agree with your perspective on the matter. What I was trying to point out was that, as you acknowledge, this comes down to how marriage and family are defined. I don't see how we can validly argue that neither marriage nor family are not undermined unless we can define both. Equally, it certainly seems like we need at least some sort of definition of marriage in order to establish any significance to the act of getting married at all. Given that you are sympathetic to the 'Yes' vote, I assume to do think marriage (at least in virtue of the freedom to marry) is significant?

I'm afraid I'm not sure I really understand what you said about the definition of family. You said: "It's clearly whatever people want it to be, not what I or you or anyone else wants it to be, and if someone claims to have the ultimate decision as to what the family should be, that should immediately disqualify them from having any input whatsoever." One the one hand, it seems like you're arguing that an objective definition of family ought not to exist, and therefore it should just be 'whatever people want it to be', but then you also say it's 'not what I or you or anyone else wants it to be'. Does that mean you think family should be defined according to what definition is most popular? Is that what you mean by 'people', and 'not anyone' in particular?

My worry about this approach to defining family is that, if the majority were sympathetic to the 'No' case, in wishing to define family as fitting the traditional model (i.e. heterosexual married couple and children), then it would make that definition of family correct, and would legitimise the 'No' case. I have tried to argue that, even if everyone was sympathetic to the 'No' case, and even if it happened to be the case that everyone in Ireland was heterosexual, it's still more reasonable to vote 'Yes'. So it seems either we fall into a subjective approach to the definition of marriage (so it's just entirely a matter of the individual's perspective), in which case, I'm not quite sure how to defend the need for marriage having a legal status at all (since there's no basis to say that one person's definition is better than another's), or else we need some kind of definition to work with. If I've misunderstood what you were trying to argue, or I've made some other kind of mistake here, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could point it out.

Of course there are those who are so terrified of their own sexuality that they oppose anything gay, and that spans all parts of society, religious, agnostic and atheist alike. However without hearing their arguments, it's impossible to answer.

I do actually think that there are people sympathetic to the 'No' vote who are not homophobic, I just think their reasons are not valid. What I've tried to do here is to articulate the arguments for the 'No' case that don't rely on either prejudice or religious reasoning, and show that even these are not sufficient. I have a number of discussions with people who are opposed to same-sex marriage who rely on neither as well to support their views, and what I was trying to do was provide the best version of the arguments they present. I can certainly think of no good reasons for me to think that they must be terrified of their own sexuality - is there any chance you could perhaps expand on this point?

Thanks again for the response, I appreciate it.

myons1 · 22-05-2015 2:41pm

bpmurray wrote: »

But that is untrue. My point is that there has been absolutely zero impact on families, other than the rights of gays to marry. It has not undermined anything whatsoever. Even the priest in the local church in Copenhagen was married to his male partner, and nobody batted an eyelid there - no effect to anyone except themselves.

Thanks for the response bpmurray. Naturally given what I have argued I agree with your perspective on the matter. What I was trying to point out was that, as you acknowledge, this comes down to how marriage and family are defined. I don't see how we can validly argue that neither marriage nor family are not undermined unless we can define both. Equally, it certainly seems like we need at least some sort of definition of marriage in order to establish any significance to the act of getting married at all. Given that you are sympathetic to the 'Yes' vote, I assume to do think marriage (at least in virtue of the freedom to marry) is significant?

I'm afraid I'm not sure I really understand what you said about the definition of family. You said: "It's clearly whatever people want it to be, not what I or you or anyone else wants it to be, and if someone claims to have the ultimate decision as to what the family should be, that should immediately disqualify them from having any input whatsoever." One the one hand, it seems like you're arguing that an objective definition of family ought not to exist, and therefore it should just be 'whatever people want it to be', but then you also say it's 'not what I or you or anyone else wants it to be'. Does that mean you think family should be defined according to what definition is most popular? Is that what you mean by 'people', and 'not anyone' in particular?

My worry about this approach to defining family is that, if the majority were sympathetic to the 'No' case, in wishing to define family as fitting the traditional model (i.e. heterosexual married couple and children), then it would make that definition of family correct, and would legitimise the 'No' case. I have tried to argue that, even if everyone was sympathetic to the 'No' case, and even if it happened to be the case that everyone in Ireland was heterosexual, it's still more reasonable to vote 'Yes'. So it seems either we fall into a subjective approach to the definition of marriage (so it's just entirely a matter of the individual's perspective), in which case, I'm not quite sure how to defend the need for marriage having a legal status at all (since there's no basis to say that one person's definition is better than another's), or else we need some kind of definition to work with. If I've misunderstood what you were trying to argue, or I've made some other kind of mistake here, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could point it out.

bpmurray wrote: »

Of course there are those who are so terrified of their own sexuality that they oppose anything gay, and that spans all parts of society, religious, agnostic and atheist alike. However without hearing their arguments, it's impossible to answer.

I do actually think that there are people sympathetic to the 'No' vote who are not homophobic, I just think their reasons are not valid. What I've tried to do here is to articulate the arguments for the 'No' case that don't rely on either prejudice or religious reasoning, and show that even these are not sufficient. I have a number of discussions with people who are opposed to same-sex marriage who rely on neither as well to support their views, and what I was trying to do was provide the best version of the arguments they present. I can certainly think of no good reasons for me to think that they must be terrified of their own sexuality - is there any chance you could perhaps expand on this point?

Thanks again for the response, I appreciate it.

Some Thoughts on the Referendum

Comments