Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

robindch · 21-08-2012 11:08AM

The University Times, Trinity college's inhouse publication, produced an anti-marriage-eqaulity which was subsequently taken down for reasons probably not unconnected with what must have been a fairly vigorous reaction. broadsheet.ie discusses it briefly here and what I believe is the original text is here:

Dominic Gallagher wrote:

I don’t disagree with gay marriage, I believe in marriage. I think it is the beautiful and ancient foundation of the family. When I disagree with liberals and what is now the dominant belief in college I don’t feel I am alone, I feel I have my entire ancestry behind me. Chesterton called tradition “the democracy of the dead”.

THE DEBATE SO FAR

Those in favour of gay marriage have, like a talented violinist, played beautifully upon our heart strings with “Equality”, those against have deafened us with the mighty horn of “Morality”. Its a pity then that this great crescendo is entirely misguided and has nothing to do with the debate. The issue is a lot more mundane.

TRUE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE

Same-sex couples should not have marriage because they do not and should not rear children. Marriage is not a universal right but a special status for those who contribute to society in the upbringing of future citizens. Retaining marriage for heterosexual couples would allow the government through tax breaks to support and promote marriage which is most likely to lead to a stable family and a secure future for our country.

There are two types of Rights in the state, Negative and Positive Rights. Negative rights are the rights upon which the state is founded and are necessary for it to function. They are the rights of freedom from harm to the person or their property etc and full participation in state decision making through having a vote and being eligible for office. Without negative rights there cannot be a state.

Positive Rights are the rights which are democratically decided upon, they are not necessary for the functioning of the state but are rather the outcome of the state. They are specific to each state and the particular ideal which they are trying to achieve. Financial support to a particular sport or art are positive rights which are decided upon because it is felt that such aid helps society as a whole. That one sport/art receives finance and not another is entirely at the discretion of the state. Government support for third level education fees are positive rights which can be removed without our negative rights being infringed.

A civil partnership is a negative right, it protects two people who have become financially interdependent from harm in case of death. Marriage is a positive right. It is kept apart from a civil partnership in order to allow the possibility of support, for example in tax breaks for married couples. We (the state) do this because in helping marriage we help society as a whole. Marriage produces and rears children who are the future citizens of our land who we will depend on to maintain our economy when we are old and grey. In supporting marriage we support our future.

Same sex relationships do not qualify for marriage because they do not produce children. They are of no benefit for society as a whole and do not merit support.

Some people believe that same-sex relationships should be allowed to adopt children. This is completely unfair on the child, it needs two figures in its upbringing, one masculine and one feminine, as guiding lights by which it can reach maturity. Two men cannot provide the feminine figure which the child needs for guidance.

REPLY TO ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF GAY ADOPTION BASED ON GENDER AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT

At this point Gender Soc have quite possibly evaporated with anger. Didn’t I know that gender was a “Social Construct” and so it doesn’t matter whether its two men who bring up a child or a heterosexual couple? ”Social Construct” is a big term with little meaning, its as vague and lacking substance as a cloud. Maybe there is some intelligence or at least coherence behind this term, buried deep in some academic article but I have never come across it and I think its only fair that I attack its conception in the popular mind which is the driving force of change. “Social Construct” when applied to a term seems to mean 1. Other societies and ages have different conceptions of this term 2. it is therefore arbitrary 3. It should be completely ignored. This is one of the stupidest things I have ever come across, there is no connection between any of these points. It is the product of a solely scientific mind which has forgotten how to philosophize and refuses to believe in anything (femininity, Morality, Beauty etc) which can’t be tested for in a laboratory. That something is a “Social Construct” is not a scientific theory, but a philosophical theory. Gender Soc is just as much as a philosophical movement as Marxism and it is equally wrong.

That different societies and ages have come to different conceptions of femininity/masculinity and morality is entirely to be expected. Being moral and masculine is a choice, you choose a way of being and acting. We are so laden with scientific thought that when we do think of masculinity we envision being masculine as fulfilling a physical ideal as opposed to having masculine virtues. Only men have the potential to have masculine virtues, or in other words, only men can really be men. Cartesian dualism gets in the way of our thinking on this point, the idea that we are a soul/thinking being trapped in matter. If we could regain the Aristotelian harmony of form and matter we would have a vastly improved understanding, but you’ll have to do that by yourself.

All societies have a conception of morality or masculinity/femininity, it is a constant of human history. Even if it is only a negation as in our current society a decision is still demanded, there is something which we are actively working against. Morality and masculinity/femininity evidently exist, the question remains what is the right conception. I am not attacking feminism, equal opportunities for women is perfectly compatible with femininity being distinct from masculinity. Gender doesn’t so much center around what we do as opposed to how we do it.

The individual is a microcosm of society. As individuals sometimes make both good and bad choices so too do societies. The answer to the proponent of cultural relativism is that we all listen to, learn from and teach each other. Not silence.

The vast majority of us value masculinity and femininity in our friends and romantic relationships. But when we come to make decisions as a society we subscribe to public opinion. Public opinion seems to be everyone else’s opinion minus my opinion. The problem is that everyone seems to do this and only about 2 percent of the population actually contribute positively to public opinion. We are being dominated by the minority. The vast majority of us feel there is something very sad about an effeminate man and all the great facets of their personality would be so much more illuminated by having this quality. However we don’t think its politically correct to say it, who decided what was politically correct?

SINGLE PARENTS, A NECESSARY EXCEPTION

Single parent families are exceptions to the need for both masculinity and femininity in child rearing because the parent and child are natural kin. They are not ideal, in fact they are very sad tragedies which should be avoided at all costs and should not be used as a prototype to support further legislation. It makes no sense to point to these examples to support gay adoption, there is not the connection of natural kin.

To give a child to a same-sex couple is an absolute travesty. You are depriving the child of having the pillar of masculinity which is the father or the beautiful, loving femininity of the mother. Every child should have a mother, this is really the battle cry of those who are against gay marriage. Same-sex relationships should not rear children and so do not contribute to society and do not deserve the special privileges of attaining the positive right of marriage.

No religious person should want a Religious state and no liberal should want a Liberal state. In each the good of all of society is neglected for the good of the minority. We should just have a State.

Well, the man's free to voice his opinion one way or the other; but gosh, you'd have to ask what century and what weird culture he's living in to produce the above.

Penn · 21-08-2012 11:13AM

robindch wrote: »

The University Times, Trinity college's inhouse publication, produced an anti-marriage-eqaulity which was subsequently taken down for reasons probably not unconnected with what must have been a fairly vigorous reaction. broadsheet.ie discusses it briefly here and what I believe is the original text is here:

Well, the man's free to voice his opinion one way or the other; but gosh, you'd have to ask what century and what weird culture he's living in to produce the above.

And as per usual with this type of argument, it can pretty much be demolished with "What about heterosexual couples who can't have children or don't want children?"

Blowfish · 21-08-2012 11:21AM

Penn wrote: »

And as per usual with this type of argument, it can pretty much be demolished with "What about heterosexual couples who can't have children or don't want children?"

Indeed, plus the other obvious follow on of 'if the concept is to promote the raising of children, why not base the tax cuts/incentives entirely on legal guardianship, rather than the social construct of marriage?'

Delirium · 21-08-2012 11:23AM

Same-sex couples should not have marriage because they do not (wrong. as some posters on this forum can confirm) and should not (why?) rear children.

.

Marriage is not a universal right but a special status for those who contribute to society in the upbringing of future citizens. Retaining marriage for heterosexual couples would allow the government through tax breaks to support and promote marriage which is most likely to lead to a stable family and a secure future for our country.

Now, he's arguing for gay marriage, unless he's in the "gays will destroy society" camp

Same sex relationships do not qualify for marriage because they do not produce children. They are of no benefit for society as a whole and do not merit support.

My aunt and uncle who never managed to have a child will be delighted to hear that :mad: A person or couples contribution to society is not measured solely on whether they produce offspring.

Some people believe that same-sex relationships should be allowed to adopt children. This is completely unfair on the child, it needs two figures in its upbringing, one masculine and one feminine, as guiding lights by which it can reach maturity. Two men cannot provide the feminine figure which the child needs for guidance.

what about single parents then?.....

Single parent families are exceptions to the need for both masculinity and femininity in child rearing because the parent and child are natural kin. They are not ideal, in fact they are very sad tragedies which should be avoided at all costs and should not be used as a prototype to support further legislation. It makes no sense to point to these examples to support gay adoption, there is not the connection of natural kin.

So they are an exception because they are biological kin? what about a same sex couple where one of the couple is biological kin to the child?

Turtwig · 21-08-2012 11:28AM

robindch wrote: »

robindch wrote: »

Well, the man's free to voice his opinion one way or the other; but gosh, you'd have to ask what century and what weird culture he's living in to produce the above.

Trinity college's

Have you read any of their theology stuff! ?

From the IT.
(A professor no less!)

Scientists who work in quantum physics and regard the mind-born entity called knowledge as the main formative, causative factor in the making of the cosmos, normally assure us it is not as advocates of any religion that they arrive at these views.

Grade A quality...err??

Bannasidhe · 21-08-2012 11:31AM

I'm still laughing at 'the pillar of masculinity which is the father or the beautiful, loving femininity of the mother.'

Sent to boarding School at a very young age m'thinks.

doctoremma · 21-08-2012 11:34AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

beautiful, loving femininity of the mother.

*puke*

Delirium · 21-08-2012 11:37AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'm still laughing at 'the pillar of masculinity which is the father or the beautiful, loving femininity of the mother.'

Sent to boarding School at a very young age m'thinks.

Clearly never met my granny or aunts. I still flinch when I see a wooden spoon :P:pac:

Bannasidhe · 21-08-2012 11:42AM

koth wrote: »

Clearly never met my granny or aunts. I still flinch when I see a wooden spoon :P:pac:

My granny was deadly with a meat cleaver - she could chop a pig's head in twain with one wallop (there's a memory I just can't lose!) but naturally she did it with loving femininity while carefully made-up with her hair permed and wearing a twin set and pearls ....

Penn · 21-08-2012 11:50AM

The vast majority of us value masculinity and femininity in our friends and romantic relationships. But when we come to make decisions as a society we subscribe to public opinion. Public opinion seems to be everyone else’s opinion minus my opinion. The problem is that everyone seems to do this and only about 2 percent of the population actually contribute positively to public opinion. We are being dominated by the minority. The vast majority of us feel there is something very sad about an effeminate man and all the great facets of their personality would be so much more illuminated by having this quality. However we don’t think its politically correct to say it, who decided what was politically correct?

Oh, so only his opinion and people who agree with him actually contribute positively to public opinion.

Methinks the horse he rode in on is quite a high one.

Edit: Also, if only 2% of you do something, you are not being dominated by the minority. You are the minority.

fitz0 · 21-08-2012 01:10PM

Dominic Gallagher is a Youth Defender so We shouldn't be surprised about his intolerance.

Another piece by him.

Youth Defence on the Frontline

Dominic Gallagher

Staff Writer

There is no middle ground in the debate on abortion. There are two positions in this trench war about human values, the middle ground is for the dead and unlike WW1 there can be no truce . No compromise can be logically coherent. To argue that exceptions should be made in case of rape is an unreasoned position devoid of thought. Either you are pro-life and life is sacred from conception and no human can die to appease another regardless of circumstance. Or you are pro-choice and the embryo is not a human being at early stages but only when consciousness is thought to begin and hence you can end its life regardless of whether there has been a rape or not. If the human embryo’s life is valued you cannot kill it, if not you can kill it no matter what.

Youth Defence, in asserting that there is “always a better option” than abortion, have the courage to stand by their convictions. Pro-choice groups have a right to attack this position but never on the basis of the exception of rape. They believe that you have a choice regardless of whether it is a case of rape or not, rape has absolutely no bearing on their argument. To argue on this basis is an underhand and insincere attempt to bring in abortion on demand by pulling at the heart strings. It is using the horror of rape to mask an even greater horror.

Tears are a powerful and honest human act yet they can become dangerous when they obscure our vision. Below I will outline why pro-choice are wrong even when they fight fairly and don’t try to tear gas their opponents.

Human life has two values. A personal value and an intrinsic human value. The personal value is the importance we attribute to beings capable of having personal experience. By experience I mean happiness and sadness, pain and pleasure. Personal value is not unique to human beings as animals such as dogs are capable of this experience.

Intrinsic human value is the value which humans have simply because they are human. Theists would understand this intrinsic value as our soul, our spiritual substance. However secular humanists also regard this value as important. It is enshrined in every democratic constitution and is the foundation of all human rights. The belief that “all men are created equal” does not stem from the ability to think rationally, equality of ability or usefulness to society. For example a person with a severe learning disability is no less equal in human rights and dignity than a Prime minister. Its foundation is instead in our shared humanity and the value we place upon it. It is this humanity which demands that all races and both sexes are treated equally.

Pro-choice groups seek to conflate both the personal and intrinsic values and argue that they both occur simultaneously. This cannot be the case as otherwise we will find it impossible to distinguish between the rights of dogs etc. and humans as both have personal values. If we appeal to rationality as a heightened degree of personal value to try and distinguish humanity from dogs we again run into the problem of people with severe learning disabilities whose rational faculties are weaker than normal and yet remain equally valuable.

Pro-life groups believe that humans have intrinsic value from the moment of conception as a unique individual distinguishable from the mother. Human foetuses at a very earlier stage have intrinsic value but no personal value. They cannot feel or think but nonetheless they are still human.

What is the relationship between these two different values? A philosophical mind shrinks from the idea of asymmetry in their values. They must be equal as they are both essential elements in making us who we are. Our own worth and importance cannot be considered without both values and so neither value can predominate.

In abortion the intrinsic human value is destroyed because the personal value of the mother is affected. The mother would be unhappy to have a child and so the human foetus is killed. However the entirety of the mother’s personal value is not at stake. This would only be the case if the mother was going to die and the personal value would cease to be. Even if the mother will be negatively affected her ability to experience happiness will remain after the child is born and presumably given up for adoption. Therefore only a partial, temporary element of the mother’s personal value is at stake and this is not great enough to permanently destroy the intrinsic value of the human foetus.

The argument from women’s rights is a complete contradiction. You cannot assert the right to equality by destroying the human value upon which our equality is based. This argument holds even in extreme cases like rape. It is highly debated whether or not an abortion offers any help to the already distressed mother. I believe it will only add further trauma in years to come. However even if it is beneficial the abortion remains unjustified as through time and counselling the mother can recover to find happiness again. The suffering to the mother’s personal value remains temporary, not a great enough justification for permanent destruction of the foetus’ intrinsic value. In extreme situations some women are at risk of suicide however improved care and counselling can avert this tragedy from happening. Furthermore this quick fix solution completely ignores the women who are at risk of suicide after having abortions. A government funded study in Finland in 1997 found that women who had had abortions were 3.5 times more likely to die within the next year compared to women who gave birth.

Finally what of those cases when the mother could die and it is her personal and intrinsic value pitted against only the intrinsic value of her child? This scenario arises in ectopic pregnancies. In such instances the mother’s life and it’s greater worth of two values takes precedence. However these are not abortions as the destruction of the unborn child is incidental to the medical treatment. It is not a direct aim of the medical treatment and Ireland therefore already allows for such extreme cases.

A lot of people do not struggle to understand this debate but rather float along like driftwood on the tide, reassured in the belief that we are moving steadily towards progress. This idea is the rotten leftover of a Hegelian system of philosophy that has long since been rejected. It is dangerously stupid to believe that our world can only change for the better, not every new idea that is gaining momentum is a force for good. Hitler’s death camps and Karl Marx’s communism were new ideas at their time. Our society is like any individual who changes, there is both good and bad elements to it. It is our duty to choose between them.

Ireland is the only country in Europe that does not have abortion in any form and I am proud of our resistance. We have the chance to be the light that guides Europe through this dark period as we did before as the land of “Saints and Scholars”. It is fitting that Youth Defence should lead the charge. In an Ireland rocked by the greed and self interest of the recession it is in our youth that we must seek a renewal of our beliefs in human value.

robindch · 21-08-2012 01:29PM

fitz0 wrote: »

Dominic Gallagher is a Youth Defender

Welcome to John Witters, The Next Generation.

BluntGuy · 21-08-2012 01:35PM

rubbish wrote:

However these are not abortions as the destruction of the unborn child is incidental to the medical treatment.

I really dislike when people re-define terms to suit themselves.

Bannasidhe · 21-08-2012 01:47PM

I really dislike it when men start pontificating about what I can and cannot do with my female body.

Sarky · 21-08-2012 01:50PM

Ew. This Dominic Gallagher kid is repugnant.

robindch · 21-08-2012 01:53PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I really dislike it when men start pontificating about what I can and cannot do with my female body.

That's the crux of the issue really. There's a wide field of views which stretch from the idea that a blastocyst/embryo/foetus/unborn child/whatever-yer-havin'-yerself has no inherent rights until it's born; right up to the view that full human rights inhere from the moment of conception. And most of these positions are arguable.

But until people agree upon the point at which rights inhere, and which rights these are, there will never be agreement on abortion, and everybody will feel aggrieved that their rights, or somebody else's, are being denied.

Do feel free to open another thread -- it's been a while since there was one on abortion

Turtwig · 21-08-2012 01:55PM

Sarky wrote: »

Ew. This Dominic Gallagher kid is repugnant.

He's the not the rugby player is he?
(And no Ban I'm not mocking or criticising rugby, rather like the sport actually.

)

Bannasidhe · 21-08-2012 01:56PM

Sarky wrote: »

Ew. This Dominic Gallagher kid is repugnant.

Really thinking of buying this - bet I could find a use for it...

Bannasidhe · 21-08-2012 02:02PM

robindch wrote: »

Do feel free to open another thread -- it's been a while since there was one on abortion

*shudder*

Undergod · 21-08-2012 02:30PM

Chesterton called tradition “the democracy of the dead”.

...is that meant to support his point? Why should the dead get a say? They're dead.

Penn · 21-08-2012 02:32PM

Undergod wrote: »

...is that meant to support his point? Why should the dead get a say? They're dead.

In many cases, tradition is the mistakes of the dead.

Bannasidhe · 21-08-2012 02:38PM

Penn wrote: »

In many cases, tradition is the mistakes of the dead.

Whenever I hear people banging on about doing things they way we have always done them because it's 'traditional' I always think of the 'traditional' Irish food prepared by my mother and grand-mother. It was horrendous! Overcooked leathery meat, anything that resembled a vegetable boiled to a pulp in water so salty it was really brine. Every meal was a blood pressure rising, artery hardening yukfest. Salt and that nasty fine white pepper was the only seasoning - apart from when Granny got creative with the thyme - and a heavy hand she had with it too.

If that's what keeping tradition means - no thanks!

OldNotWIse · 21-08-2012 02:39PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I really dislike it when men start pontificating about what I can and cannot do with my female body.

I really dislike it when people think they can lay down the law about the rights of the unborn simply because they have a uterus (and I am a woman too btw)

Delirium · 21-08-2012 02:39PM

Penn wrote: »

In many cases, tradition is the mistakes of the dead.

Quite like, "tradition is just another word for the collective habit" (title of a Miocene song).

robindch · 21-08-2012 02:40PM

^^^ "If you can count the Brussels sprouts, they're not cooked properly"

Bannasidhe · 21-08-2012 02:51PM

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I really dislike it when people think they can lay down the law about the rights fo the unborn simply because they have a uterus (and I am a woman too btw)

My point is that there has been a lot of discussion recently about pregnancy as the result of rape - most of this led by men who will never have to face becoming pregnant as the result of being raped but feel it is perfectly acceptable to force a woman to carry her attackers child to term. Yes, that annoys me.

I do have the right to say what happens with my body and while I personally would never have an abortion, I do not grant the right to anyone, male or female, to declare that my body is not my property and mine alone when it happens to be temporarily occupied by a proto-person.

Now, I am not for a second equating pregnancy with male circumcision but I have noticed posts in this forum discussing this issue. I do not comment as it is not an issue for me - I do not have a penis to be circumcised so really do not understand all the nuances of the issue.

Men -as they will never become pregnant do not and cannot understand the nuances of the issues.

Edit to say: What this has to do with Gay Marriage escapes me.

Penn · 21-08-2012 03:12PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Men -as they will never become pregnant do not and cannot understand the nuances of the issues.

While I would generally agree, that's not to say men can't come to the same conclusion as you. While we obviously can't understand what it is to carry a child etc, even from a logical and human rights side we can still form valid opinions.

Basically, don't tar us all with the same brush as these "legitimate rape" c*nts

OldNotWIse · 21-08-2012 03:23PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My point is that there has been a lot of discussion recently about pregnancy as the result of rape - most of this led by men who will never have to face becoming pregnant as the result of being raped but feel it is perfectly acceptable to force a woman to carry her attackers child to term. Yes, that annoys me.

I do have the right to say what happens with my body and while I personally would never have an abortion, I do not grant the right to anyone, male or female, to declare that my body is not my property and mine alone when it happens to be temporarily occupied by a proto-person.

Now, I am not for a second equating pregnancy with male circumcision but I have noticed posts in this forum discussing this issue. I do not comment as it is not an issue for me - I do not have a penis to be circumcised so really do not understand all the nuances of the issue.

Men -as they will never become pregnant do not and cannot understand the nuances of the issues.

Edit to say: What this has to do with Gay Marriage escapes me.

With respect (and I think we are all in agreement that the last thing anyone wants is an abortion bicker on a tuesday afternoon) I understand your point somehwhat, but I feel its a little simplistic to essentially prohibit men from having opinions worth taking into consideration simply because they are men. I am sure plenty of men mourn the loss of their unborn when their partner decides to abort it. Of course, they dont "have to carry the child", an argument often trotted out, but maybe given the choice, they would (a silly theoretical argument of course). Also, if one argues that only those of child-bearing capacity can have an opinion, this is shutting out women who are infertile.

MrPudding · 21-08-2012 03:44PM

robindch wrote: »

The University Times, Trinity college's inhouse publication, produced an anti-marriage-eqaulity which was subsequently taken down for reasons probably not unconnected with what must have been a fairly vigorous reaction. broadsheet.ie discusses it briefly here and what I believe is the original text is here:

Well, the man's free to voice his opinion one way or the other; but gosh, you'd have to ask what century and what weird culture he's living in to produce the above.

he could be any of a number of poster from the "other" forum.

MrP

ShooterSF · 21-08-2012 04:02PM

The thing is, to the average layman who doesn't take time to read up on the counter arguments, the mom and dad natural and ideal scenario might make sense (and is bite size enough for society's short attention span) and successfully hides the real religious motives in the background that may make them weary that this is built on said religions obvious bigotry towards the gay community (bigotry most ala cartes put on the same pile as the rest of Leviticus) , so it's being clung to with everything the religious have. It can hardly be coincidence that this argument is always put forward by someone who turns out to be religious.
It also why they won't accept any evidence against such an idea because doing so results in either accepting gay marriage (never gonna happen) or show to the neutrals watching the debate that it is just religious bigotry dressed up in psuedorational disguise after all.

Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Comments