Doctor Jimbob wrote: » It is, but so are many, many other forms of marriage. It's a nonsensical goalpost. Edit: Your referral to said marriages as 'normal' makes your viewpoint perfectly clear. Why is this 'normal'? Why does this matter?
Sala wrote: » Marriage is constantly evolving so using "tradition" as a way to argue against marriage equality is not a good argument. Strip away the religious connotations and the idea of the "institution of marriage" as being between a man and a woman has no real meaning. Marriage is a social and legal contract providing certain rights and obligations. As citizens we are entitled to decide for ourselves what that legal contract means. That's why we are going to vote.
BarryD wrote: » Careful now, don't be trying to put words into my mouth.. by traditional, I mean what has been accepted as the norm for marriage in Ireland for let's say about the last five hundred years. That is an agreement between a man and a woman or a woman and a man to be husband and wife or vice versa. I don't believe that men have had multiple wives in legal marriages in Ireland since probably the Brehon laws were in use.
BarryD wrote: » I daresay it's close to the first instinct of most Irish voters.
efb wrote: » It's one of the historical forms of Marraige
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Define traditional. Explain why it is inherently a good thing.
tayto lover wrote: » That is traditional i.e. 1 man and 1 woman.
BarryD wrote: » Imposed by society I would say. What Church are you talking about anyway - we have had several and many Churches affiliated to Christianity for several centuries.
efb wrote: » So not very traditional just one a point in time
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » A very easily testable claim. All you would need is a usefully large set of stable relationships, exactly half of which is married, and exactly half of which are not, but they are essentially the same in every way. Normalizing for the minor tax differences between them, then compare, using useful measures, the child rearing results of the two groups against each other. Report on the results. Let me know if you do this, or find any studies that did. Then there is a very simple framework in which you can substantiate this claim. Stunningly simple in fact. List for us the elements that are actually required for the successful and ideal healthy upbringing of children. I assume a list of this sort will include things like security, education, love, food, protection and so forth. Give me your full list. Then list explicitly, rather than by mere declaration of their existence as you did above....... these emotional, physical, mental and sexual differences you above have asserted exist between men and women. Then link the two lists you have made showing which elements on the first list are precluded either sex based on the differences you have identified in the second list. Again: Let me know the results of you doing this, or link me to some research papers that have done this. Because _then_ you would have validated your claim above. This you have not yet done, choosing instead it seems to merely declare that anyone who does not instantly agree with you, merely has a failure of understanding at play coupled with a declaration of your own view point as self evident. Which might impress you on paper but it does not map on to reality very well. For example when you normalize the upbringing of children of single parents for things like reduced income and free time resources, and then compare their success directly with the "traditional" family...... there is little difference at all, let alone the "drastic" one you have asserted by declaration above. Alas the majority of "studies" cherry picked by people espousing your view point on this make a point of NOT normalizing for these differences, and then blaming the disparity in success.... again by assertion and correlation arguments, rather than causation arguments..... on the absence of one of the sexes in the parenting unit. Again if you perform, or are aware of, a study that does not found itself on this failure, I am agog to be made aware of it. Then, unlike many posters on this forum, you will not take unkindly to my three demands above that you move to present some and you will in fact be forthcoming in doing so. I stand, as I said, agog.
tayto lover wrote: » A traditional marriage is one between a man and a woman regardless of religion, land, possessions etc. That's the meaning I took from his post.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » You're choosing an arbitrary value as traditional that, by coincidence or otherwise, happens to be the same one imposed by the Church.
efb wrote: » What about possession of the woman, land rights and the lack of marital rape laws- are they traditions to be kept? They are part of "Traditional Marraige"
Eramen wrote: » Instead marriage is the best social formula to raise children and transform them into productive, healthy people, by bringing out the myriad qualities of their personalities.
Eramen wrote: » that men and women radiate entirely unique emotional, physical, mental and sexual forces/traits that contribute to the sum total of the breeding and creating value in their children.
Eramen wrote: » If this distinct pairing is absent, the rate of dysfunctions whether social, mental or cultural, for the whole family, especially children, increases drastically.
Eramen wrote: » I don't believe in things that aren't hard evidence
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » By 'traditional' I assume you mean 'appropriated by the Catholic Church'?
tayto lover wrote: » No. I think he means the traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
BarryD wrote: » But I'd still be inclined to think that the term marriage should be kept to it's traditional meaning.
Tubaiste wrote: » Is the truth that people will vote no because they just don't really like gay people?
PopePalpatine wrote: » Nah, at least Matt Damon's character was intelligent. I think someone may have written a computer program that perfectly simulates John Waters' inane rants.
Virgil° wrote: » Been refuted and asked for further clarification on what EXACTLY these traits are numerous times in this thread alone. Any chance you'll adumbrate us? No! Do your own f**ing research if you want to convince people you're not just an anti-equality bigotted individual.
Eramen wrote: » I, unlike the ideologues who will challenge me, recognise the self-evident: that men and women radiate entirely unique emotional, physical, mental and sexual forces/traits that contribute to the sum total of the breeding and creating value in their children. This is of critical important, and to underestimate the power to both sexes is to not understand them at all. The synergy of the masculine and feminine forces the focal point for instituting a stable, harmonious collective. Never-mind that they are the very basis of it's creation in the first place.
The skeptical person can just use google for evidence-gathering on this latter point, there is so much out there relating to this connection.
efb wrote: » M Pets like this always remind me of Matt Damon'd retort in Good Will Hunting
Eramen wrote: » I see the self-righteous social justice warriors are out in force on this one, pushing their parochial pseudo-moralities down the collectives' throat and of course spinning the usual conspiracy theories. "Holy Catholic Ireland something, something" - sure brah. It's all a counter-productive blame game. It bores me. Contrary to the fantasies of spinsters, marriage isn't primarily about love or affection between two people, as that is something that is learned through the years of being together. Instead marriage is the best social formula to raise children and transform them into productive, healthy people via the ushering out the myriad qualities of their personalities. I, unlike the ideologues who will challenge me, recognise the self-evident: that men and women radiate entirely unique emotional, physical, mental and sexual traits that contribute to the sum total of the breeding and creating value in their children. This is of critical importance, and to underestimate the power of both sexes is to not understand them at all. The synergy of the masculine and feminine forces remains the focal point for instituting a stable, harmonious collective. Never-mind that they are the very basis of it's creation in the first place, the heart of everything. If this distinct pairing is absent, the rate of dysfunctions whether social, mental or cultural, for the whole family, especially children, increases drastically. Most of peoples problems and difficulties stem from their upbringing, one way or another. We merely have to reflect on our current problems to realise this. The skeptical person can just use google for evidence-gathering on this latter point, there is so much out there relating to this connection. Personally speaking, I'll be vouching for the demystification of the self-evident by voting no. I also think the ideological crutch of pretend 'equality' can be left at the door on this one. I don't believe in things that aren't hard evidence, and I certainly don't think in the cheapening and sacrificing of the two sexes in aid of the political mechanisations of the LGBT is warranted at all.
Eramen wrote: » I see the self-righteous social justice warriors are out in force on this one, pushing their parochial pseudo-moralities down the collectives' throat and of course spinning the usual conspiracy theories. "Holy Catholic Ireland something, something" - sure brah. Tell me more of this secret cabal of bishops that control the world.. Contrary to the fantasies of spinsters, marriage isn't primarily about love or affection between two people, that is something that is learned through the years. Instead marriage is the best social formula to raise children and transform them into productive, healthy people, by bringing out the myriad qualities of their personalities. I, unlike the ideologues who will challenge me, recognise the self-evident: that men and women radiate entirely unique emotional, physical, mental and sexual forces/traits that contribute to the sum total of the breeding and creating value in their children. This is of critical important, and to underestimate the power to both sexes is to not understand them at all. The synergy of the masculine and feminine forces the focal point for instituting a stable, harmonious collective. Never-mind that they are the very basis of it's creation in the first place.If this distinct pairing is absent, the rate of dysfunctions whether social, mental or cultural, for the whole family, especially children, increases drastically. Most of peoples problems and difficulties stem from their upbringing, one way or another. We merely have to reflect on our current problems to realise this. The skeptical person can just use google for evidence-gathering on this latter point, there is so much out there relating to this connection. Personally speaking, I'll be vouching for the demystification of the self-evident by voting no. I also think the ideological crutch of pretend 'equality' can be left at the door on this one. I don't believe in things that aren't hard evidence, and I certainly don't think in the cheapening and sacrificing of the two sexes in aid of the political mechanisations of the LGBT is warranted at all.
BarryD wrote: » I'll vote if at all possible but how is another matter? I'd regard myself as reasonably liberal on moral matters but I have certain reservations about this referendum that I suspect would be shared fairly widely. In that I'm inclined to believe that Marriage as an institution is a matter between a woman and a man or vice versa if you like. I have no problem at all with gay or lesbian people or with Civil Partnership and equal rights under the law for property, tax and inheritance etc. None whatsoever. But I'd still be inclined to think that the term marriage should be kept to it's traditional meaning. That's not to say that marriage is superior to civil partnership, just different in the way that a cat is different from a dog etc. Maybe I'll change my view when I hear more arguments from both sides, but it'll take quite a lot of persuasion.
