efb wrote: » M Pets like this always remind me of Matt Damon'd retort in Good Will Hunting
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.
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.
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.
Tubaiste wrote: » Is the truth that people will vote no because they just don't really like gay people?
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » By 'traditional' I assume you mean 'appropriated by the Catholic Church'?
BarryD wrote: » But I'd still be inclined to think that the term marriage should be kept to it's traditional meaning.
tayto lover wrote: » No. I think he means the traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
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
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"
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.
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.
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.
efb wrote: » So not very traditional just one a point in time
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.
tayto lover wrote: » That is traditional i.e. 1 man and 1 woman.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Define traditional. Explain why it is inherently a good thing.
efb wrote: » It's one of the historical forms of Marraige
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.
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.
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?
Billy86 wrote: » Marriage as a concept has existed since before recorded history. There are examples of same sex marriage through ancient Egyptian, Roman and Chinese history. Given that tradition is defined as 'long established' you will find that same sex marriage is very much traditional.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » All one can do in such a case is point out to you that the world is changing. Constantly. The requirements and needs of society are changing. Constantly. So in principle attempting to maintain a status quo will do little but cause us to watch the institutions of our society go slowly but steadily out of step with the requirements that society has of them. Be it gay marriage or any other subject.
BarryD wrote: » All I'm saying is that even though I'd be far more liberal than many of the populace, this referendum gives me pause for thought.
