Will you vote in the gay marriage referendum?

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.

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?

The skeptical person can just use google for evidence-gathering on this latter point, there is so much out there relating to this connection.

No! Do your own f**ing research if you want to convince people you're not just an anti-equality bigotted individual.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Eramen wrote: »

I don't believe in things that aren't hard evidence

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.

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.

Again, the tradition imposed by society in Ireland was that marriages were arranged by the parents and it was perfectly fine/legal for a 12 year old girl to marry a 14 year old boy. Should those 'traditions' be protected?

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.

Then really your use of the word "traditional" is essentially very arbitrary. You are contriving to set the dividing line of what is traditional to do little more than fit it to what you are CURRENTLY used to.

So essentially all you are doing is expressing a desire to leave it as it is NOW and therefore contriving to bracket the temporal boundaries of "tradition" on the time period that exactly matches "now".

Which, in essence, means you are making no argument at all but merely playing with linguistic definitions, in order to allow you to use words in place of any actual argument on the matter.

Which leaves very little substance upon which to proceed with any kind of actual discourse on the matter. You said you would need some convincing, but it is unclear how you would even expect someone to proceed to discuss a position of "Keep it the way it is, just because".

BarryD wrote: »

I daresay it's close to the first instinct of most Irish voters.

Sadly you are likely right here. But that has NOTHING to do with this issue. It has more got to do with an attribute of humanity. Our species, in general, simply does not like change. Many positively hate and even fear it. A fact that is, frankly, the only one I see coming out of what you have written so far. A desire to simply maintain the world as is.

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.

I will vote! It is the most significant piece of equality legislation of our era and I urge everyone to vote yes!