Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

MrPudding · 07-01-2015 10:14AM

The Black Oil wrote:

Not all opponents of SSM are bigots. You can be against SSM and not be a homophobe. The liberal media. Liberal tolerance is intolerant. Conscience. Had a conservative written this there'd be uproar. Most media welcomes pro-gay research uncritically, any research favouring traditional values is roundly attacked.

I am not sure I can think of a valid reason why one might be against SSM and not be a bigot... With respect to research, the reason the traditional values research tends to be rounded in is that it tend to be sh1t.

MrP

07-01-2015 10:18AM

Are there any non-religious arguments available against SSM?

lazygal · 07-01-2015 10:31AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there any non-religious arguments available against SSM?

The only ones I've heard are the 'marriage is an outdated institution which we should abandon entirely' one from people who don't think anyone should be getting married and the 'why would gays want to be so conformist as to be involved in such a traditional institution as marriage' one. Neither of which are valid, IMO. There's also the old 'look at this GAY PERSON WHO SPEAKS FOR ALL OF THE GAYS' who doesn't want to get married so neither do any of the other gays silliness.

Otacon · 07-01-2015 10:33AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there any non-religious arguments available against SSM?

The only argument I have ever heard that fits that bill is allowing same-sex couples to marry and enjoy tax benefits would cost the state too much money. Of course that doesn't hold up when you think that it is still discriminatory but it is the closest I have seen to a non-religious argument.

MrPudding · 07-01-2015 10:47AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there any non-religious arguments available against SSM?

There are quite a few non-religious arguments. The more pertinent question is are there any valid, rational and reasonable non-religious arguments. The answer to that question is not so far.

MrP

robindch · 07-01-2015 11:25AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there any non-religious arguments available against SSM?

As MrP says, there are a few, but I don't believe they extend much beyond "it's icky".

Penn · 07-01-2015 12:03PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Are there any non-religious arguments available against SSM?

CHILDREN!

What about children, I don't know. But it's generally the go-to shriek of opposition.

robindch · 07-01-2015 12:11PM

Penn wrote: »

What about children, I don't know. But it's generally the go-to shriek of opposition.

...which, given the biological issues concerned, seems an odd worry at best.

lazygal · 07-01-2015 12:15PM

Meant to say, I'm pretty sure Ben Conroy is Breda O'Brien's son.

macyard · 07-01-2015 12:17PM

Will the marraige referendum allow polygamy, I mean it between consenting adults and a staple of islam and lds religion, I cannot see a reason for it to be disallowed and I think all adults should have the right to marraige.

If the referendum doesn't give that right to everyone I will have to vote no till it's inclusive of all.

TheChizler · 07-01-2015 12:19PM

That's tongue-in-cheek, right?...

lazygal · 07-01-2015 12:21PM

macyard wrote: »

Will the marraige referendum allow polygamy, I mean it between consenting adults and a staple of islam and lds religion, I cannot see a reason for it to be disallowed and I think all adults should have the right to marraige.

If the referendum doesn't give that right to everyone I will have to vote no till it's inclusive of all.

FYI LDS prophets outlawed polygamy in the 1890s and it is not a staple of the mainstream church, you might be thinking of Fundamendalist LDS sects.
Why would you vote no because polygamy isn't part of the referendum? Unless you think allowing two consenting adults of the same gender to marry is some sort of 'slippery slope' or means we need to further examine which type of relationships should receive legal recognition?
I don't understand why polygamy would influence one when voting on the rights of gay people to marry.

ETA you may be confused - this about the recognition of civil marriage. Religious groups can make their own rules about marriage, as long as they don't try to legally marry a person to more than one partner. FLDS ceremonies aren't legally binding, polygamy works on an internal church system, which is not recognised by civil law.

macyard · 07-01-2015 12:23PM

TheChizler wrote: »

That's tongue-in-cheek, right?...

If you mean me no why?

Should all consenting adults not be allowed to marry, it's the culture of many religions and it doesn't effect anyone same as SSM doesn't, it's a marraige referendum not a SSM referendum we should be inclusive of all now why not give rights to all adults why discriminate

lazygal · 07-01-2015 12:25PM

macyard wrote: »

If you mean me no why?

Should all consenting adults not be allowed to marry, it's the culture of many religions and it doesn't effect anyone same as SSM doesn't, it's a marraige referendum not a SSM referendum we should be inclusive of all now why not give rights to all adults why discriminate

Actually, a quick read of the experience of the Lost Boys of the FLDS sects in the USA would show you very quickly that polygamy is incredibly harmful to children and women. Particularly as it is inherently unequal, only men can have multiple wives and the secretive nature of the relationships leaves women and children in a very vulnerable state.

macyard · 07-01-2015 12:25PM

lazygal wrote: »

FYI LDS prophets outlawed polygamy in the 1890s and it is not a staple of the mainstream church, you might be thinking of Fundamendalist LDS sects.
Why would you vote no because polygamy isn't part of the referendum? Unless you think allowing two consenting adults of the same gender to marry is some sort of 'slippery slope' or means we need to further examine which type of relationships should receive legal recognition?
I don't understand why polygamy would influence one when voting on the rights of gay people to marry.

ETA you may be confused - this about the recognition of civil marriage. Religious groups can make their own rules about marriage, as long as they don't try to legally marry a person to more than one partner. FLDS ceremonies aren't legally binding, polygamy works on an internal church system, which is not recognised by civil law.

I would vote no cause they don't allow polygamy.

All adults should be allowed to marry and if we are going to fix marraige now we might as well fix it right, leaving out polygamy is discrimination against muslims and the likes.

Daith · 07-01-2015 12:27PM

macyard wrote: »

Should all consenting adults not be allowed to marry, it's the culture of many religions and it doesn't effect anyone same as SSM doesn't, it's a marraige referendum not a SSM referendum we should be inclusive of all now why not give rights to all adults why discriminate

No it's a referendum about whether marriage should be between people of different sexes only or that it it can include people of the same sex.

Feel free to campaign for what you want but it's not what the referendum will be about.

lazygal · 07-01-2015 12:27PM

macyard wrote: »

I would vote no cause they don't allow polygamy.

All adults should be allowed to marry and if we are going to fix marraige now we might as well fix it right, leaving out polygamy is discrimination against muslims and the likes.

Why would you vote no? Surely polygamy has nothing to do with allowing two men or two women to marry each other? What is the Muslim 'and the likes' position on polygamy anyway? I've already pointed out your mistake regarding the LDS position.

Given your other posts, I suspect I'm wasting my time on trying to enlighten you so I'll stop bothering now.

macyard · 07-01-2015 12:28PM

lazygal wrote: »

Actually, a quick read of the experience of the Lost Boys of the FLDS sects in the USA would show you very quickly that polygamy is incredibly harmful to children and women. Particularly as it is inherently unequal, only men can have multiple wives and the secretive nature of the relationships leaves women and children in a very vulnerable state.

Sames as SSM children are not apart of marraige you cannot use them to stop marraige of consenting adults, also if the woman doesn't want to get married she doesn't have to.

I cannot see a reason to discriminate against people that want a polygamous marraige

Daith · 07-01-2015 12:29PM

macyard wrote: »

I cannot see a reason to discriminate against people that want a polygamous marraige

Then campaign for it.

macyard · 07-01-2015 12:29PM

lazygal wrote: »

Why would you vote no? Surely polygamy has nothing to do with allowing two men or two women to marry each other? What is the Muslim 'and the likes' position on polygamy anyway? I've already pointed out your mistake regarding the LDS position.

Given your other posts, I suspect I'm wasting my time on trying to enlighten you so I'll stop bothering now.

Just cause you don't like is not a reason to not allow it, that is the same reason as the current no voters on SSM

macyard · 07-01-2015 12:30PM

Daith wrote: »

Then campaign for it.

I am and making sure people vote no on the marraige referendum till it's inculsive of all adults

Daith · 07-01-2015 12:31PM

macyard wrote: »

Just cause you don't like is not a reason to not allow it, that is the same reason as the current no voters on SSM

Again campaign for it.

TheChizler · 07-01-2015 12:31PM

macyard wrote: »

I would vote no cause they don't allow polygamy.

All adults should be allowed to marry and if we are going to fix marraige now we might as well fix it right, leaving out polygamy is discrimination against muslims and the likes.

Conflating gay marriage and polygamy is a common tactic among those opposed so please forgive me as I find it it hard to take these posts seriously.

If serious, why can't you look at this referendum on it's merits alone and campaign for a separate polygamy referendum later? Again, if you're serious, do you mean to say you don't think two people of the same gender shouldn't be allowed to marry because polygamy isn't allowed?

Edit: Imagine there are two referenda in May, one to allow same-sex marriage and another entirely separate one to allow polygamous marriage, how would you vote on both?

Daith · 07-01-2015 12:32PM

macyard wrote: »

I am and making sure people vote no on the marraige referendum till it's inculsive of all adults

Except if you vote no you're not making it inclusive?

Changing what sexuality can marry and the number of people who can marry are two different things. You can have polygamy be hetro only and still exclude homosexual people.

lazygal · 07-01-2015 12:33PM

macyard wrote: »

Just cause you don't like is not a reason to not allow it, that is the same reason as the current no voters on SSM

You're right, I don't like it, but that's not the reason I think it shouldn't form part of the debate on gay marriage.
I've read extensively on the history of polygamy in the LDS church as it is a subject of great interest to me. Everything I have read about polygamy as experienced by the LDS faithful has lead me to conclude that it is a harmful practice which treats women appalingly and leads to severe social, cultural and psychological difficulties for the women and their many children.
None of this has anything to do with the referendum on extending civil marriage to gay people in Ireland. Given your other posts I strongly suspect you're a troll posting for a rise and are simply throwing in polygamy to get a rise out of other posters.

macyard · 07-01-2015 12:34PM

Daith wrote: »

Except if you vote no you're not making it inclusive?

No half measures on being inculsive, if you give some people rights now it will be harder for polygamous people to get rights later. If we give rights to all at once if will be quicker and easier

Daith · 07-01-2015 12:36PM

macyard wrote: »

No half measures on being inculsive, if you give some people rights now it will be harder for polygamous people to get rights later. If we give rights to all at once if will be quicker and easier

No, if you vote no to homosexual people being allowed to marry you can make it harder for homosexual people to marry more than one person.

By voting no you agree with the what marriage is now. Two people, a man and woman.

macyard · 07-01-2015 12:37PM

lazygal wrote: »

You're right, I don't like it, but that's not the reason I think it shouldn't form part of the debate on gay marriage.
I've read extensively on the history of polygamy in the LDS church as it is a subject of great interest to me. Everything I have read about polygamy as experienced by the LDS faithful has lead me to conclude that it is a harmful practice which treats women appalingly and leads to severe social, cultural and psychological difficulties for the women and their many children.
None of this has anything to do with the referendum on extending civil marriage to gay people in Ireland. Given your other posts I strongly suspect you're a troll posting for a rise and are simply throwing in polygamy to get a rise out of other posters.

But children have noting to do with marraige, if we are going to bring children into the debate where they don't belong, I have read articles of SS couples adopting children to abuse.

But children have noting to do with marriage and should not be a factor on not allowing polygamous marraige between consenting adults.

Daith · 07-01-2015 12:39PM

macyard wrote: »

But children have noting to do with marriage and should not be a factor on not allowing polygamous marraige between consenting adults.

Likewise this referendum has nothing to do with polygamous marriage and it shouldn't be a factor.

macyard · 07-01-2015 12:39PM

Daith wrote: »

No, if you vote no to homosexual people being allowed to marry you can make it harder for homosexual people to marry more than one person.

By voting no you agree with the what marriage is now. Two people, a man and woman.

The referendum might fail then it can try again in another year with it being inculsive of all adults. I dom't like the marraige as it is now but if we are going to change it we need to male it right for all not just right for some.

Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Comments