Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

1…6566687071…325

Comments

  • #2012
    Coeurdepirate
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,576 ✭✭✭Coeurdepirate


    With the way overpopulation is going, any make-believe gay agenda that seeks to convert the heterosexual population can only be a good thing. In any case, I'll be flying home in May to vote yes!


  • #2013
    Coeurdepirate
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,576 ✭✭✭Coeurdepirate


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    The State is not concerned with individual couples, it is concerned with the aggregate.



    A same sex union cannot produce a child from that union. That is the only irrefutable fact, unlike a refusal to admit the bleeding obvious for argument purposes like the above.

    An irrefutable fact it may be, but using the capacity for procreation as your defining criteria for being allowed to marry is incredibly flawed logic considering people who are unable to procreate are allowed to marry. I think you're clutching at straws looking for reasons that could be perceived as credible when in reality it all boils down to eeeeeeeeewwww.


  • #2014
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    The State is not concerned with individual couples, it is concerned with the aggregate.



    A same sex union cannot produce a child from that union. That is the only irrefutable fact, unlike a refusal to admit the bleeding obvious for argument purposes like the above.

    From the above replies, can I take it that: 1... you are of the opinion that the aggregate is more important than the individual couples? 2... that as same-sex "unions" cannot produce a child from their unions, they should not be allowed access to civil marriage (due to the state being concerned with the aggregate)? 3... the state should have no regard for the rights of the individual?

    In my use of the word individual in question 3, I mean the single person, as distinct from "individual" couples. I decline to use the word union to describe civil marriage.


  • #2015
    Sheldons Brain
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,394 ✭✭✭Sheldons Brain


    Coeurdepirate wrote:
    With the way overpopulation is going, any make-believe gay agenda that seeks to convert the heterosexual population can only be a good thing. In any case, I'll be flying home in May to vote yes!

    are you resident in the Republic of Ireland or are you proposing to vote fraudulently?

    Coeurdepirate wrote:
    An irrefutable fact it may be, but using the capacity for procreation as your defining criteria for being allowed to marry is incredibly flawed logic considering people who are unable to procreate are allowed to marry. I think you're clutching at straws looking for reasons that could be perceived as credible when in reality it all boils down to eeeeeeeeewwww

    Everyone seems wound up that something isn't worth doing if one person doesn't achieve the objectives of the measure. One wonders if you agree with this in every aspect of government policy?
    aloyisious wrote: »
    From the above replies, can I take it that: 1... you are of the opinion that the aggregate is more important than the individual couples?

    The government cannot tailor its policies for every individual, it has to deal with aggregates to some extent.
    2... that as same-sex "unions" cannot produce a child from their unions, they should not be allowed unions (due to the state being concerned with the aggregate)?

    If they wish to form a union then they should avail of the civil partnership provisions.

    3... the state should have no regard for the rights of the individual?
    In my use of the word individual in question 3, I mean the single person, as distinct from "individual" couples.

    Of course the state should have concern for the rights of the individual! However it is a misuse of the concept of rights to imply that the State cannot promote something without those who do not wish to avail of the conditions of the promotion claiming that their "rights" are infringed. If the State wishes to promote electric cars, this is not an assault on the "rights" of diesel car drivers. If the state wishes to promote men and women to come together this does not infringe the "rights" of people who do not want to do that.


  • #2016
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    are you resident in the Republic of Ireland or are you proposing to vote fraudulently?




    Everyone seems wound up that something isn't worth doing if one person doesn't achieve the objectives of the measure. One wonders if you agree with this in every aspect of government policy?



    The government cannot tailor its policies for every individual, it has to deal with aggregates to some extent.



    If they wish to form a union then they should avail of the civil partnership provisions.




    Of course the state should have concern for the rights of the individual! However it is a misuse of the concept of rights to imply that the State cannot promote something without those who do not wish to avail of the conditions of the promotion claiming that their "rights" are infringed. If the State wishes to promote electric cars, this is not an assault on the "rights" of diesel car drivers. If the state wishes to promote men and women to come together this does not infringe the "rights" of people who do not want to do that.

    Sorry Sheldon, i edited some of the wording in my 2nd question after you began reading it, so you may (or may not) feel your reply may need to be amended. The part I amended now reads "their unions, they should not be allowed access to CIVIL MARRIAGE (due to the state being concerned with the aggregate)"


  • Advertisement
  • #2017
    Coeurdepirate
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,576 ✭✭✭Coeurdepirate


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    are you resident in the Republic of Ireland or are you proposing to vote fraudulently?
    If you leave your address but plan to return within 18 months you can continue to be registered there. I left about 5 months ago and will be back within 6.
    Everyone seems wound up that something isn't worth doing if one person doesn't achieve the objectives of the measure. One wonders if you agree with this in every aspect of government policy?
    You've missed my point, I'm referring to the fact that infertile people and the elderly continue to enjoy the right to marriage despite their obvious inability to procreate. Would you propose that they no longer be able to marry? If not, why?


  • #2018
    Zen65
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,630 ✭✭✭Zen65


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    The government cannot tailor its policies for every individual, it has to deal with aggregates to some extent.

    That's an interesting idea. Do you have any other examples in Irish law where a prohibition is placed on entry by adults into a civil contract on the basis of an aggregate ability?


  • #2019
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    I think you're excluding the human element here. If you're at a university and you decide to start a research project to prove that gay parents are harmful to children just think of the response of your colleagues around the staff room. Think of what the college president would do to nip it in the bud so you don't bring negative publicity to the university.

    Let's be real here. Sociology departments are circle-jerks.

    Not that I'm hoping for such a study to be done. I just don't think research in these areas is particularly useful.
    It does happen, particularly in the US where the academics are pretty much untouchable. Have a quick look at Robert George. He is a proponent of this argument that you are seeing from Sheldon's Brain on this thread. He works for a mainstream university, but his research is very anti-sms. He seem to have had no issue getting published, and he has certainly kept his job.

    I appreciate that it is only one example, but there are more. John Finnis, he teaches at Oxford. Again, anti-ssm, still has a job, still gets published.

    Granted, these guys aren't sociologists, but they do show that it is possible for respected academics, and both of them are respected, to publish material that does not tow the company line, and might be unpopular.

    MrP


  • #2020
    walshyn93
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,685 ✭✭✭walshyn93


    MrPudding wrote: »
    It does happen, particularly in the US where the academics are pretty much untouchable. Have a quick look at Robert George. He is a proponent of this argument that you are seeing from Sheldon's Brain on this thread. He works for a mainstream university, but his research is very anti-sms. He seem to have had no issue getting published, and he has certainly kept his job.

    I appreciate that it is only one example, but there are more. John Finnis, he teaches at Oxford. Again, anti-ssm, still has a job, still gets published.

    Granted, these guys aren't sociologists, but they do show that it is possible for respected academics, and both of them are respected, to publish material that does not tow the company line, and might be unpopular.

    MrP

    I get your point. I was mainly talking about sociologists though. Legal professors get a lot more leeway when it comes to controversial topics because the law is something that can be dramatically changed or reversed in an instant. So today's controversial topic could be tomorrow's law.

    However when you're talking about sociology (I could be using the wrong word here) a lot of people have a lot of emotional capital invested in a particular world view. It's one thing to challenge the legal system it's another to challenge the very fabric of someone's being. If someone comes out and says something like "you know bullying is good for kids and here's why" expect them to be shouted down and vilified even if what they're saying is correct or at the very least supported by the evidence.


  • #2021
    aloyisious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Sheldons Brain
    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    Everyone seems wound up that something isn't worth doing if one person doesn't achieve the objectives of the measure. One wonders if you agree with this in every aspect of government policy?


    The government cannot tailor its policies for every individual, it has to deal with aggregates to some extent.


    If they wish to form a union then they should avail of the civil partnership provisions.


    Of course the state should have concern for the rights of the individual! However it is a misuse of the concept of rights to imply that the State cannot promote something without those who do not wish to avail of the conditions of the promotion claiming that their "rights" are infringed. If the state wishes to promote men and women to come together this does not infringe the "rights" of people who do not want to do that.


    Aloyisious's responses; to Your first and second quotes: To put the law guaranteeing one's civil liberties in the position as having to rely on "Gov't Policy" (rather than the reverse) is rather dangerous. One just has to look back at the continuing revelations on what "Gov't Policy" landed our country and citizens in.

    To your third quote; If they wish to form a union then they should avail of the civil partnership provisions sound's more like a policy of: they'll take what we give them and if they don't like they can go jump. Not exactly something that should be enshrined in the law of the state.

    Your last quote put's the situation excellently:Those seeking that civil marriage would be open to homosexual couples on a par with heterosexual couples are NOT seeking to infringe the rights of heterosexual married couples within the existing civil marriage law. They are seeking a change in constitutional law to guarantee them equality of access to civil marriage law on a par with those who already have that right.

    That quote of your's puts the position taken by opponents to homosexual couples being allowed access to civil marriage perfectly. It is their concept that their civil rights are being infringed that is wrong. It is a misuse of the concept of rights being propounded by groups opposed to the proposed change to constitutional law. Those who have the right will not be denied that right. Their marriages still have the absolute legitimacy given them by that law.


  • Advertisement
  • #2022
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Ctrl Alt Delete wrote: »
    It was in response to this post

    Well that wasn't me, nor did the poster talk about anybody pulling out. He talked about inward investment - which I imagine could cover both companies already here and considering it.

    So yea, retraction?


  • #2023
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    The State is not concerned with individual couples, it is concerned with the aggregate.



    A same sex union cannot produce a child from that union. That is the only irrefutable fact, unlike a refusal to admit the bleeding obvious for argument purposes like the above.

    That is an absurd distinction.

    In any event, if we allow same sex couples to marry, the aggregate can still reproduce. The state can ignore us individually and just look at married couples as a whole.


    Ergo, on your logic we can still marry. Yay.

    Also, please evidence where in law marriage is states to be concerned solely or predominantly with procreation. Yiu are assuming this as a fact, but I've never seen anything which conforms your assertions.


  • #2024
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    Sheldons Brain wrote: »
    are you resident in the Republic of Ireland or are you proposing to vote fraudulently?




    Everyone seems wound up that something isn't worth doing if one person doesn't achieve the objectives of the measure. One wonders if you agree with this in every aspect of government policy?



    The government cannot tailor its policies for every individual, it has to deal with aggregates to some extent.



    If they wish to form a union then they should avail of the civil partnership provisions.




    Of course the state should have concern for the rights of the individual! However it is a misuse of the concept of rights to imply that the State cannot promote something without those who do not wish to avail of the conditions of the promotion claiming that their "rights" are infringed. If the State wishes to promote electric cars, this is not an assault on the "rights" of diesel car drivers. If the state wishes to promote men and women to come together this does not infringe the "rights" of people who do not want to do that.

    There are no procreative conditions of the promotion.


  • #2025
    DeVore
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 32,387 ✭✭✭✭DeVore


    You didn't answer my question.... So what?

    They cant have kids... so what?


  • #2026
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    walshyn93 wrote: »
    I get your point. I was mainly talking about sociologists though. Legal professors get a lot more leeway when it comes to controversial topics because the law is something that can be dramatically changed or reversed in an instant. So today's controversial topic could be tomorrow's law.

    However when you're talking about sociology (I could be using the wrong word here) a lot of people have a lot of emotional capital invested in a particular world view. It's one thing to challenge the legal system it's another to challenge the very fabric of someone's being. If someone comes out and says something like "you know bullying is good for kids and here's why" expect them to be shouted down and vilified even if what they're saying is correct or at the very least supported by the evidence.
    I am not sure there is much difference, a tenured professor is pretty much untouchable, irrespective of the field. The simple explanation here is quite obvious... Given that no one [should] set out to show a particular thing with a piece of research, the easy explanation is the research show there is no difference between children raised in same-sex and opposite-sex families.

    It is not necessary to appeal to a conspiracy to repress research, or indeed that people are scared to publish research, the answer is probably simply that there is no valid research to suggest there is a problem.

    Besides, there is 'research' published which does suggest that children raised in same-sex families don't do as well as those raised in opposite-sex families, but the fact of the matter is these studies tend to be flawed, as in the case of the Regnerus research, or wilfully misrepresenting what research actually said, as happened with the Child Trends study.

    These are just two examples, and both were systematically dismantled in court where there were presented as justification for continued discrimination against same-sex couples.

    It is interesting to note that even after the reaction to the Regnerus study, and the plain FACT that it was utter rubbish, he is still be used as an 'expert' and anti-ssm proponents still call on him as a witness or expert and refer to his research. I think are very own Iona Institute are big fans.

    MrP


  • #2027
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    DeVore wrote: »
    You didn't answer my question.... So what?

    They cant have kids... so what?
    Ssssh, stop asking awkward questions.

    MrP


  • #2028
    K4t
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,362 ✭✭✭K4t


    Ozymandius2011 wrote: »
    It's ironic those who cite Biblical denunciations of homosexuality as something that should inform our law hold a completely different attitude when it comes to Biblical endorsements of slavery.
    Who says they do hold a completely different attitude? We aren't having a referendum on slavery.


    That is why they are so terrifying.


  • #2029
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    DeVore wrote: »
    You didn't answer my question.... So what?

    They cant have kids... so what?


    Much as I hate to be pedantic, "they" can have kids and "they" can get married, subject to the same constraints as everybody else.


  • #2030
    WoolyJumper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 849 ✭✭✭WoolyJumper


    reprise wrote: »
    Much as I hate to be pedantic, "they" can have kids and "they" can get married, subject to the same constraints as everybody else.

    "They" can't marry the person they love though. I'm pretty sure love is an important aspect to marriage and core to our modern ideals about it.


  • #2031
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    reprise wrote: »
    Much as I hate to be pedantic, "they" can have kids and "they" can get married, subject to the same constraints as everybody else.

    And Mr and Mrs Loving could have individually gotten married subject to the same constraints as everybody else.


  • Advertisement
  • #2032
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    reprise wrote: »
    Much as I hate to be pedantic, "they" can have kids and "they" can get married, subject to the same constraints as everybody else.
    I really dislike this little trick the pro-discrimination side use. This is something that Robert George uses in his work, one simply defines the 'thing' in such a way as to suit ones agenda. it is quite disingenuous to suggest a gay man is perfectly entitle to marry, that he has the same rights as a straight man.

    Being slightly less disingenuous about it, it would be fairer to say a straight man is entitle to marry the person he wants to, typically a woman that he loves. A gay man, on the other hand only has a right to marry someone he has no interest or desire in marrying, a woman. Clearly the same applied to a gay woman compared to a straight woman.

    By using a very restricted view of the right in question, that it is merely a right to marry, you can almost pretend that there is no discrimination. When the definition of the right is broadened, to be more descriptive about what it is, the right to marry the person one loves, then we can see the problem in your reasoning.

    By the way, this argument has been singularly unsuccessful in any court case it has been used in. Are you not even slightly embarrassed to be regurgitating someone else's failed argument?

    MrP


  • #2033
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    MrPudding wrote: »
    By the way, this argument has been singularly unsuccessful in any court case it has been used in. Are you not even slightly embarrassed to be regurgitating someone else's failed argument?

    MrP

    We would hardly have gotten to 70plus pages if they were, now would we.


  • #2034
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    floggg wrote: »
    We would hardly have gotten to 70plus pages if they were, now would we.
    A fair point, well made.

    MrP


  • #2035
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    I'm not seeing an argument that could not be finely tuned to argue that not allowing close relatives to marry is discrimination, never mind every other permutation.


  • #2036
    bodice ripper
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,681 ✭✭✭bodice ripper


    reprise wrote: »
    I'm not seeing an argument that could not be finely tuned to argue that not allowing close relatives to marry is discrimination, never mind every other permutation.


    Well, you see what you want to see.


  • #2037
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    reprise wrote: »
    I'm not seeing an argument that could not be finely tuned to argue that not allowing close relatives to marry is discrimination, never mind every other permutation.

    Ah the slippery slope argument.

    If all else fails, change the subject.

    PS - arguments in favour of allowing women to vote could be finely tuned to argue that 4 year olds should be allowed vote. Would that have been a good reason to deny women the vote?


  • #2038
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    reprise wrote: »
    I'm not seeing an argument that could not be finely tuned to argue that not allowing close relatives to marry is discrimination, never mind every other permutation.
    OK, here's one. The Harm Principle. The state has an interest in reducing or limiting harm. In the absence of harm the state's stance on a particular 'thing' should be, at worst, neutral. In addition, the state also has an interest in reducing discrimination.

    So we look at ssm. There are no apparent harms to society, therefore the state should allow it. There is no harm and as it is trying to reduce discrimination it makes sense to allow ssm marriage couples to marry.

    If we then take incestuous marriages, we can do the same thing. The result is, however, slightly different. There is evidence that incestuous relationships do have a harm factor. There is the genetic aspect, where the reproduction of close relatives can cause medical issue over time. This is reasonably well supported in academic research. Further to this, there is also evidence that incestuous relationships are harmful (physiological) for the effects they have on the family members themselves, as well as problems with consent due to the potential for paternal or sibling coercion, in the case of girls. The state has, as was confirmed in the ECoHR, an interest in restricting this type of marriage.

    Shall we do polygamous next or do you just want to jump straight to bestiality?

    MrP


  • #2039
    floggg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,821 ✭✭✭floggg


    MrPudding wrote: »
    OK, here's one. The Harm Principle. The state has an interest in reducing or limiting harm. In the absence of harm the state's stance on a particular 'thing' should be, at worst, neutral. In addition, the state also has an interest in reducing discrimination.

    So we look at ssm. There are no apparent harms to society, therefore the state should allow it. There is no harm and as it is trying to reduce discrimination it makes sense to allow ssm marriage couples to marry.

    If we then take incestuous marriages, we can do the same thing. The result is, however, slightly different. There is evidence that incestuous relationships do have a harm factor. There is the genetic aspect, where the reproduction of close relatives can cause medical issue over time. This is reasonably well supported in academic research. Further to this, there is also evidence that incestuous relationships are harmful (physiological) for the effects they have on the family members themselves, as well as problems with consent due to the potential for paternal or sibling coercion, in the case of girls. The state has, as was confirmed in the ECoHR, an interest in restricting this type of marriage.

    Shall we do polygamous next or do you just want to jump straight to bestiality?

    MrP

    Sorry Mr P, but he wasn't actually looking for any sort of (well thought out and entirely correct) answer.

    The purpose of the slippery slope argument is to:
    • change the subject
    • create a subconscious association between same sex relationships and beastiality, incest etc
    • play to the instinctive fear of the unknown of some voters
    • distract from the total lack of substance to the arguments of the no side


  • #2040
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    MrPudding wrote: »
    OK, here's one. The Harm Principle. The state has an interest in reducing or limiting harm. In the absence of harm the state's stance on a particular 'thing' should be, at worst, neutral. In addition, the state also has an interest in reducing discrimination.

    So we look at ssm. There are no apparent harms to society, therefore the state should allow it. There is no harm and as it is trying to reduce discrimination it makes sense to allow ssm marriage couples to marry.

    If we then take incestuous marriages, we can do the same thing. The result is, however, slightly different. There is evidence that incestuous relationships do have a harm factor. There is the genetic aspect, where the reproduction of close relatives can cause medical issue over time. This is reasonably well supported in academic research. Further to this, there is also evidence that incestuous relationships are harmful (physiological) for the effects they have on the family members themselves, as well as problems with consent due to the potential for paternal or sibling coercion, in the case of girls. The state has, as was confirmed in the ECoHR, an interest in restricting this type of marriage.

    Shall we do polygamous next or do you just want to jump straight to bestiality?

    MrP

    Not so fast.

    So we apply a little bit of fine tuning. Where a brother and sister have a child together, and that actually happens, and they decide they want to provide all the benefits of marriage, even love each other, what's your objection?

    Where a brother and sister (or any other relative) cannot conceive (the great aha moment so far for ssm and here we have your harm principle) what objection is there to that marriage where they are of the age and mind to consent?


  • Advertisement
  • #2041
    reprise
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,372 ✭✭✭reprise


    floggg wrote: »
    Sorry Mr P, but he wasn't actually looking for any sort of (well thought out and entirely correct) answer.

    The purpose of the slippery slope argument is to:
    • change the subject
    • create a subconscious association between same sex relationships and beastiality, incest etc
    • play to the instinctive fear of the unknown of some voters
    • distract from the total lack of substance to the arguments of the no side

    Does any of my logic apply to the Loving case?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement