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

MrPudding · 01-02-2015 07:33PM

reprise wrote: »

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?

Did you read the post? There are issues with consent. Besides, I thought that if they could not have children they shouldn't be allowed to marry...?

MrP

Annasopra · 01-02-2015 07:34PM

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.

I cant see how that could be argued from the proposed wording?

reprise · 01-02-2015 07:34PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Did you read the post? There are issues with consent. Besides, I thought that if they could not have children they shouldn't be allowed to marry...?

MrP

Lets assume everyone is consenting.

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?

reprise · 01-02-2015 07:37PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I cant see how that could be argued from the proposed wording?

Of course it can, the proposed wording discriminates against all other parties that are excluded from marriage.

MrPudding · 01-02-2015 07:40PM

reprise wrote: »

Lets assume everyone is consenting.

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?

We can'r assume consent. That is the point. Incestuous relationship tend to have a degree of coercion, and as such the consent is questionable, so I'm afraid we can assume consent here. That is the whole point!

Ther eis also a question of basing rights on illegal behaviour... As far as I am aware incestuous relationships are illegal, why would one provide legal protection and advantages to a relationship that is illegal by its very nature.

I see what you are trying to do here, but you are kind of failing badly.

MrP

Annasopra · 01-02-2015 07:41PM

reprise wrote: »

Of course it can, the proposed wording discriminates against all other parties that are excluded from marriage.

Ah ok

Earlier we had the whatabout polygamy derailing
Now we have the whatabout incest derailing

MrPudding · 01-02-2015 07:42PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ah ok

Earlier we had the whatabout polygamy derailing
Now we have the whatabout incest derailing

Yep. I just wish he would hurry up and get on to bestiality.

MrP

reprise · 01-02-2015 07:45PM

MrPudding wrote: »

We can'r assume consent. That is the point. Incestuous relationship tend to have a degree of coercion, and as such the consent is questionable, so I'm afraid we can assume consent here. That is the whole point!

Ther eis also a question of basing rights on illegal behaviour... As far as I am aware incestuous relationships are illegal, why would one provide legal protection and advantages to a relationship that is illegal by its very nature.

I see what you are trying to do here, but you are kind of failing badly.

MrP

(For the 3rd time) Lets assume consent.

floggg · 01-02-2015 07:46PM

reprise wrote: »

Of course it can, the proposed wording discriminates against all other parties that are excluded from marriage.

Find us a pair of Irish siblings who want to marry and have kids, and then come back to us.

Unless of course its yourself who'd like to marry their sibling, in which case please do tell us all about your relationship.

shruikan2553 · 01-02-2015 07:47PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Yep. I just wish he would hurry up and get on to bestiality.

MrP

Is it not children first? I can never remember the order.

At this rate the entire family and pets will be married.

Zaph · 01-02-2015 07:47PM

reprise wrote: »

Lets assume everyone is consenting.

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?

As you're fully aware, incest is illegal in just about every country in the world, including Ireland. Homosexuality is no longer a criminal act here, so to make any sort of comparison between the two is at best, deliberately trying to muddy the waters to support your own ridiculous assertions, and at worst, although I'm beginning to believe it's the more likely scenario, trolling.

reprise · 01-02-2015 07:47PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Yep. I just wish he would hurry up and get on to bestiality.

MrP

I think you are out of your depth without bring in every other degree of seperation.

Annasopra · 01-02-2015 07:48PM

reprise wrote: »

(For the 3rd time) Lets assume consent.

Why? Why should we assume this is a real issue instead of just a whataboutery derailing tactic?

MrPudding · 01-02-2015 07:49PM

reprise wrote: »

(For the 3rd time) Lets assume consent.

Let's not. Why are you finding this so difficult. You asked for a way to stop fine tuning. I have you it, the harm principle. One of the harms being people can be coerced into incestuous relationships, therefore consent is questionable.

Just so we are clear here, you asked for a way to stop fine tuning, I gave you a reason, now you are asking to assume that reason does not apply? So what then, you will go 'ha, so if we assume the reason you have given does not apply then we see you have no reason to use against my fine tuning argument'. Seriously? Have a word.

MrP

reprise · 01-02-2015 07:50PM

Zaph wrote: »

As you're fully aware, incest is illegal in just about every country in the world, including Ireland. Homosexuality is no longer a criminal act here, so to make any sort of comparison between the two is at best, deliberately trying to muddy the waters to support your own ridiculous assertions, and at worst, although I'm beginning to believe it's the more likely scenario, trolling.

It doesn't matter if it's illegal, it happens, and unlike ssm, can produce children.

The relevance here is grounds of exclusion from marriage and not just incest.

Annasopra · 01-02-2015 07:53PM

reprise wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it's illegal, it happens, and unlike ssm, can produce children.

The relevance here is grounds of exclusion from marriage and not just incest.

But why cant you marry your horse?

MrPudding · 01-02-2015 07:54PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But why cant you marry your horse?

Also, why can't I marry my motorbike. It is so sexy, and I think it really likes me...

MrP

reprise · 01-02-2015 07:55PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Let's not. Why are you finding this so difficult. You asked for a way to stop fine tuning. I have you it, the harm principle. One of the harms being people can be coerced into incestuous relationships, therefore consent is questionable.

And that could never be said about ssm?

MrPudding wrote: »

Just so we are clear here, you asked for a way to stop fine tuning, I gave you a reason, now you are asking to assume that reason does not apply? So what then, you will go 'ha, so if we assume the reason you have given does not apply then we see you have no reason to use against my fine tuning argument'. Seriously? Have a word.

MrP

I didn't argue for a way to stop fine tuning. I argued that arguments for ssm can be finely tuned to justify marriage for other parties not permitted to marry.

conorh91 · 01-02-2015 07:56PM

Zaph wrote: »

As you're fully aware, incest is illegal in just about every country in the world, including Ireland. Homosexuality is no longer a criminal act here

Are you therefore saying that prior to the decriminalisation of homosexual sex in 1993, it couldn't form a legitimate part of the equality debate pre-1993?

That, by virtue of it being a criminal offence, it was out-of-bounds?

What sort of reasoning is this?

Just because incest is presently a criminal act, I don't see why it should be excluded from equality debates.

reprise · 01-02-2015 07:56PM

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

But why cant you marry your horse?

My point exactly.

To be fair, why can't you marry several horses?

MrPudding · 01-02-2015 07:59PM

conorh91 wrote: »

Are you therefore saying that prior to the decriminalisation of homosexual sex in 1993, it couldn't form a legitimate part of the equality debate pre-1993?

That, by virtue of it being a criminal offence, it was out-of-bounds?

What sort of reasoning is this?

Just because incest is presently a criminal act, I don't see why it should be excluded from equality debates.

Which is fine. And anyone arguing for bestial relationships to be made legal is perfectly entitled to do so, but it has nothing to do with the question of whether or not ssm should be allowed.

MrP

MrPudding · 01-02-2015 08:02PM

reprise wrote: »

And that could never be said about ssm?

Do you have any examples? The Proposition 8 proponents in California were unable to come up with any harms that might justify the state in continuing the discrimination, but please, if you have any I am all ears.

reprise wrote: »

I didn't argue for a way to stop fine tuning. I argued that arguments for ssm can be finely tuned to justify marriage for other parties not permitted to marry.

Yes you did, and I suggested that the harm principle could be used to justify continued restrictions on those type of relationships.

MrP

conorh91 · 01-02-2015 08:04PM

MrPudding wrote: »

And anyone arguing for bestial relationships to be made legal is perfectly entitled to do so

Well lets not get ahead of ourselves. The point was made in relation to incestuous relationships between consenting adults.

It is only right and sensible that the logical consistency of the proposed amendment should be investigated by comparing it to other conjugal relationships between consenting adults.

And I have to admit, it does seem a bit arbitrary to impose our values on one set of couples (such as brothers in a conjugal relationship), whilst insisting that we have no right to impose our values on consenting adults in other forms of conjugal relationships (other homosexuals).

reprise · 01-02-2015 08:07PM

MrPudding wrote: »

Do you have any examples? The Proposition 8 proponents in California were unable to come up with any harms that might justify the state in continuing the discrimination, but please, if you have any I am all ears.

I am inverting your argument. You are avoiding my question by advancing a bizarre theory that no-one ever consented to incest.

MrPudding wrote: »

Yes you did, and I suggested that the harm principle could be used to justify continued restrictions on those type of relationships.

MrP

On what grounds? is the de facto child of an incestuous relationship not worthy of married parents and family life?

shruikan2553 · 01-02-2015 08:10PM

conorh91 wrote: »

Well lets not get ahead of ourselves. The point was made in relation to incestuous relationships between consenting adults.

It is only right and sensible that the logical consistency of the proposed amendment should be investigated by comparing it to other conjugal relationships between consenting adults.

And I have to admit, it does seem a bit arbitrary to impose our values on one set of couples (such as brothers in a conjugal relationship), whilst insisting that we have no right to impose our values on consenting adults in other forms of conjugal relationships (other homosexuals).

Then email your TD and start a campaign to allow people who are related to get married.

MrPudding · 01-02-2015 08:12PM

conorh91 wrote: »

Well lets not get ahead of ourselves. The point was made in relation to incestuous relationships between consenting adults.

It is only right and sensible that the logical consistency of the proposed amendment should be investigated by comparing it to other conjugal relationships between consenting adults.

And I have to admit, it does seem a bit arbitrary to impose our values on one set of couples (such as brothers in a conjugal relationship), whilst insisting that we have no right to impose our values on consenting adults in other forms of conjugal relationships.

I don't think it is arbitrary at all. If one can distinguish between the different forms of relationship, then the difference in treatment becomes non-arbitraty, if it ever was arbitrary at all.

We can distinguish between same-sex and incestuous relationships on the basis that there is no apparent harm to society in same-sex relationships, whereas there are apparent harms in incestuous relationships.

Given that the state has an interest in reducing harm, and this interest is likely to be stronger than its interest in tending toward equality, it seems like we can distinguish between these two forms of relationship, and as if my magic, any arbitrariness disappears.

There is also a question of proportionality here. When you dis-allow ssm you are denying a gay person the right to marry anyone they might want to marry. In the case of a brother want to marry his sister, he is restricted only from marrying that one person. Granted, it is the very person he wants to marry, but proportionally it is a very small restriction when compared to being prevented from marrying anyone one might want to.

MrP

floggg · 01-02-2015 08:13PM

reprise wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it's illegal, it happens, and unlike ssm, can produce children.

The relevance here is grounds of exclusion from marriage and not just incest.

So can rape. Doesn't mean we need to provide any rights to rapists, now does it?

floggg · 01-02-2015 08:14PM

reprise wrote: »

And that could never be said about ssm?

I didn't argue for a way to stop fine tuning. I argued that arguments for ssm can be finely tuned to justify marriage for other parties not permitted to marry.

Again, the arguments for granting women the right to vote could be fine tuned to support granting 4 year olds the right to vote.

Should we have refused to grant women the right to vote on that basis?

reprise · 01-02-2015 08:14PM

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't think it is arbitrary at all. If one can distinguish between the different forms of relationship, then the difference in treatment becomes non-arbitraty, if it ever was arbitrary at all.

I give you, the No side.

floggg · 01-02-2015 08:15PM

conorh91 wrote: »

Are you therefore saying that prior to the decriminalisation of homosexual sex in 1993, it couldn't form a legitimate part of the equality debate pre-1993?

That, by virtue of it being a criminal offence, it was out-of-bounds?

What sort of reasoning is this?

Just because incest is presently a criminal act, I don't see why it should be excluded from equality debates.

Do you want to marry your sister?

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

Comments