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

floggg wrote: »

Psst. The constitution was 1937. We became a republic in 1949.

Point still stands though.

Even if it were the case, during that period of time in Ireland marriages were arraigned land deals and women became the property of men.

Is that what Iona means by the special relationship between a man and woman? Only a man can own a women? If we legalise ssm then we will have men owning men and women..well owning anything. And how would we decide who owns who? The bigger one owns the smaller one? It's too complicated, i think we should just leave it.

floggg wrote: »

Your timing is a bit off there (don't think dowries and marriage contracts were common in Ireland between 1937 and 1949), but it certainly would be nonsensical to look to the original nature and purpose of marriage when debating marriage in 2015.

Funnily enough, most people who appeal to the traditional nature of marriage seem entirely ignorant as to the nature of it, or else just outright lie about it.

We know that "Judeo-Christian" marriage was polygamous in nature, so the argument that marriage has always been between one man and one woman is clearly fallacious (and that's ignoring that marriage has had many forms in different societies).

We also know that "traditional" marriage involved many concepts which we now view as morally repugnant, such as the right to rape your wife, beat her (even kill her in some instances) and her complete lack of free will, independent rights or personhood.

So it seem odd to me that people think we should look to that model now.

It seems to be me any person making such an argument is either

• ignorant of the facts
• in agreement with practices such as marital rape or
• disingenuously picking and choosing which aspect (singular) of traditional marriage they wish to retain whilst happily jettisoning the rest

Which ever way you look at it, the argument reflects very poorly on the speaker.

You'd be surprised. Certainly throughout the 1930s they were common. Arnesberg and Kimballs study only ended in 1936/37. Even up until the 1950s "marriages of convenience" weren't unheard of among farming families. It's mad to think how much Ireland has changed in such a short amount of time.

But I agree its a silly argument. Besides all that, marriage itself refers to a whole host of marital practices throughout history and different societies. Both formal and in formal practices and even practices from early tribes. So if someone wants to try and pin point the exact origin of marriage....good luck to them.

"a christian can be gay but there is no such thing as a gay christian"

one suggests continuing practice of the act

the other suggests that, yes I know I have these urges but I am not succumbing to the temptations.

Someone please tell me that this is self contradicting. i couldn't stop laughing

WoolyJumper wrote: »

You are talking about two completely different kettles of fish here. One is talking about opening up the definition of marriage to same sex couples. Allowing two non related people become family. This doesn't really have a big impact on society and families in general.

It has just as great (or little) an impact on society as constitutional protection of incestuous relationships would.

Why? Because the same arguments in favor of same-sex marriage can equally apply to incestuous relationships. Here's the argument.

The right to freedom of sexual expression between consenting adults, and the right to freedom from arbitrary interference in the enjoyment of one's sexual expression are the primary 'driving forces' behind the same-sex marriage debate.

Put simply your family's displeasure and confusion is no barrier to your ability to contract a valid marriage. Ditto for society's confusion and displeasure.

So why should it be different for incestuous people?

I obviously oppose incest as a matter of morals, but I think it's quite reasonable to recognize that the same arguments favoring same-sex marriage do also favor the recognition of incest, particularly incestuous relationships between homosexuals.

Now, if you want to admit that this is indeed arbitrary and random, and operate in spite of this, OK.

I'm just pointing out the arbitrariness of it as I see it. And if it is arbitrary, well then it cannot be rational.

aloyisious wrote: »

Umm, taking this version of debate a stage further, would reprise think it OK if I was to dig up my grandmother from her grave and marry her? in the scheme of things now being debated here now, that's as valid a point as me marrying my brother, sister, niece or nephew. Just because granny is a rotting corpse shouldn't rule her out, she's a relative.

That's a really bad attempt at a comparison, since a corpse cannot consent to anything, and is not the property of anyone. It's a bit like trying to marry a seagull. It's probably preferable to at least make comparisons that are capable of possessing common elements, such as personhood and adult consent.

i wasnt too bothered about it either way but i reckon i;; make the effort and pop down to vote yes

conorh91 wrote: »

That's a really bad attempt at a comparison, since a corpse cannot consent to anything, and is not the property of anyone. It's a bit like trying to marry a seagull. It's probably preferable to at least make comparisons that are capable of possessing common elements, such as personhood and adult consent.

Sorry conor91: In my post (below) I was being sarcastic as I reckon some (not all) of the posts were attempts to divert the thread away from SSM. I know some of the other comments were intended as mine was, to highlight posts which had nothing to do with SSM trying to divert the thread.

Quote: Originally Posted by aloyisious View Post
Umm, taking this version of debate a stage further, would reprise think it OK if I was to dig up my grandmother from her grave and marry her? in the scheme of things being debated here now, that's as valid a point as me marrying my brother, sister, niece or nephew. Just because granny is a rotting corpse shouldn't rule her out, she's a relative.

floggg wrote: »

It would make a workd of difference to me to know my relationship will be seen as equal to my parents', who will be standing proudly behind me on the day.

It's already equal in my eyes, and those of many other straight folks, married and unmarried. Roll on the referendum!

conorh91 wrote: »

It has just as great (or little) an impact on society as constitutional protection of incestuous relationships would.

Why? Because the same arguments in favor of same-sex marriage can equally apply to incestuous relationships. Here's the argument.

The right to freedom of sexual expression between consenting adults, and the right to freedom from arbitrary interference in the enjoyment of one's sexual expression are the primary 'driving forces' behind the same-sex marriage debate.

Put simply your family's displeasure and confusion is no barrier to your ability to contract a valid marriage. Ditto for society's confusion and displeasure.

So why should it be different for incestuous people?

I obviously oppose incest as a matter of morals, but I think it's quite reasonable to recognize that the same arguments favoring same-sex marriage do also favor the recognition of incest, particularly incestuous relationships between homosexuals.

Now, if you want to admit that this is indeed arbitrary and random, and operate in spite of this, OK.

I'm just pointing out the arbitrariness of it as I see it. And if it is arbitrary, well then it cannot be rational.

That's a really bad attempt at a comparison, since a corpse cannot consent to anything, and is not the property of anyone. It's a bit like trying to marry a seagull. It's probably preferable to at least make comparisons that are capable of possessing common elements, such as personhood and adult consent.

I can't believe I'm going down this rabbit hole, but since you seem to genuinely believe the arguments are the same, I need to clarify a couple of things:


1. To describe the "right to freedom of sexual expression between consenting adults, and the right to freedom from arbitrary interference in the enjoyment of one's sexual expression" as the primary 'driving forces' behind the same-sex marriage debate would be an over-simplification and mischaracterisation of the argument for marriage equality.

The argument, in short, is to be allowed marry the person you love regardless of gender.

That argument would however be more fully described as seeking the right to be allowed marry the person you love regardless of gender but otherwise on the same terms as currently apply to opposite sex marriages.

It is the gender requirement, which arbitrarily (whether you view it as directly or indirectly) discriminates against LGBT people, we seek to have removed - on the basis that there is no justifiable reason for maintaining that gender requirement.

Our arguments are targeted at and applicable only to that gender requirement. We make no comment on the other criteria or disqualifications applicable to marriage - including regarding prohibited relationships, polygamy, age limits, consent, notice periods etc.

Any argument for incestuous marriages would be a different argument (one about prohibited relationships not gender), and should therefore be considered on its own terms.

2. Your argument above seems to operate on the mistaken premises that there is no difference in nature between same sex relationships and incestuous ones, or that there is no difference in the issues which arisen in each.

That is patently untrue however, which should be apparent to you.

The most obvious issue is the issue of procreation, and the resulting issues for any child born of an incestuous relationship. Given the risk posed to children of such relationships, it is right that the state discourages those relationships as much as possible - including by prohibition and criminal sanction.

However, another important difference relates to consent. Given that the vast majority of cases of incest involve some form of abuse or unhealthy relationship/exercise of power and influence, the State is absolutely right to discourage those relationships.

To paraphrase a guy called Jonathan Rauch, imagine a scenario where an older sibling or a parent how begins to develop an attraction to their 15 year old sibling/child.

Do you think it right in that scenario that the attractions experienced by the older slibling/parent should be validated or tacitly condoned by telling them they can marry when the child comes of age, or should we disabuse them of the notion that it is an acceptable relationship?

Are you satisfied that there would not be any negative effects for the child, or the family as a whole, in such circumstances?

I certainly would not be confident there would be no such ill effects, and can see plenty of scope for issues of undue influence, grooming, etc to occur.

Now, you are free to disagree with me on whether each of the above issues is sufficient reason to prohibit incestuous relationships or marriages if you wish, but you must recognise that they are issues which absolutely do not arise in same sex relationships.

Therefore to characterise both issues as being the same is wrong. Each raises different issues which should be considered on their own merits.

It is only because we have been able to counter all arguments against marriage equality (with appropriate evidence) that we can conclude the distinction is arbitrary. If you want to try to do the same for incest, feel free - but it will be a different debate.

3. Incest is not an equality issue. Incest applies equally to all groups, and does not disproportionately affect any one identifiable group within society, whether directly or indirectly. They are defined (if at all) by choices they make, but anybody is presumably equally capable of making that choice. That is not sufficient to constitute you as a group capable of being discriminated against for equality law purposes.

Note: that is not the same as saying current marriage laws apply equally to everybody. They are expressly defined by reference to gender, raising issues of direct discrimination. And moreover, those laws are clearly going to disproportionately affect LGBT people, a clearly identifiable group with common characteristics, and prevent them in practice from marrying. That would certainly come within the definition of indirect discrimination under equality law.

4. Even if we accept the prohibition on incestuous relationships raises an equality issue (which I don't), we cannot say the State prohibition is arbitrary without dismissing the concerns regarding the nature of incestuous relationships cited above.

I think we can all agree that those issues are legitimate concerns for the State, though you can again argue that the ban on incestuous relationships/marriages is a disproportionate response in seeking to address those concerns if you wish. That would of course however be a separate argument to anything to do with marriage equality, which deals with different restrictions to address different concerns.

However, it should be noted when discussing proportionality that the gender based prohibition on same sex relationships is far wider in its effect than the incest prohibition.

A ban on marrying somebody of the same sex means that a gay person cannot marry anybody they may fall in love with whatsoever, whereas a ban on incestuous relationships simply prevent you marrying a relatively miniscule pool of people.

Proportionality is a key consideration when discussing equality, and a differential treatment of two groups can be justified by the state where it is a proportionate response by the state to an objectively justifiable concern or policy.

Therefore, the question of proportionality must be approached from very different angles in each case, which again means the arguments cannot be treated as the same or equivalent. Each will have to be argued on its own terms.





So to sum up, not only is incest not an equality issue, the issues arising in each case are fundamentally different, and must be approached in very different terms. It is disingenuous, willful ignorance and insulting to pretend those differences don't exist.

If you wish to argue for incest, then feel free - but that debate must be conducted on its own terms, and addressing the specific nature of those relationships and the concerns they give rise to.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It's already equal in my eyes, and those of many other straight folks, married and unmarried. Roll on the referendum!

Truth.

I think ( I hope ) most people in this country of ours see a gay relationship as equal in every way to a straight one with or without legal marriage. It would just be great if the State would legally recognise that and provide for it.

aloyisious wrote: »

Ray D'arcy is interviewing one of the partners in a lesbian couple parenting a two child family.

Does he have a psychotic homophobe on for balance? Call the BAI!

Dark Artist wrote: »

Can someone please explain this? I don't understand the betting lingo.

If you bet €10 on something @ Evens, then you win €20 if it's successful (your original stake + €10*1). If you bet €10 on something @ 4/6, then you win €16.67 if it's successful (your original stake + €10*4/6).