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

One eyed Jack · 06-05-2015 09:35AM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But that isn't the point at all. Finlay's first example is a wedding of an older couple, past childbearing age. No-one is saying "Why aren't you dehumanising them?", we're saying "Since women marrying late in life has not been an issue in the past 1000 years or so, it would appear, archbishop, that you are talking out of your hole".

True, Fergus isn't actually saying "Why aren't you dehumanising them?", but in pointing them out (be they elderly, infertile, etc), it's basically dehumanising those people by highlighting why are they not equally discriminated against. That's a bad way IMO to argue to be treated as human beings in your own right.

It's also one of the reasons why I raise an eyebrow every time I hear the treatment of black people being used to argue for equal rights, because black culture wouldn't be renowned for it's acceptance of black people who are gay either. I certainly wouldn't be using black people to argue for marriage equality.

kylith wrote: »

Ah, but God made gay people gay, so they're obviously not violating his plan either, so there's no problem with them getting married.

Like I said earlier, and I must make this explicitly clear - I don't agree with the Hierarchy's stance on the issue, but the spin they put on it is that the Church should accept people who are gay, and show them compassion and all the rest of it, but marriage (or at least their definition of religious marriage) is solely between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation, and those that can't procreate naturally should be shown compassion and all the rest of it, and the 'plan' so to speak (can't believe I'm having to type this with a straight face - I know it's nuts, you know it's nuts, but here goes anyway

), is that infertile couples can help other people raise their children!

(whether that be through adoption or simply helping other people in the community to raise their children)

This is all a moot point however because it's civil marriage is what we're being asked to vote on here and the referendum has absolutely nothing to do with religion, which is why like I said, I was surprised that Fergus gave any sort of legitimacy to the Archbishop's opinion by addressing it instead of simply ignoring it in favour of talking about what people are actually being asked to vote on and the merits for everyone in society in seeing that the referendum is passed.

It's like I said - let the no campaign shoot themselves in the foot all they want, what we should be concentrating on is what this referendum is actually about, as opposed to letting ourselves get bogged down in arguing against complete lies, ie - either we spend all our time arguing what this referendum is not about, or we actually IMO use what little time we have left to inform people what the referendum actually is about.

I know which one I'd rather spend my time doing tbh.

osarusan · 06-05-2015 09:39AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's like I said - let the no campaign shoot themselves in the foot all they want, what we should be concentrating on is what this referendum is actually about, as opposed to letting ourselves get bogged down in arguing against complete lies, ie - either we spend all our time arguing what this referendum is not about, or we actually IMO use what little time we have left to inform people what the referendum actually is about.

But informing people what the referendum is actually about necessitates dealing with the lies being told and spread by the No side.

There are going to be people out there who buy the irrelevant bullcrap spouted on posters and by no advocates - in order to set them straight on what the referendum is about, and to motivate them to go to the voting stations and vote Yes, that bullcrap has to be addressed.

However, as I've said all along, effort would be best spent convincing the apathetic Yes voter to become an engaged Yes voter, and actually cast a vote on the day.

floggg · 06-05-2015 10:18AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

What are they lying about? That children are best raised by their mother and father? That SSM will lead to more surrogacy? Just because people disagree with this doesn't make them lies.

But when the facts disagree with those claims, then they are lies.

floggg · 06-05-2015 10:23AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't disagree with the rest of your post Zen, but just to clarify the point in bold there. The view of infertile couples access to marriage within the RCC is not that they violate God's plan at all.

I'm not defending the RCC stance on marriage equality, I'm simply pointing out that equating couples where one or both individuals may be infertile, with couples where both individuals aren't infertile and are quite capable of reproduction, is an insulting comparison to be trying to make, notwithstanding the fact that it is a false equivalence.

Procreation or the inability to procreate isn't the issue. It's the fact that the couple are of the same sex is the issue.

Whatever about referendum pop-up groups and the length of time they will continue to exist before disbanding after the referendum, I think you'll be a while waiting for the RCC to disseminate.

Yes but a couple who engages in non-procreative sex outside of the confines of a RCC marriage equally violates God's plan.

But picking on atheists or non-Catholics isn't as politically acceptable these days.

floggg · 06-05-2015 10:47AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

True, Fergus isn't actually saying "Why aren't you dehumanising them?", but in pointing them out (be they elderly, infertile, etc), it's basically dehumanising those people by highlighting why are they not equally discriminated against. That's a bad way IMO to argue to be treated as human beings in your own right.

It's also one of the reasons why I raise an eyebrow every time I hear the treatment of black people being used to argue for equal rights, because black culture wouldn't be renowned for it's acceptance of black people who are gay either. I certainly wouldn't be using black people to argue for marriage equality.

Like I said earlier, and I must make this explicitly clear - I don't agree with the Hierarchy's stance on the issue, but the spin they put on it is that the Church should accept people who are gay, and show them compassion and all the rest of it, but marriage (or at least their definition of religious marriage) is solely between a man and a woman for the purposes of procreation, and those that can't procreate naturally should be shown compassion and all the rest of it, and the 'plan' so to speak (can't believe I'm having to type this with a straight face - I know it's nuts, you know it's nuts, but here goes anyway ), is that infertile couples can help other people raise their children!

(whether that be through adoption or simply helping other people in the community to raise their children)

This is all a moot point however because it's civil marriage is what we're being asked to vote on here and the referendum has absolutely nothing to do with religion, which is why like I said, I was surprised that Fergus gave any sort of legitimacy to the Archbishop's opinion by addressing it instead of simply ignoring it in favour of talking about what people are actually being asked to vote on and the merits for everyone in society in seeing that the referendum is passed.

It's like I said - let the no campaign shoot themselves in the foot all they want, what we should be concentrating on is what this referendum is actually about, as opposed to letting ourselves get bogged down in arguing against complete lies, ie - either we spend all our time arguing what this referendum is not about, or we actually IMO use what little time we have left to inform people what the referendum actually is about.

I know which one I'd rather spend my time doing tbh.

1. It becomes very difficult to refute arguments about the existing purpose of marriage unless you actually discuss marriage as it is today. That includes infertile, fertile and voluntarily childless couples.

If we don't refute those arguments, we are allowing the No side to invent their own facts unchallenged, and it's difficult to win a debate if you allow the other side to do so.

You also allow them to pervert the institution we want access to for their own nefarious needs.

So the suggestion that we should conduct the yes side without actually refuting their nonsense arguments isn't realistic.

2. Many of the most important black leaders have come out very strongly in favour of marriage equality - particualrly in the US, but also in South Africa with the likes of Desmond Tutu and their very early introduction of marriage equality.

To dismiss the entire black community as homophobic is grossly misinformed.

We have also had the likes of Jesse Jackson, Caretta Scott King and Bayard Rustin express the view that the movement for lgbt equality is a continuation of the same ideals they fought for.

3. Fergus Finlay doesn't refute these arguments for your sake or mine, since our minds are already made up.

He does so for those that are undecided or that might be swayed by those arguments.

You are the one that has repeatedly stated we should engage with the no side.

But apparently we must somehow persuade them while ignoring all of the arguments put forward by the no side - which means we just change their mind without actually challenging their views.

gravehold · 06-05-2015 10:57AM

floggg wrote: »

But when the facts disagree with those claims, then they are lies.

Got a link that shows a mother and father are worse then a father and father?

Ave Sodalis · 06-05-2015 10:58AM

gravehold wrote: »

Got a link that shows a mother and father are worse then a father and father?

That's not what is being said and you know it.

gravehold · 06-05-2015 10:59AM

sup_dude wrote: »

That's not what is being said and you know it.

I am saying it's opinions, he is saying it's a fact based lie, if it's a lie he can post proof

VinLieger · 06-05-2015 11:00AM

gravehold wrote: »

Got a link that shows a mother and father are worse then a father and father?

Piss poor attempt at a straw man tbh

One eyed Jack · 06-05-2015 11:00AM

floggg wrote: »

Yes but a couple who engages in non-procreative sex outside of the confines of a RCC marriage equally violates God's plan.

I say this with the greatest of respect, but I'm really just not sure that pointing out the hypocrisy of other people is the most effective way in which to make your argument that people should respect other people for who they are, as opposed to what they are. I've never met a human being yet who wasn't a hypocrite in one way or another.

(and by 'what' they are, I mean whatever label/identifier, etc they choose to identify themselves as).

But picking on atheists or non-Catholics isn't as politically acceptable these days.

I dunno about that now. I mean, it seems to be perfectly politically acceptable to pick on and discriminate against atheists and non-Catholics (and many other groups for that matter) from what I've seen of the RCC's involvement in Irish politics?

Whether that discrimination may be socially acceptable or not however, well, that depends entirely upon who you talk to. I think one poster here has already said that they wouldn't talk to their friends about the issue of marriage equality because they'd hate to find out their friends didn't share their opinion (can't remember exactly the way they put it, but you get the idea).

AtomicHorror · 06-05-2015 11:02AM

gravehold wrote: »

Got a link that shows a mother and father are worse then a father and father?

That's not the claim that needs to be falsified. The claim made by the No Campaign is that a mother and a father are better. All that needs to be shown to debunk that claim, is that there is no significant difference in outcomes.

That is trivial:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting

If Wikipedia is not a good entry-level source in your view, there 114 primary references. But in summary:

Wikipedia wrote:

Scientific research consistently shows that gay and lesbian parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as those reared by heterosexual parents.[3][4][5] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9]

floggg · 06-05-2015 11:04AM

gravehold wrote: »

I am saying it's opinions, he is saying it's a fact based lie, if it's a lie he can post proof

Your even lying about what it is I said.

Lgbt parents aren't better or worse. They are equally capable.

There has been a post made about 5 times in this thread already reciting the numerous studies which have shown that to be true.

If somebody has it bookmarked, the might be so kind as to post it again.

VinLieger · 06-05-2015 11:06AM

floggg wrote: »

Your even lying about what it is I said.

Lgbt parents aren't better or worse. They are equally capable.

There has been a post made about 5 times in this thread already reciting the numerous studies which have shown that to be true.

If somebody has it bookmarked, the might be so kind as to post it again.

I made a mental note to do it last time it got posted but forgot to, would really appreciate if someone could link it again need to send it to some people

gravehold · 06-05-2015 11:09AM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That's not the claim that needs to be falsified. The claim made by the No Campaign is that a mother and a father are better. All the needs to be shown to debunk that, is that there is no significant difference in outcomes.

That is trivial:

wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_parenting[/url]

If Wikipedia is not a good entry-level source in your view, there 114 primary references. But in summary:

Their opinion if all things being equal being raised by a diverse set of gender role models is better then a singler set of ones.

Diversity will always be better if all other things are equal and it's their opinion. But things can never ever be equal so it can never be fact one is better then the other if will always be opinion.

Also wikipedia is not a good source in anyway

Not a NSA agent · 06-05-2015 11:10AM

I find it shocking how many people will claim what is best for raising children while having no idea what the professionals say on the matter. It takes a lot of arrogance to do no research on a topic and then claim you are right in it.

floggg · 06-05-2015 11:11AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I say this with the greatest of respect, but I'm really just not sure that pointing out the hypocrisy of other people is the most effective way in which to make your argument that people should respect other people for who they are, as opposed to what they are. I've never met a human being yet who wasn't a hypocrite in one way or another.

(and by 'what' they are, I mean whatever label/identifier, etc they choose to identify themselves as).

I dunno about that now. I mean, it seems to be perfectly politically acceptable to pick on and discriminate against atheists and non-Catholics (and many other groups for that matter) from what I've seen of the RCC's involvement in Irish politics?

Whether that discrimination may be socially acceptable or not however, well, that depends entirely upon who you talk to. I think one poster here has already said that they wouldn't talk to their friends about the issue of marriage equality because they'd hate to find out their friends didn't share their opinion (can't remember exactly the way they put it, but you get the idea).

It is difficult to win a debate if you c annoy challenge your opponents claims, point out the disingenuous nature of their arguments or demonstrate their selective (and discriminatory) application of beliefs and principles.

Are we to just attempt to shout unconnected arguments over each other and hope our voice carries the loudest.

And, no. I haven't heard anybody claim atheists or Muslims shouldn't be allowed marry.

Unless they are gay.

Sure, they might want to discriminate against them in more subtle ways, but discrimination against lgbt people is one of the last socially acceptable forms of prejudice. Thankfully that too is rapidly changing - but we still aren't past the point where our equality is a matter of debate on Prime Time.

Bannasidhe · 06-05-2015 11:14AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Even with all that though, there is a lie in the claim that any of this is at all related to the referendum. Wikipedia is also a much better source than it's given credit for, and is certainly a better source than 'opinion'.

Weeelllll... it's handy if you follow the links anyway...

VinLieger · 06-05-2015 11:15AM

gravehold wrote: »

Their opinion if all things being equal being raised by a diverse set of gender role models is better then a singler set of ones.

Diversity will always be better if all other things are equal and it's their opinion. But things can never ever be equal so it can never be fact one is better then the other if will always be opinion.

Also wikipedia is not a good source in anyway

Nobody claimed one was better than the other, the original post you quoted was in fact disagreeing that one was better than the other you just chose to read it another way in a poor attempt at a straw man

gravehold · 06-05-2015 11:17AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Your argument would make sense if children were locked off to all potential role models other than their parents. Maybe. Even then you're getting dangerously close to the flawed notion of men having man traits and women having woman traits, which isn't really true in the real world.

Even with all that though, there is a lie in the claim that any of this is at all related to the referendum. Wikipedia is also a much better source than it's given credit for, and is certainly a better source than 'opinion'.

I am saying the posters are opinion people tring to paint then as fact based lies are dishonest.

Parents do the most raising of kids sure other lesser role models are nice but the majority of raising is done by parents and if all things are equal most people agree diversity is best. But no families are the same so you can never compare one families worth to anothers.

Wikipedia is actually a worse source then it's given credit for.

Zubeneschamali · 06-05-2015 11:17AM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

in pointing them out (be they elderly, infertile, etc), it's basically dehumanising those people by highlighting why are they not equally discriminated against. That's a bad way IMO to argue to be treated as human beings in your own right.

You have this exactly backwards. I am not calling for the archbishop to discriminate against others to be more consistent, since not one solitary soul in the country believes a woman should be prevented from marrying if past childbearing age.

I am not dehumanising anyone, I am pointing out that gay people are no more ineligible to marry on this basis than my own father and stepmother were.

The Archbishop himself has probably married people in his Church who prove he is wrong. That does not dehumanise anyone, although it does make one particular person look either stupid or dishonest.

Bannasidhe · 06-05-2015 11:24AM

gravehold wrote: »

I am saying the posters are opinion people tring to paint then as fact based lies are dishonest.

Parents do the most raising of kids sure other lesser role models are nice but the majority of raising is done by parents and if all things are equal most people agree diversity is best. But no families are the same so you can never compare one families worth to anothers.

Wikipedia is actually a worse source then it's given credit for.

There are meta studies which show it is the care with which children are raised not the gender of the caregivers which is important. Not opinions - studies.

I think you'll find that an awful lot of young children spend more time with non-parental caregivers - childminders, creche workers, grandparent - as parents are too busy trying to earn to pay the mortgage, rent etc etc .

At age 5 they go to school - then after school/childminder.

We have gone from mammy at home being primary caregiver to mammy has to work just like daddy and the children are cared for by either paid professional childcare workers or grandparent.

gravehold · 06-05-2015 11:27AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

They do, but you're talking as if someone raised by two females wouldn't have any male role model, which is clearly untrue. This is another opinion, which again you are of course perfectly entitled to hold. Presenting it as fact is leaving you open to criticism when the vast majority of evidence suggests otherwise.

I have said you can't messure a families worth no study can compare them as they are all too different. You would have to have a fantasy that everything is equal to compare them which will never happen so all the studies are opinion the ones pro and anti same sex couple. It's not something you can say as fact one set is better then the other.

VinLieger · 06-05-2015 11:30AM

gravehold wrote: »

I have said you can't messure a families worth no study can compare them as they are all too different. You would have to have a fantasy that everything is equal to compare them which will never happen so all the studies are opinion the ones pro and anti same sex couple. It's not something you can say as fact one set is better then the other.

NOBODY is saying one set is better than the other that apart from frostyjack, everyone is in fact saying the opposite you just don't seem to be listening/reading

Ave Sodalis · 06-05-2015 11:30AM

gravehold wrote: »

I have said you can't messure a families worth no study can compare them as they are all too different. You would have to have a fantasy that everything is equal to compare them which will never happen so all the studies are opinion the ones pro and anti same sex couple. It's not something you can say as fact one set is better then the other.

And I suppose you're a top scientist and know that you can't measure a family's worth? The truth is, you can measure it. You can measure specific parameters and then have a meta-analysis for everything and draw conclusion from that.

Plus, as was already said, no-one is saying they're better than the other except the No side.

Maximus Alexander · 06-05-2015 11:31AM

gravehold wrote: »

I have said you can't messure a families worth no study can compare them as they are all too different.

That is literally exactly what studies can do that anecdotes and opinions can't.

osarusan · 06-05-2015 11:33AM

gravehold wrote: »

It's not something you can say as fact one set is better then the other.

Tell the No side that.

They are happy to state this as fact and offer scientific research to back it up - except the researchers invariably come out and say that their findings have been completely misrepresented.

AtomicHorror · 06-05-2015 11:38AM

gravehold wrote: »

Their opinion if all things being equal being raised by a diverse set of gender role models is better then a singler set of ones.

Diversity will always be better if all other things are equal and it's their opinion. But things can never ever be equal so it can never be fact one is better then the other if will always be opinion.

All things are not equal. To make a claim in that context, and then seek to apply it to reality, is misleading. If they understand this, they are lying. If they don't understand this, they are ignorant.

It is not an opinion. They are making a factual claim, but doing so in as vague a way as possible. When we say someone needs something, that need is with respect to one or more outcomes. Outcomes are measurable, so this is not a matter of opinion at all.

The no campaign have been careful to be vague about their claim, so as to avoid this logical progression:

Children need X.
Why do children need X?
So that they can have outcome A.
When children have X, what is A?
When children have Y instead, what is the outcome (B)?
Compare A to B.

If B = A (approx), then children don't need X, they need X OR Y.

gravehold wrote: »

Also wikipedia is not a good source in anyway

I assumed you would fall back on this, which is why I pointed you to the references. Instead of commenting on those primary sources, you just attacked the nature of the secondary source.

You're not interested in the evidence at all, are you?

B_Wayne · 06-05-2015 11:38AM

gravehold wrote: »

Their opinion if all things being equal being raised by a diverse set of gender role models is better then a singler set of ones.

Diversity will always be better if all other things are equal and it's their opinion. But things can never ever be equal so it can never be fact one is better then the other if will always be opinion.

Also wikipedia is not a good source in anyway

Backtrack their sources, you'll find they're particularly credible. Here's the APA, they're probably not a good source too. Or all the children rights groups that support the referendum, you know better.
http://www.apa.org/news/press/response/gay-parents.aspx

gravehold · 06-05-2015 11:47AM

B_Wayne wrote: »

Backtrack their sources, you'll find they're particularly credible. Here's the APA, they're probably not a good source too. Or all the children rights groups that support the referendum, you know better.
[apa.org/news/press/response/gay-parents.aspx[/url]

Isn't their a peer reviewed study showing gay parents are bad, you cannot messure a if a straight or gay family or single parent one will be as good as each other cause there is two many variables, each staight parent family will be different for the other.

All these studies are injecting their opioional bias onto the results.

oldrnwisr · 06-05-2015 11:47AM

gravehold wrote: »

I have said you can't messure a families worth no study can compare them as they are all too different. You would have to have a fantasy that everything is equal to compare them which will never happen so all the studies are opinion the ones pro and anti same sex couple. It's not something you can say as fact one set is better then the other.

Except that you're not attempting to measure a family's worth. What you're actually studying are the social outcomes of children raised by different family types. Are these children healthy? Are they happy? Are they psychologically well-adjusted? Do they perform ok in school? Do they have friends in their peer group? Do they go on to college and acquire a job? These are the kinds of questions which studies answer to find out whether children raised by different family types fare equally well or not.

Secondly, the families don't have to be exactly the same in order to compare them. They just have to be the same for the factor which you are trying to study. So you need to compare, for example, same-sex adoptive parents against opposite-sex adoptive parents. It doesn't matter what the composition of each group is once they fall within that category. Confounding factors can be adjusted for within the data analysis.

Finally, you're not attempting to show that one is better than the other. If you are going to do a study in order to achieve a particular result then you shouldn't do it. It's bad science and it's unethical. When you do a study like this, you are attempting to find out if there is a difference between same-sex and opposite-sex parents. And over several decades of research, the answer has been repeatedly and definitively, NO, there is no difference.

One last side note, there actually aren't any reliable studies on the issue which show that a mother and father are better. There are a couple of studies which constantly get churned out by NO campaigners but they are politically motivated broken studies with poor methodology and unethical conclusions.

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

Comments