Why not "Same Sex Marriage" ?

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 10:48AM #1

LGBT people want Same Sex Marriage, so why not have "Same Sex Marriage" in the Constitution, parallel and equivalent to man+woman marriage - say "Same Sex Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons of the same sex."

This referendum shall probably pass 60/40 say, but you have done immence damage to your own LGBT cause long term - by pissing off 40% of the public at least - and don't say they are all homophobes. And this conflict shall rumble for a generation or two when every court case or decision shall bring it back up

90 to 95% of the people would support Same Sex Marriage in parallel to man+woman marriage. You would not have to worry about the baggage of 100 years of existing case law, and hetero's would not have to worry about the confusion of the legal melting of same and opposite sex.

LBGT leaders can still do something now. It's 11'th hour but still not too late.
Do you want the current marriage referendum at any price, to the displeasure of over 40% of the people? OR do you want "Same Sex Marriage" with support of 90 to 95% of the people - your choice.

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 10:56AM

I'll add:
a. I am totally fed up of LBGT people trying to magic away children.
b. There is/was the bullying of the no vote, on social media like this
It seems to have got more subtle, but LBGT are still hunting in packs, maybe desperate pretentending to be straight YES voters.

A campaign that depends so much on dishonesty shall not yield a good result.

L1011 · 20-05-2015 11:00AM

"seperate but equal" isn't equal.

As goes "magic away children" - they're being irrelevantly forced in to the debate in the first place. This is the sole dishonesty here.

eviltwin · 20-05-2015 11:06AM

No one is trying to "magic away children". Most people just recognise it for what it is, a complete red herring. Marriage is no longer about children, it was in the past but times have changed. Single people have children, married people have children before marriage, some never marry, some have no children at all...all those families and relationships are as valid as each other. If you start putting marriage on a pedestal what does that say about all other family types and the children they may have?

As for bullying...I commend the LGBT community for not rising to the bait. Its very difficult to hold your cool when you are reading and listening to comments about your "perversion" or about how your relationship is damaging to kids. That is real bullying. If you have an opinion on how someone else lives their life then you have to be prepared to be called out on it. That is not bullying.

Believe it or not there are a lot of straight people out there in favour of SSM. Its not just an LGBT issue.

qweerty · 20-05-2015 11:17AM

gk5000 wrote: »

LGBT people want Same Sex Marriage, so why not have "Same Sex Marriage" in the Constitution, parallel and equivalent to man+woman marriage - say "Same Sex Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons of the same sex."

This referendum shall probably pass 60/40 say, but you have done immence damage to your own LGBT cause long term - by pissing off 40% of the public at least - and don't say they are all homophobes. And this conflict shall rumble for a generation or two when every court case or decision shall bring it back up

90 to 95% of the people would support Same Sex Marriage in parallel to man+woman marriage. You would not have to worry about the baggage of 100 years of existing case law, and hetero's would not have to worry about the confusion of the legal melting of same and opposite sex.

LBGT leaders can still do something now. It's 11'th hour but still not too late.
Do you want the current marriage referendum at any price, to the displeasure of over 40% of the people? OR do you want "Same Sex Marriage" with support of 90 to 95% of the people - your choice.

I'll add:
a. I am totally fed up of LBGT people trying to magic away children.
b. There is/was the bullying of the no vote, on social media like this
It seems to have got more subtle, but LBGT are still hunting in packs, maybe desperate pretentending to be straight YES voters.

A campaign that depends so much on dishonesty shall not yield a good result.

Because of the possibility that people deem gender to be an irrelevance in marriage. We don't distinguish between marriages of different religion, of different nationality, of different political persuasion, so there needs to be a logical reason to do so on the basis of gender.

Marriage is the recognition of a life-partnership that most people, from early childhood onwards, aspire to. Those heterosexual people who don't marry are perceived as being in some way odd or eccentric. It may seem perverse to you, but the passing of the referendum has the potential to bring about a society that sees no distinction between various sexual attractions. Though your proposal may bring about some of that, it would only be partial.

Who the fcuk do you think you are to be in a position to present a choice? What's more, the question was put to referendum by a government that is almost entirely made up of heterosexual people and will be voted on by an electorate that is overwhelmingly heterosexual. This is not something that the mythical gay community can change at their will.

Tl; dr: work on your punctuation, spelling, use of will/shall and logical reasoning.

Huntergonzo · 20-05-2015 11:22AM

gk5000 wrote: »

This referendum shall probably pass 60/40 say, but you have done immence damage to your own LGBT cause long term - by pissing off 40% of the public at least - and don't say they are all homophobes. And this conflict shall rumble for a generation or two when every court case or decision shall bring it back up

So minority rules??? No may still win this vote but let's say Yes wins 60/40 as you put it, should we ignore the vote just to keep 40% of whatever the turnout is happy (don't forget the turnout, it's not 40% of 100%, it's maybe 40% of 70%), isn't that very anti democratic!

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 11:54AM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

So minority rules??? No may still win this vote but let's say Yes wins 60/40 as you put it, should we ignore the vote just to keep 40% of whatever the turnout is happy (don't forget the turnout, it's not 40% of 100%, it's maybe 40% of 70%), isn't that very anti democratic!

No, but why not go for 90% like I proposed above? Why do you want disharmony?

L1011 · 20-05-2015 11:57AM

gk5000 wrote: »

No, but why not go for 90% like I proposed above? Why do you want disharmony?

90% is a figure you've pulled out of the air. Its not based in fact, or anything beyond your rambling mind.

I highly doubt 90% of the population would support such a ridiculous, childish, divisive measure.

How do you think your apartheid-lite proposal would deal with your concerns about non-existent impacts on children, by the way?

Huntergonzo · 20-05-2015 12:05PM

gk5000 wrote: »

No, but why not go for 90% like I proposed above? Why do you want disharmony?

Haha 90%, you only pulled that from where the sun don't shine. On friday the Irish people will go to the polls and vote, either Yes or No will win that vote and that's how democracy works.

To suggest that we shouldn't listen to the majority (unless of course No wins, I take you have no problem with a disgruntled Yes minority) is a little bit petty to be honest and again it's anti democratic.

Lawliet · 20-05-2015 12:08PM

gk5000 wrote: »

b. There is/was the bullying of the no vote, on social media like this
It seems to have got more subtle, but LBGT are still hunting in packs, maybe desperate pretentending to be straight YES voters.

You're complaining about bullying only hours after a yes campaigner was told it was 'gods will' she had cancer. But I guess you don't blame every No campaigner for that sort of thing.

Yet people hold the entire LGBT community responsible for every rude remark on twitter, and then use it as an excuse to try and refuse us rights. As if we're a bunch of naughty children who don't deserve ice-cream.

Huntergonzo · 20-05-2015 12:18PM

Lawliet wrote: »

You're complaining about bullying only hours after a yes campaigner was told it was 'gods will' she had cancer. But I guess you don't blame every No campaigner for that sort of thing.

Yet people hold the entire LGBT community responsible for every rude remark on twitter, and then use it as an excuse to try and refuse us rights. As if we're a bunch of naughty children who don't deserve ice-cream.

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHH, the Yes side are the bullies, remember??? No homosexual was ever bullied and the No campaigners are essentially freedom of conscience fighters, can't believe you forgot that, try and be more careful in future!

Mickeroo · 20-05-2015 12:28PM

So the butt buddies solution then, let them get married as long as it's somehow recognised as a separate thing to good wholesome hetero marriage.

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 01:17PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

So the butt buddies solution then, let them get married as long as it's somehow recognised as a separate thing to good wholesome hetero marriage.

It's simpler legally - and the laws for one group does not mess with the other. In fact there could be three groups based on the expectation of children and the degree of difficulty in having children

Man+Woman - generally has children - generally no need for outside help
Woman+woman - often has children - needs a little outside help
Man+Man - rarely has children - needs a lot of outside help

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 01:20PM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Haha 90%, you only pulled that from where the sun don't shine. On friday the Irish people will go to the polls and vote, either Yes or No will win that vote and that's how democracy works.

To suggest that we shouldn't listen to the majority (unless of course No wins, I take you have no problem with a disgruntled Yes minority) is a little bit petty to be honest and again it's anti democratic.

Course - do you suggest a better number? I say 90 to 95% would support a separate Same Sex Marriage as a guestimate.

But you may get this current version, but having managed to piss off 40% or so of the populace whom you have to live with.

I'm saying it late, but not too late to aim for a solution which keeps many more people happy - but your choice.

Huntergonzo · 20-05-2015 01:21PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Man+Woman - generally has children - generally no need for outside help
Woman+woman - often has children - needs a little outside help
Man+Man - rarely has children - needs a lot of outside help

And?

Zaph · 20-05-2015 01:28PM

gk5000 wrote: »

It seems to have got more subtle, but LBGT are still hunting in packs, maybe desperate pretentending to be straight YES voters.

I don't know very many gay people, but I do know a great many straight people, myself included, who will be voting yes. It's disingenuous to suggest that the LGBT community need to masquerade as straight voters to drum up support. They already have the support of a huge number of straight voters.

Huntergonzo · 20-05-2015 01:32PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Course - do you suggest a better number? I say 90 to 95% would support a separate Same Sex Marriage as a guestimate.

But you may get this current version, but having managed to piss off 40% or so of the populace whom you have to live with.

I'm saying it late, but not too late to aim for a solution which keeps many more people happy - but your choice.

I have no idea how many people would support a 'separate but equal marriage' proposal, possibly not many because it would be akin to having separate water fountains for black people wouldn't it.

Again back to this nonsense of "pissing off 40%" of the people, well then surely we can never hold anymore elections or referendums because somebody always has to lose and therefore be pissed off, it's a completely illogical, anti democratic argument.

L1011 · 20-05-2015 01:36PM

gk5000 wrote: »

It's simpler legally - and the laws for one group does not mess with the other.

Its anything but. The referendum is probably the simplest change proposed since the last time we had an age adjustment (voting in the mid 60s or so); and the civil law change is about one line also.

Annasopra · 20-05-2015 02:00PM

gk5000 wrote: »

LGBT people want Same Sex Marriage, so why not have "Same Sex Marriage" in the Constitution, parallel and equivalent to man+woman marriage - say "Same Sex Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons of the same sex."

Will you "same sex marry" me?

No thanks

Annasopra · 20-05-2015 02:01PM

gk5000 wrote: »

LBGT leaders can still do something now. It's 11'th hour but still not too late.
Do you want the current marriage referendum at any price, to the displeasure of over 40% of the people? OR do you want "Same Sex Marriage" with support of 90 to 95% of the people - your choice.

Oh look this is just pointless. The vast vast majority of people accepted divorce.

Mickeroo · 20-05-2015 02:12PM

gk5000 wrote: »

It's simpler legally - and the laws for one group does not mess with the other. In fact there could be three groups based on the expectation of children and the degree of difficulty in having children

Man+Woman - generally has children - generally no need for outside help
Woman+woman - often has children - needs a little outside help
Man+Man - rarely has children - needs a lot of outside help

How is it simpler legally if it's literally the same thing apart from the name?

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 02:40PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

How is it simpler legally if it's literally the same thing apart from the name?

Can be constitutionally protected equally, but the actual laws for the 2 or 3 strands can be different.

A 2 man family has different needs that a 2 women family than a man-women family, so needs different laws. One size fits all will not work.

Now they shall all be cramed in the same small legal space, so every law/court case for man-man shall have to be checked for man-women or women-women. And that shall be slow and messy and no use for anybody.

jobbridge4life · 20-05-2015 02:43PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Can be constitutionally protected equally, but the actual laws for the 2 or 3 strands can be different.

A 2 man family has different needs that a 2 women family than a man-women family, so needs different laws. One size fits all will not work.

Now they shall all be cramed in the same small legal space, so every law/court case for man-man shall have to be checked for man-women or women-women. And that shall be slow and messy and no use for anybody.

What on Earth are you talking about? I mean it is beyond farcical at this stage. The law already has to take into account the huge differences that exist between straight married couples.

Mickeroo · 20-05-2015 02:44PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Can be constitutionally protected equally, but the actual laws for the 2 or 3 strands can be different.

A 2 man family has different needs that a 2 women family than a man-women family, so needs different laws. One size fits all will not work.

Now they shall all be cramed in the same small legal space, so every law/court case for man-man shall have to be checked for man-women or women-women. And that shall be slow and messy and no use for anybody.

What different needs have these families exactly? I don't see how the needs are more varied than they would be between just straight couples in the first place.

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 02:49PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

How is it simpler legally if it's literally the same thing apart from the name?

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Will you "same sex marry" me?

No thanks

Well you do want a Same Sex Marriage I think?

So what is the problem in calling a spade a spade, while recognising it as distinct and equal to my shovel?

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 02:50PM

Mickeroo wrote: »

What different needs have these families exactly? I don't see how the needs are more varied than they would be between just straight couples in the first place.

Different in the way they have children.

jobbridge4life · 20-05-2015 02:50PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Well you do want a Same Sex Marriage I think?

So what is the problem in calling a spade a spade, while recognising it as distinct and equal to my shovel?

Are you truly so dedicated to a word that you would allow thousands of your fellow countrymen, women and children to languish in inequality?

Mickeroo · 20-05-2015 02:52PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Different in the way they have children.

How do they deal with these different ways already when straight couples avail of them?

gk5000 · 20-05-2015 02:53PM

Huntergonzo wrote: »

I have no idea how many people would support a 'separate but equal marriage' proposal, possibly not many because it would be akin to having separate water fountains for black people wouldn't it.

Again back to this nonsense of "pissing off 40%" of the people, well then surely we can never hold anymore elections or referendums because somebody always has to lose and therefore be pissed off, it's a completely illogical, anti democratic argument.

Should we abandon male and female toilets?

Timberrrrrrrr · 20-05-2015 02:53PM

gk5000 wrote: »

Should we abandon male and female toilets?

Some places already have.

LookingFor · 20-05-2015 02:58PM

If I ever get married, I've no problem with someone saying we're a 'married gay couple' if the distinction is important in the context of the conversation vs a 'married straight couple'.

In the law I think it's a problem for reasons other mentioned, but to get to the nitty gritty of what makes heterosexual marriage different, if it is a matter of procreation capability that defines the functional difference, marriage is already then not an exclusive term - it is used to describe varieties of couples who can and cannot procreate. If that's the functional difference that defines the semantic difference, it's already a difference that 'marriage' is agnostic to.

As for children, I think there is a relevance in the debate, and I've been very happy to discuss it with anyone. I think it's firmly in the interests of the children affected to pass this. I do not see the benefit of a no vote to a) any child being raised by same sex parents or b) any lgbt youth. I'm totally happy to get into nitty gritty details on that too, if anyone wants me to expand on that here; I have been doing that here on boards for yonks now.

Why not "Same Sex Marriage" ?

Comments