Same Sex Marriage Referendum Mega Thread - MOD WARNING IN FIRST POST

Vivisectus wrote: »

Bless the Dutch and their meticulous record-keeping Now we can do some math and predict how the end of society as we know it will come about. I am going to assume that

a) the percentage of gay couples is about the same
b) the percentage of gay couples who want to get married is about the same (about 20%, apparently)

I am getting most of my figures from the dutch CBS

If we get a yes vote, and things go the same way they did in the Netherlands, then we are likely to see about 650 marriages in the first year as we deal with the backlog of gay people who have been waiting to get hitched, but couldn't. Another 1000 or so will get married in the second and third year (combined) after it becomes possible.

Peak gay wedding time will be in the first few months after it becomes possible to get married. So get your wedding suit and your best dress out of the hot press: party season is coming, with a bit of luck.

After that we are likely to see about 250 marriages a year

By 2025 we will have seen about 3900 marriages between gay people in total, but we will also have seen 284 divorces between same sex spouses. That seems like a surprisingly low divorce rate (only 7% compared to 42% for different-sex marriages!) , but this number is likely to change as more numbers come in over the next 25 years or so.

We have seen no demands for surrogacy at all, or problems around gay adoption. 85% of Dutch people are in favor of gay marriage and a slightly lower number are in favor of gay adoption.

We tried it, and so far, we have no complaints. What's more, we like it! So don't worry. It'll be grand like.

We havent legalised weed yet

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Yes, but what about this new class of Dutch lawyers living in gold-plated houses with a rocket car in the driveway? :pac:

They were sorely disappointed, as they were banking on getting loaded on handling gay divorces. Damn homo's. You can't even trust them to be promiscuous and unstable.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Any chance you could post a précis - dunno about anyone else but it's giving me all I can do to keep up with the treads here...

So I had a go and I think this is the closest thing I can manage to a précis – an overview of the sequence of points that I make, with some of the rationale but not enough to be fully convincing. So although I would recommend reading the full version (which again you can find at – ontheirishmarriagereferendum[dot]wordpress[dot]com - there is a version that I posted on a thread here, but I have made some corrections since then), this hopefully can be just taken to be at least approximating to a valid summary:
- First of all, I argue that one should think about voting if one is in a position to, mostly on the basis that it looks like the pros of doing so heavily outweigh the cons. I then move on to say that one should at least aim to vote, as it seems the only convincing reason not to is if you find the ‘Yes’ case and ‘No’ case equally compelling, which you won’t be able to do without exploring both sufficiently.
- I then argue that, given the core motivation for a ‘Yes’ vote is one that ‘No’ voters seem to agree with, i.e. that having the opportunity to get married is a good thing, so all things being equal providing the individuals the freedom to get married is a good thing, voting ‘Yes’ ought to be considered the default position, as whether to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ depends on the arguments presented in favour of voting ‘No’.
- I proceed then to look at the case for voting ‘No’, which seems to be mostly down to the claim that allowing same-sex couples to marry would alter to the point of undermining the definition of marriage and/or family. So in order to consider the validity of this claim, I consider how both marriage and family ought to be defined.
- I reject the view that a marriage by necessity has to be between a man and a woman, on the grounds that a marriage’s formation does not seem to depend specifically on what DNA the two parties have, what combination of bodily organs they have, what social conventions they act according to, or what personality traits they have. Since it might still be argued that the definition of marriage depends on how marriage is defined, based on the view that the purpose of marriage is the foundation of a family, I then move on to the question of how to define the family.
- Finally, I argue that since the formation, function and significance of a family (or at least the sense in which it forms an institution that should be protected by law) does not depend on its members being related by blood, or from marriage, but on the social relationship between its members. As such, specific kinds of members ought not to be required to satisfy the definition of family, and therefore it does not seem to be the case that a family requires children. I then consider stipulating the claim that a household requires children to satisfy the definition of family, and therefore the subsequent argument that children ought to ideally have both a father and a mother. I conclude that, since there are no responsibilities of an ideal mother that cannot be fulfilled by a father (or any of an ideal father that cannot be fulfilled by a mother), allowing same-sex couples to marry does not seem to in any way upset the definition of family, nor therefore the definition of marriage.
- So since by my reasoning there is no convincing reason to think that the claim behind the ‘No’ case is correct, one ought to vote ‘Yes’.

This referendum will be a lot tighter than the polls are giving it credit so I encourage everyone to get everyone you know to go out and vote yes.

This referendum will be won or lost on yes voter apathy.

myons1 wrote: »

So I had a go and I think this is the closest thing I can manage to a précis – an overview of the sequence of points that I make, with some of the rationale but not enough to be fully convincing. So although I would recommend reading the full version (which again you can find at – ontheirishmarriagereferendum[dot]wordpress[dot]com - there is a version that I posted on a thread here, but I have made some corrections since then), this hopefully can be just taken to be at least approximating to a valid summary:
- First of all, I argue that one should think about voting if one is in a position to, mostly on the basis that it looks like the pros of doing so heavily outweigh the cons. I then move on to say that one should at least aim to vote, as it seems the only convincing reason not to is if you find the ‘Yes’ case and ‘No’ case equally compelling, which you won’t be able to do without exploring both sufficiently.
- I then argue that, given the core motivation for a ‘Yes’ vote is one that ‘No’ voters seem to agree with, i.e. that having the opportunity to get married is a good thing, so all things being equal providing the individuals the freedom to get married is a good thing, voting ‘Yes’ ought to be considered the default position, as whether to vote ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ depends on the arguments presented in favour of voting ‘No’.
- I proceed then to look at the case for voting ‘No’, which seems to be mostly down to the claim that allowing same-sex couples to marry would alter to the point of undermining the definition of marriage and/or family. So in order to consider the validity of this claim, I consider how both marriage and family ought to be defined.
- I reject the view that a marriage by necessity has to be between a man and a woman, on the grounds that a marriage’s formation does not seem to depend specifically on what DNA the two parties have, what combination of bodily organs they have, what social conventions they act according to, or what personality traits they have. Since it might still be argued that the definition of marriage depends on how marriage is defined, based on the view that the purpose of marriage is the foundation of a family, I then move on to the question of how to define the family.
- Finally, I argue that since the formation, function and significance of a family (or at least the sense in which it forms an institution that should be protected by law) does not depend on its members being related by blood, or from marriage, but on the social relationship between its members. As such, specific kinds of members ought not to be required to satisfy the definition of family, and therefore it does not seem to be the case that a family requires children. I then consider stipulating the claim that a household requires children to satisfy the definition of family, and therefore the subsequent argument that children ought to ideally have both a father and a mother. I conclude that, since there are no responsibilities of an ideal mother that cannot be fulfilled by a father (or any of an ideal father that cannot be fulfilled by a mother), allowing same-sex couples to marry does not seem to in any way upset the definition of family, nor therefore the definition of marriage.
- So since by my reasoning there is no convincing reason to think that the claim behind the ‘No’ case is correct, one ought to vote ‘Yes’.

Thanks for taking the time to do that - both the précis and blog post.

Have bookmarked for later 'proper' read.

Deleted User wrote: »

Can someone explain what the story is with the legality regarding consummation? just heard a bit on the radio on the way to work. Does it mean that legally a gay marriage will always be voidable as consummation cannot happen whereas a straight marriage that is lost upon consummation?

I think the consumnation thingy refers to the church version of marriage, in that if a marriage isn't con/nated and as a result don't procreate, the marriage doesn't fulfil the required duty and is seen by the church as void. Now I don't know if that still applies to this day. As for Civil Marriage, I have no idea at all if the above could/would be thought of applying to it similarly.

EDIT: apparently consumnation here refers to the first time that a newly married couple have sex together, and nowt else.

Deleted User wrote: »

No i'am pretty sure its written into law that a marriage can be voided as long as it hasent been consummated, which is defined as sexual intercourse. As gay couples cannot consummate there marriages will always be voidable whereas this will not be the case for straight couples. Is this incorrect?

Naw, I think the consumnation thingy only refers to Church marriage. If it applied to Civil Marriage at the present time, some lawyer would have copped that point and used it to point out the referendum wording was legal rubbish even before it even hit the presses. I'm sure Iona would have used it to say SSM under the wording could never be legal. The consumnation thingy is all about making babies, making heirs to some degree.

Going off at a tangent here, flip back to Henry the 8th seeking dissulution of his marriages on various grounds, related to provision of an heir (male).

EDIT. It seem's that here legally consumnation is defined as the first time a newly married couple have sex together, and nowt else.

My big concern for tomorrow is that voter turnout will be low. Traditionally referendums have a low turnout (in the 40/50%s) which is really sad. Every person eligible to vote should do so tomorrow, no excuse for apathy or laziness.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't see that point as especially material to the vote either way. I really just wanted to pause over the erasure of 100 million years of mammalian evolution.

Thanks for the comment. Given points that I argue earlier, I think that's fair enough - I guess I was just trying to consider how it might be, as this does seem to be an important part of the case for 'No' voters, at least to a good number if not all.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Vote Yes and we'll throw in a bag with every surrogate baby.

Will they be Dolce and Gabbana man-bags?

aloyisious wrote: »

Will they be Dolce and Gabbana man-bags?

Ick.

Gaultier all the way.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't see that point as especially material to the vote either way. I really just wanted to pause over the erasure of 100 million years of mammalian evolution.

Ah yes, the whole marriage/genetics thing that we've been doing for 100 million years.

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I don't see that point as especially material to the vote either way. I really just wanted to pause over the erasure of 100 million years of mammalian evolution.

http://www.factmonster.com/ipka/A0934288.html

There are an estimated 5416 distinct species of mammal. A minority sample of one (over populated) example getting married probably won't hit the numbers too badly. I think evolution will muddle along just fine.

:rolleyes: