The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[Milltown Row2]

So it has nothing to do with same sex people being together and possibly if they want adopt kids... Its all about tax?? Ones arguing over it live elsewhere when it doesn't effect their tax!! Lol

[LCohen]

I wonder what the troika think about this gay marriage stuff? It seems its an economic matter.

[armaghniac]

I'm glad you guys accept that this is not about people being together, which is possible in any case, and is about legalities, which should be considered by any rational citizen and which have nothing in particular to do with God.

[Milltown Row2]

I'm glad you guys accept that this is not about people being together, which is possible in any case, and is about legalities, which should be considered by any rational citizen and which have nothing in particular to do with God.

So hows it going to affect you personally? And why stop there.... Lets start shopping all the dole spongers that you know. And the tax dodgers who can afford accountants and tax men who 'fix' it for high earners to save money!!

[LCohen]

I'm glad you guys accept that this is not about people being together, which is possible in any case, and is about legalities, which should be considered by any rational citizen and which have nothing in particular to do with God.

Just for clarity can you confirm that you would be happy for infertile hetrosexual couples to avail of tax/legal privileges when they marry? And what about hetrosexual couples that can have children but chose not to?

Do you want tax/legal privileges removed from these people? If not can you explain the rationale behind your discrimination between these couples and homosexual couples?

What about hetrosexual couples who "stay together for the kids" but provide a dysfunctional home - what steps are you proposing to wrestle back tax/legal privileges back from these people? 

Also what is the cost to the exchequer of affording these tax/legal privileges to married couples? What does this mean in financial terms for everyday tax payers and the wider economy? How would these figures be impacted by granting the same privileges to married gay couples? And how would that figure compare to the amount that could be saved from reigning back the same privileges from hetrosexual, married couples who cannot or do not have kids?

It would be repugnant if anyone was to just guess these figures and then use their guesses as the basis of voting to deny equality. So it absolutely that if this economic argument is backed up with numbers if is to be taken seriously. Otherwise it fall the way of the religious/scripture based argument of just being vague and not evidenced in any way that can stand up to the merest scrutiny

[armaghniac]

I'm glad you guys accept that this is not about people being together, which is possible in any case, and is about legalities, which should be considered by any rational citizen and which have nothing in particular to do with God.

Just for clarity can you confirm that you would be happy for infertile hetrosexual couples to avail of tax/legal privileges when they marry? And what about hetrosexual couples that can have children but chose not to?

I don't think it necessary to investigate the status of individuals.

Do you want tax/legal privileges removed from these people? If not can you explain the rationale behind your discrimination between these couples and homosexual couples?

It is perfectly obvious, you should not provide a benefit to people who cannot possibly meet the objectives of the benefit.

What about hetrosexual couples who "stay together for the kids" but provide a dysfunctional home - what steps are you proposing to wrestle back tax/legal privileges back from these people? 

Why should you wrestle back anything from these people?

Also what is the cost to the exchequer of affording these tax/legal privileges to married couples? What does this mean in financial terms for everyday tax payers and the wider economy? How would these figures be impacted by granting the same privileges to married gay couples? And how would that figure compare to the amount that could be saved from reigning back the same privileges from hetrosexual, married couples who cannot or do not have kids?

I couldn't care less what the amounts are, it is the principle.

[LCohen]

I'm glad you guys accept that this is not about people being together, which is possible in any case, and is about legalities, which should be considered by any rational citizen and which have nothing in particular to do with God.

Just for clarity can you confirm that you would be happy for infertile hetrosexual couples to avail of tax/legal privileges when they marry? And what about hetrosexual couples that can have children but chose not to?

I don't think it necessary to investigate the status of individuals.

Do you want tax/legal privileges removed from these people? If not can you explain the rationale behind your discrimination between these couples and homosexual couples?

It is perfectly obvious, you should not provide a benefit to people who cannot possibly meet the objectives of the benefit.

What about hetrosexual couples who "stay together for the kids" but provide a dysfunctional home - what steps are you proposing to wrestle back tax/legal privileges back from these people? 

Why should you wrestle back anything from these people?

Also what is the cost to the exchequer of affording these tax/legal privileges to married couples? What does this mean in financial terms for everyday tax payers and the wider economy? How would these figures be impacted by granting the same privileges to married gay couples? And how would that figure compare to the amount that could be saved from reigning back the same privileges from hetrosexual, married couples who cannot or do not have kids?

I couldn't care less what the amounts are, it is the principle.

Initially there seemed to be a scriptural basis for voting No. That has fallen away for want of supporting evidence from scripture. Then it appeared that there was an economic argument. No we know that there is no evidence in support of this argument and it is in fact an argument that is not based upon either figures or individual circumstances.

It is based upon "principle". What is the principle? Its not having children (as people hetrosexuals who either do not, cannot or will not have children). Its not the care of children (as hetrosexuals who care badly for children will be treated the same as heterosexuals who provide good care but differently from homosexuals provide good care)?

The principle seems to be "homosexuals just should not be treated the same as hetrosexuals". Now that sort of bigotry and prejudice has no place is civilised society so its vitally important that this "principle" that your argument hinges upon is brought forward 

[Hardy]

Armaghniac - I'm not sure of the tax or other concessions available available to married people that are not available to those in civil partnerships. Can you clarify?

There are a few obscure differences, highlighted by the yes campaign. But the legal difference means that a difference could be introduced in the future.

1.   Assuming, then, that we can ignore the obscure differences, do I  understand correctly that your objection to the proposal is not that providing the benefit of married status to same-sex couples will confer incremental  fiscal privilege that is not already available under civil partnership, but that it could lead to fiscal anomalies in the future?

2.   Is this "provision of a benefit to people who cannot possibly meet the objectives of the benefit", as you described it in another post, your only basis for objecting to the proposal?

[armaghniac]

Armaghniac - I'm not sure of the tax or other concessions available available to married people that are not available to those in civil partnerships. Can you clarify?

There are a few obscure differences, highlighted by the yes campaign. But the legal difference means that a difference could be introduced in the future.

1.   Assuming, then, that we can ignore the obscure differences, do I  understand correctly that your objection to the proposal is not that providing the benefit of married status to same-sex couples will confer incremental  fiscal privilege that is not already available under civil partnership, but that it could lead to fiscal anomalies in the future?

2.   Is this "provision of a benefit to people who cannot possibly meet the objectives of the benefit", as you described it in another post, your only basis for objecting to the proposal?

I appreciate that "people who cannot possibly meet the objectives of the benefit" sounds a bit strong.
My point simply is this, society support marriage not because it is a great day out or whatever, this is mere frippery, but as a means of supporting families. Without this connection people's sex lives isn't really anyone's business. I contend that deliberately extending marriage to a type of relationship where the connection with a family is extremely tenous can only dilute any reason for society to respect or support marriage.

[LCohen]

Armaghniac - I'm not sure of the tax or other concessions available available to married people that are not available to those in civil partnerships. Can you clarify?

There are a few obscure differences, highlighted by the yes campaign. But the legal difference means that a difference could be introduced in the future.

1.   Assuming, then, that we can ignore the obscure differences, do I  understand correctly that your objection to the proposal is not that providing the benefit of married status to same-sex couples will confer incremental  fiscal privilege that is not already available under civil partnership, but that it could lead to fiscal anomalies in the future?

2.   Is this "provision of a benefit to people who cannot possibly meet the objectives of the benefit", as you described it in another post, your only basis for objecting to the proposal?

I appreciate that "people who cannot possibly meet the objectives of the benefit" sounds a bit strong.
My point simply is this, society support marriage not because it is a great day out or whatever, this is mere frippery, but as a means of supporting families. Without this connection people's sex lives isn't really anyone's business. I contend that deliberately extending marriage to a type of relationship where the connection with a family is extremely tenous can only dilute any reason for society to respect or support marriage.

So in what way is this link to family more tenuous than say a hetrosexual couple where the woman is post menopause, a couple where one or more is infertile, a couple where one or more has chosen to be rendered infertile or a couple that chooses through everyday practice to not have children?

Or is this in some way ties up with the "principle" that we are not being told about?

[muppet]

If marriage is exclusively to support families, and in particular for the benefit of children, should we ban criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts and smokers from getting married? Obviously children of such parents would suffer vis a vis children form 'normal' relationships, so should we protect children from such an outcome?

[muppet]

http://www.adfam.ie/sites/default/files/Campaign%20Leaflet-1.pdf

[LCohen]

And there endith the lesson.

Definitely voting no having reading that constructive, progressive and well evidenced contribution from ADFAM.

Is there a breakaway "continuity" faction of ADFAM that I could endorse?

[armaghniac]

If marriage is exclusively to support families, and in particular for the benefit of children, should we ban criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts and smokers from getting married? Obviously children of such parents would suffer vis a vis children form 'normal' relationships, so should we protect children from such an outcome?

The same whataboutery again and again.  There is nothing particularly unusual in the logic my argument and you would be using a similar logic in other debates, you are just arguing here for the sake of argument. I think the equation of smokers getting married and same sex marriage says it all about the bankrupt nature of your point.

[muppet]

If marriage is exclusively to support families, and in particular for the benefit of children, should we ban criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts and smokers from getting married? Obviously children of such parents would suffer vis a vis children form 'normal' relationships, so should we protect children from such an outcome?

The same whataboutery again and again.  There is nothing particularly unusual in the logic my argument and you would be using a similar logic in other debates, you are just arguing here for the sake of argument. I think the equation of smokers getting married and same sex marriage says it all about the bankrupt nature of your point.

Hang on a second. You are using a tax argument against same-sex marriage, and you then accuse others of whataboutery? 

There is a far more valid point in banning, for example, known child abusers getting married than arguing on tax grounds.