The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[LCohen]

How could a child growing up in that scenario and be normal?

Very easily

[gallsman]

So I've heard the jist of the story of 50 shades of grey. And there have been some high profile cases recently of young men (pre the legal age of consent) being seduced (under the law: abused) by older women.
If a consenting older woman and a consenting younger man/boy want to be together why can't they be? Why is their desire/love/lust not equal to yours?

Because the law and experience tells us that the young are not mature enough to make such a decision so we put an arbitrary age on it to protect easily influenced (and thus easily abused) children.

what did stepping out of the cave teach us?
every woman who has read this new book probably think now that it was ok for this lad to have been "abused" at 15 by the older woman to make him in to the man he is today....
what if society starts leaning that way - you might not think it now but 50 years ago who would have thought Protestants and Catholics would be getting married.. or two men?

where are lines drawn and erased and by whom?

Will they?! What complete and utter hysterical, fear mongering nonsense.

[armaghniac]

So single people should be equal to married people?

This is silly.

A single person is equal to a married person, with the exception of the rights they agreed to amend as a result of the marriage.

Except they pay more tax to support married people, pay more for their pensions to support spouses pensions etc.

[LCohen]

You know it's not right,not normal,and I have not seen a convincing argument to the contrary

It realy is the morality of the gutter. Repugnant in the extreme.

let us hear this evidence that it is not right and not normal

[LCohen]

Surely the burden of proof falls more on those who wish to change the status quo?

Not really. The status quo enshrines an inequality. Those who favour inequality will find the burden of proof lying firmly with them.

[muppet]

So single people should be equal to married people?

This is silly.

A single person is equal to a married person, with the exception of the rights they agreed to amend as a result of the marriage.

Except they pay more tax to support married people, pay more for their pensions to support spouses pensions etc.

....if one spouse isn't working, which is usually for children reasons. My wife doesn't work and we lose money because if she was single (and not working) she could collect the dole. But married and not working = no support, other than a poxy tax credit.

And as for the pensions, you would pay anyway, just like everyone else. Single people get pensions as well y'know.

[armaghniac]

So single people should be equal to married people?

This is silly.

A single person is equal to a married person, with the exception of the rights they agreed to amend as a result of the marriage.

Except they pay more tax to support married people, pay more for their pensions to support spouses pensions etc.

....if one spouse isn't working, which is usually for children reasons. My wife doesn't work and we lose money because if she was single (and not working) she could collect the dole. But married and not working = no support, other than a poxy tax credit.

The point about the unemployment benefit has some validity, but in a common enough situation where one spouse earns less than the other, less tax is paid. My point is that this support child rearing, and that is why society organises things this way. Same sex marriage breaks any possible connection with procreation and will, in time, diminish society's willingness to support marriage in any shape or form. Why should same sex couples expect other people to subsidise them? What is their case?

[seafoid]

So single people should be equal to married people?

This is silly.

A single person is equal to a married person, with the exception of the rights they agreed to amend as a result of the marriage.

Except they pay more tax to support married people, pay more for their pensions to support spouses pensions etc.

....if one spouse isn't working, which is usually for children reasons. My wife doesn't work and we lose money because if she was single (and not working) she could collect the dole. But married and not working = no support, other than a poxy tax credit.

The point about the unemployment benefit has some validity, but in a common enough situation where one spouse earns less than the other, less tax is paid. My point is that this support child rearing, and that is why society organises things this way. Same sex marriage breaks any possible connection with procreation and will, in time, diminish society's willingness to support marriage in any shape or form. Why should same sex couples expect other people to subsidise them? What is their case?

That doesn't follow.
Many women love weddings and are hardly going to be turned off by 2 men getting hitched.
Weddings are not going to be driven to extinction by gay marriage.

[LCohen]

Maybe we should hold back and let the No Campaign have the floor here. Let the next post be the clearly evidenced rationale for voting to deny equality based upon grounds of sexual orientation.

[Maguire01]

So single people should be equal to married people?

This is silly.

A single person is equal to a married person, with the exception of the rights they agreed to amend as a result of the marriage.

Except they pay more tax to support married people, pay more for their pensions to support spouses pensions etc.

....if one spouse isn't working, which is usually for children reasons. My wife doesn't work and we lose money because if she was single (and not working) she could collect the dole. But married and not working = no support, other than a poxy tax credit.

The point about the unemployment benefit has some validity, but in a common enough situation where one spouse earns less than the other, less tax is paid. My point is that this support child rearing, and that is why society organises things this way. Same sex marriage breaks any possible connection with procreation and will, in time, diminish society's willingness to support marriage in any shape or form. Why should same sex couples expect other people to subsidise them? What is their case?

They might be raising a child?

Or maybe they won't, like those heterosexual couples that don't.

[armaghniac]

So single people should be equal to married people?

This is silly.

A single person is equal to a married person, with the exception of the rights they agreed to amend as a result of the marriage.

Except they pay more tax to support married people, pay more for their pensions to support spouses pensions etc.

....if one spouse isn't working, which is usually for children reasons. My wife doesn't work and we lose money because if she was single (and not working) she could collect the dole. But married and not working = no support, other than a poxy tax credit.

The point about the unemployment benefit has some validity, but in a common enough situation where one spouse earns less than the other, less tax is paid. My point is that this support child rearing, and that is why society organises things this way. Same sex marriage breaks any possible connection with procreation and will, in time, diminish society's willingness to support marriage in any shape or form. Why should same sex couples expect other people to subsidise them? What is their case?

They might be raising a child?

Not a child of the union.

Or maybe they won't, like those heterosexual couples that don't.

If you read the newspaper yesterday about the value of the pink Euro, arising as homosexual couples are wealthier and much less likely to have children.

[J70]

Interracial marriage was illegal in parts of the US as recently as the sixties. The same decade saw Aboriginal people in Australia removed from the native fauna list. Homosexual acts were illegal as was contraception in Ireland until the 80s.

This is comparing apples and cabbages, which is par for the course.Interracial sexual relations and homosexual ones were outright prohibited, the intention was to not allow them happen. Likewise the intention was to prevent the use of contraceptives, it wasn't the case that it was ok it you called it birth control. Same sex relations are now in no way prohibited, what is at issue is whether we should fund them with tax relief and the like.

First, why did you leave out the second part of the quote? You know, the one that places it in the context of my response to Tony:

"What society deems normal changes, usually for the better in social terms"

All of those things were once considered normal, before society came to its senses.

And given that part of Tony's stated objection to homosexual marriage and homosexual raising of children is that he considers it "not normal", my examples are perfectly valid in that it is highly likely that, as with those examples, we will one day reach the point where both gay marriage in Ireland and the raising of children in same-sex households will also come to be seen as run of the mill.

[J70]

The world will not end if same-sex couples marry

No, but it will be poorer place if marriage is devalued in this way.

So you keep claiming. How about you back up this claim for once? In what way will marriage be devalued?

Gay marriage is legal where I live in the states (and will likely be legalized nationally by the Supreme Court in June). A very close family friend is in a same-sex marriage. How is the recognition of his marriage by the state of New York devaluing my or anyone else's heterosexual marriage?

I'm still wracking my brains and I can't come up with anything.

[Milltown Row2]

To posters against same sex marriage. No big deal really, both won't be able to vote on it anyways so their backward views their homophobic stance doesn't make a difference to how this will pan out.

[armaghniac]

"What society deems normal changes, usually for the better in social terms"

All of those things were once considered normal, before society came to its senses.

And given that part of Tony's stated objection to homosexual marriage and homosexual raising of children is that he considers it "not normal", my examples are perfectly valid in that it is highly likely that, as with those examples, we will one day reach the point where both gay marriage in Ireland and the raising of children in same-sex households will also come to be seen as run of the mill.

So you'll be here next year arguing that a bisexual should be able to marry a man and a woman?

o posters against same sex marriage. No big deal really, both won't be able to vote on it anyways so their backward views their homophobic stance doesn't make a difference to how this will pan out.

The name calling and abuse associated with the yes side here is good indication of tenor of this campaign.