The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[Hardy]

The argument here seems to be, "it's not me that's homophobic, it's my religion."

The Nuremberg Defence.

[LCohen]

The argument here seems to be, "it's not me that's homophobic, it's my religion."

The Nuremberg Defence.

In a nutshell.

Mind you are not accused of being pathetic (incidently my least favourite word)

The "i'm not homopobic, i'm only following my faith" does seem to imply either an incapacity for or an aversion to rational thought.

[armaghniac]

Regulated in what way? Enforcement of performance standards? Money back or another go if not satisfied?

As I said, neither prohibited nor promoted. There is no reason for the State to promote same sex relationships, but cunningly people haven't attempted to argue that they should but are simply attempting to freeload on the long established institution of marriage.

Indeed! My favourite is the "baby needs its mother" defence... I don't remember too many mentioning that when the Magdalene's were doing their thing!!

A noble piece of whataboutery. "They" did something wrong 50 or 100 years ago. so let's get them back now by a similar wrong.

[easytiger95]

Last magdalene laundry closed in 1996, less than 20 years ago. And speaking of whataboutery - "similar wrong?" I really hope you're not comparing one of the most grievous crimes against humanity, mothers and children, ever committed in this country, with the possible provision of gay marriage?

[armaghniac]

Last magdalene laundry closed in 1996, less than 20 years ago. And speaking of whataboutery - "similar wrong?" I really hope you're not comparing one of the most grievous crimes against humanity, mothers and children, ever committed in this country, with the possible provision of gay marriage?

Perhaps similar was not appropriate, but both are the application of dogma by people more interested in the dogma than the care of children.

[topcuppla]

The argument here seems to be, "it's not me that's homophobic, it's my religion."

The Nuremberg Defence.

In a nutshell.

Mind you are not accused of being pathetic (incidently my least favourite word)

The "i'm not homopobic, i'm only following my faith" does seem to imply either an incapacity for or an aversion to rational thought.

I don't believe in God, and if you read back I do support gay marriage, but you asked for a reason to say no that wasn't homophobic and I give you religious belief, but that doesn't satisfy your need to berate and castigate anyone doesn't hold your moral view on gay marriage.  For that reason the word pathetic resonates quite appropriately in your direction.

[easytiger95]

Last magdalene laundry closed in 1996, less than 20 years ago. And speaking of whataboutery - "similar wrong?" I really hope you're not comparing one of the most grievous crimes against humanity, mothers and children, ever committed in this country, with the possible provision of gay marriage?

Perhaps similar was not appropriate FULL STOP

Corrected that for you.

[armaghniac]

Last magdalene laundry closed in 1996, less than 20 years ago. And speaking of whataboutery - "similar wrong?" I really hope you're not comparing one of the most grievous crimes against humanity, mothers and children, ever committed in this country, with the possible provision of gay marriage?

Perhaps similar was not appropriate FULL STOP

Corrected that for you.

Punctuation is all very fine, but the fact remains that you cannot justify a wrong in the present by reference to a wrong in the past.

[Maguire01]

Regulated in what way? Enforcement of performance standards? Money back or another go if not satisfied?

As I said, neither prohibited nor promoted. There is no reason for the State to promote same sex relationships, but cunningly people haven't attempted to argue that they should but are simply attempting to freeload on the long established institution of marriage.

Marriage encourages stable relationships. This is good for wider society, whether there are children involved or not. Any 'cost' of you 'subsidising' gay marriage will be negligible - you won't notice any difference in your finances - but the benefits to those allowed to marry will be immeasurable.

[screenexile]

Last magdalene laundry closed in 1996, less than 20 years ago. And speaking of whataboutery - "similar wrong?" I really hope you're not comparing one of the most grievous crimes against humanity, mothers and children, ever committed in this country, with the possible provision of gay marriage?

Perhaps similar was not appropriate FULL STOP

Corrected that for you.

Punctuation is all very fine, but the fact remains that you cannot justify a wrong in the present by reference to a wrong in the past.

It's the No campaign who keep bringing same sex parenting into the debate when its not even the issue at hand... I'm arguing against the whataboutery that has already been introduced!

[armaghniac]

Regulated in what way? Enforcement of performance standards? Money back or another go if not satisfied?

As I said, neither prohibited nor promoted. There is no reason for the State to promote same sex relationships, but cunningly people haven't attempted to argue that they should but are simply attempting to freeload on the long established institution of marriage.

Marriage encourages stable relationships. This is good for wider society, whether there are children involved or not. Any 'cost' of you 'subsidising' gay marriage will be negligible - you won't notice any difference in your finances - but the benefits to those allowed to marry will be immeasurable.

The cost of subsiding dole spongers is negligible, but that is no reason to expect someone to agree to it. What actual benefits do people get from having their relationship described as marriage rather than civil partnership?

It's the No campaign who keep bringing same sex parenting into the debate when its not even the issue at hand...

It is the yes campaign that continues to put forward the dishonest and destructive contention that parenting has nothing to do with marriage.

[Maguire01]

Regulated in what way? Enforcement of performance standards? Money back or another go if not satisfied?

As I said, neither prohibited nor promoted. There is no reason for the State to promote same sex relationships, but cunningly people haven't attempted to argue that they should but are simply attempting to freeload on the long established institution of marriage.

Marriage encourages stable relationships. This is good for wider society, whether there are children involved or not. Any 'cost' of you 'subsidising' gay marriage will be negligible - you won't notice any difference in your finances - but the benefits to those allowed to marry will be immeasurable.

The cost of subsiding dole spongers is negligible, but that is no reason to expect someone to agree to it.

I wouldn't equate the two myself. As i've said, marriage equality does have benefits for wider society.

What actual benefits do people get from having their relationship described as marriage rather than civil partnership?

I'm sure you could provide all the same benefits and call it civil partnership, but it seems important to many people that it is called marriage, so I don't see any argument for denying them that. But I thought your argument was against granting them equality based on benefits to wider society, rather than what their partnership is called?

[easytiger95]

Last magdalene laundry closed in 1996, less than 20 years ago. And speaking of whataboutery - "similar wrong?" I really hope you're not comparing one of the most grievous crimes against humanity, mothers and children, ever committed in this country, with the possible provision of gay marriage?

Perhaps similar was not appropriate FULL STOP

Corrected that for you.

Punctuation is all very fine, but the fact remains that you cannot justify a wrong in the present by reference to a wrong in the past.

I don't feel gay couples bringing up children, either biological or adopted, in a loving and supportive home to be a wrong. And even as I accept that other people may have a different opinion than me on that subject, I certainly vehemently object to anyone comparing it to events that have been aptly described before as an Irish Holocaust.

So you see, it is not about punctuation. It is about intellectual honesty.

If you really felt that children being raised by gay couples was comparable with a century long orgy of child abuse, separation and physical/sexual violence against young women, perhaps you should have been protesting at the gates of the Dail when the Children and Family relationships Act was passed? Rather than using it as a bogus argument in a completely different constitutional issue?

[armaghniac]

I don't feel gay couples bringing up children, either biological or adopted, in a loving and supportive home to be a wrong.

I don't think it is wrong either. I do think that public policy should encourage children to be brought up by their own parents.

And even as I accept that other people may have a different opinion than me on that subject, I certainly vehemently object to anyone comparing it to events that have been aptly described before as an Irish Holocaust.

In a country where Cromwell killed one quarter of the population and a million plus died in the famine, it is  these events should be described as an Irish Holocaust, so you too are guilty of overstatement. The point is that you cannot justify one wrong by reference to another, even if they are not on the same scale, I cannot go and beat up an English person because of Cromwell and justify it that it wasn't as bad as Cromwell.


[/quote]

[easytiger95]

In your first post on the subject you said

A noble piece of whataboutery. "They" did something wrong 50 or 100 years ago. so let's get them back now by a similar wrong.]

Now you want me to classify the Famine and Cromwell as bigger disasters? More cul de sacs and red herrings from a man who cannot face up to the illogic of his own position. the Magdalenes were part of a century long system of state and church oppression where tens of thousands of children were raped and abused, separated from their parents by the self same church and state, and where young women were treated as slaves, and they were open up to 1996. Please look at the link below - that is from last year. And read the Murphy and Ryan reports. I did not describe it as a Holocaust, i said it had been described as such. And I don't disagree with the description. And far more effecting for the fact that it happened in my, and i assume your, lifetime.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-26044852

I don't think it is wrong either. I do think that public policy should encourage children to be brought up by their own parents.

Public policy does do this by adding to the benfits accrued when couples marry, as we discussed last night. The Children and Family relationships act is also another way the government seeks to keep children with parents (as evidenced by the new rights conferred on fathers not married to their partners at time of separation, and the outlining of rights for grandparents). It also settled once and for all whether gay children had the right to adopt children - which they do.

So, given that horse has left the stable, and the child rearing issue is settled, would you like to discuss the marriage referendum on its own merits? This is the thread for it, you know.

Or maybe we just set up a thread called "Straw Men" and have done with it. Because you're certainly not discussing marriage honestly.