The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[LeoMc]

When is this referendum that will initiate the collapse of society?

The referendum will take place on May 22nd with the collapse of society occurring on the evening of May 23rd, which coincidentally is also when the Eurovision Song Contest takes place.

I wouldn't want to be straight that night. You could be lynched.

It is OK there is a craft beer festival in Belfast that night.

[deiseach]

I can understand people's emotional objections to the idea that marriage could be something other than a union between a woman and a man. It's not as if anyone is going to be forced to get married to a member of their own sex, but just because a person is dismayed at such a development doesn't make them a bigot. And it's not as if voting No means that gay people will remain unfree while a Yes vote completely emancipates them.

[thebigfella]

When is this referendum that will initiate the collapse of society?

The referendum will take place on May 22nd with the collapse of society occurring on the evening of May 23rd, which coincidentally is also when the Eurovision Song Contest takes place.

I wouldn't want to be straight that night. You could be lynched.

It is OK there is a craft beer festival in Belfast that night.

So a choice of being lynched or surrounded by a load of hipster cnuts droning on about craft beers is the options?

Hmmmm, I'll take the lynching.

[deiseach]

Your lynching will be nutty with floral overtones.

[J70]

I can understand people's emotional objections to the idea that marriage could be something other than a union between a woman and a man. It's not as if anyone is going to be forced to get married to a member of their own sex, but just because a person is dismayed at such a development doesn't make them a bigot. And it's not as if voting No means that gay people will remain unfree while a Yes vote completely emancipates them.

You can be dismayed at something and have an emotional initial reaction, but one would hope that most people would be able to think an issue through logically before coming to a decision.

And it is easy to dismiss a rejection of same sex marriage as not being a completely devastating setback for gay people, but it clearly sets them aside, legally, as couplings of lesser dignity and worth in society. I know I wouldn't be too happy being told that my partnership was of lesser value just because I was gay, even if society is, in general, more accepting of my sexuality than it was 15 years ago.

[Hardy]

one would hope that most people would be able to think an issue through logically before coming to a decision.

I wouldn't be so hopeful. Most people play the lottery.

[armaghniac]

You can be dismayed at something and have an emotional initial reaction, but one would hope that most people would be able to think an issue through logically before coming to a decision.

You would, but there isn't much logic here, just simplifications.

And it is easy to dismiss a rejection of same sex marriage as not being a completely devastating setback for gay people, but it clearly sets them aside, legally, as couplings of lesser dignity and worth in society. I know I wouldn't be too happy being told that my partnership was of lesser value just because I was gay, even if society is, in general, more accepting of my sexuality than it was 15 years ago.

But of course same sex relationships not of the same value to society. If nobody had a same sex relationship the rest of society would not notice, if nobody had heterosexual relationships then society would end in a generation. Which is my point, having called for logic in the first sentence you then make an entirely illogical statement in the second, this about describes the level of debate on this issue.

[easytiger95]

But of course, Armaghniac, no one debates on your level.

You can be dismayed at something and have an emotional initial reaction, but one would hope that most people would be able to think an issue through logically before coming to a decision.

You would, but there isn't much logic here, just simplifications.

And it is easy to dismiss a rejection of same sex marriage as not being a completely devastating setback for gay people, but it clearly sets them aside, legally, as couplings of lesser dignity and worth in society. I know I wouldn't be too happy being told that my partnership was of lesser value just because I was gay, even if society is, in general, more accepting of my sexuality than it was 15 years ago.

But of course same sex relationships not of the same value to society. If nobody had a same sex relationship the rest of society would not notice, if nobody had heterosexual relationships then society would end in a generation. Which is my point, having called for logic in the first sentence you then make an entirely illogical statement in the second, this about describes the level of debate on this issue.

Far be it from me to point out though, that J70 was using the word "partnership" - and you substituted the word "relationship". So, of course, logically, if no one was having heterosexual relatonships our society would end. But that is not what the person quoted was saying - he was talking about the categorising of types of partnerships by and within institutions. Given the context of this vote, which is whether we decide to let same sex partnerships have the same legal rights and status as heterosexual civil marriages are afforded, your conflation of their value with the survival of the human race is completely illogical. There have been gay partnerships since the beginning of our civilisation, and we haven't died out yet - far from it. Now we are arguing about whether to recognise and normalise that within our civil law. Loads to argue about there without misrepresenting the views of another poster and accusing him of arguing an illogical position, especially when your own argument only holds weight on the back of that misrepresentation.

[Oraisteach]

And, Armaghniac, wading into the world of logic, if all heterosexual couples decided to use contraceptives then mankind would die out, but, as in your example, that isn't going to happen so it's an absurd argument, an Hypothesis Contrary to Fact fallacy, I believe.

The question isn't one of value to society, as though, for example, the partnership of a high IQ couple is of greater value than that of a lower IQ couple.  It's about whether couples should be accorded equal treatment, rights and protection under the law, isn't it? 

[armaghniac]

But of course, Armaghniac, no one debates on your level.]

What does that mean? Am I a master debater? Or am I objectionable because I don't agree with you?

Far be it from me to point out though, that J70 was using the word "partnership" - and you substituted the word "relationship".

Which is neither here nor there.

So, of course, logically, if no one was having heterosexual relatonships our society would end. But that is not what the person quoted was saying - he was talking about the categorising of types of partnerships by and within institutions. Given the context of this vote, which is whether we decide to let same sex partnerships have the same legal rights and status as heterosexual civil marriages are afforded, your conflation of their value with the survival of the human race is completely illogical.

On the contrary, all of these legal rights and status accrues to marriage because of the importance of fostering stable relationships between men and women, and that importance arises because of the survival of the human race. if marriage was only about having a day out and shacking up together then the law wouldn't be involved in it at all, or only to a tivial extent.

There have been gay partnerships since the beginning of our civilisation, and we haven't died out yet - far from it.

Indeed and for all of this time, society has been clear on what marriage means.  Do you think those people didn't notice the gay partnerships?

. Loads to argue about there without misrepresenting the views of another poster and accusing him of arguing an illogical position, especially when your own argument only holds weight on the back of that misrepresentation.

I did not misrepresent the views of any poster, I merely exposed the illogicality in his argument, when he had called for logic. But as always logic is unwelcome when it doesn't suit people agenda.

The question isn't one of value to society, as though, for example, the partnership of a high IQ couple is of greater value than that of a lower IQ couple.  It's about whether couples should be accorded equal treatment, rights and protection under the law, isn't it?

If a group of people are to be legally privileged then there must be a clear case made that they deserve that privilege. So far all the justification we get is that someone else has it and they want it too, on the basis that both situations involve 2 people. There is a clear case for the legal privilege of marriage, but not for same sex relationships which are not of fundamental value to society.

[Oraisteach]

Armaghniac, I don't understand why you invoke the principle of privilege when the standard ought simply to be one of 'right.'  Why, because of an accident of birth, i.e. my being heterosexual, am I afforded more rights and protections in marriage than another couple who by a similar whim of chance are born homosexual and are thereby denied the 'privileges' that I enjoy.  We are both adults in loving relationships, so why do I merit special favour?

  Is it because that's the way it's always been.  That argument was used to defend slavery and to deny women the vote.  Or is it that my relationship promotes procreation?  And if that's the case,  is the sole purpose of marriage, then, procreation?  And therefore should the marriages of infertile couples and those who consciously choose not to have children simply be dissolved?

It's about civil rights.  Allowing same-sex marriage will not tear the fabric of the family or society, unless, of course, a staggering majority of heterosexual couples are living colossal lies and with the legalization of same-sex marriage will stampede into the arms of their gay lovers.  Only then would the family disintegrate and Crossmaglen's unparalleled dominance of Armagh, Ulster and Ireland come to a screeching halt.

[armaghniac]

Armaghniac, I don't understand why you invoke the principle of privilege when the standard ought simply to be one of 'right.'  Why, because of an accident of birth, i.e. my being heterosexual, am I afforded more rights and protections in marriage than another couple who by a similar whim of chance are born homosexual and are thereby denied the 'privileges' that I enjoy.  We are both adults in loving relationships, so why do I merit special favour?

You are not afforded the legal privileges because of who you are, but because of what you do. Your sexual orientation merely affects your interest in availing of the privileged arrangement, other people through bad luck, fear of commitment, or other relationship problems do not get this privilege either.

Is it because that's the way it's always been.  That argument was used to defend slavery and to deny women the vote.  Or is it that my relationship promotes procreation?  And if that's the case,  is the sole purpose of marriage, then, procreation?  And therefore should the marriages of infertile couples and those who consciously choose not to have children simply be dissolved?

This ridiculous and offensive comment about childless couples again. If you have a problem with childless couples then make that case elsewhere, don't be bringing it into this issue.

Society promotes many things with the value of these being undermined by particular individuals. Society promotes education and this is appropriate even if some educated people do not use their education.

It's about civil rights.

It isn't. To claim that someone living in the same relationship, but called civil partnership is a denial of rights is a trivialisation of the real issues of human rights in the world. Being allowed form a relationship might be civil right, having it called one thing or the other or getting a certain tax allowance is not.

Allowing same-sex marriage will not tear the fabric of the family or society, unless, of course, a staggering majority of heterosexual couples are living colossal lies and with the legalization of same-sex marriage will stampede into the arms of their gay lovers. 

So something damaging is OK as long as it doesn't tear the fabric of society? When you undermine foundations, things subside in due course.

Only then would the family disintegrate and Crossmaglen's unparalleled dominance of Armagh, Ulster and Ireland come to a screeching halt.

Hardly a relevant point and once again the use of such a trite point illustrates the lack of concern for family disintegration, which characterises those supporting this referendum. 

[Hardy]

If I understand Armaghniac's defence of the status quo correctly, it's based on the following premises:
1.   Marriage is favoured by civil society because of the paramount importance of procreation for the future of society.
2.   Only heterosexual couples can procreate.
3.   It is reasonable that society should afford privileges to heterosexual couples to promote  procreation – hence the development of the institution of marriage.

I think that argument is flawed.

Clearly, the privileges afforded by society to the institution of marriage are not for the promotion of procreation. They are for the promotion of nurture. There is no is no need for an incentive to promote procreation. Nature provides that incentive. In fact, many societies are providing incentives NOT to procreate because of fear of over-population.

Nature does not provide an incentive to nurture in the case of fathers. Hence the evolution of the institution of civil marriage with its material incentives for parents to stay together to nurture their children.

In recent times, all of the material privileges afforded to married couples have been extended to unmarried couples in stable partnerships. Society recognises that there is no difference between married and unmarried couples in their commitment to nurturing their children.

In more recent times still, the material privileges afforded to heterosexual couples, married or not, have been extended to same-sex couples, including their right to adopt and nurture children. Once again, this is society recognising equality of commitment. There is no difference between heterosexual and same-sex couples in their commitment to nurturing their children.

Now there is a proposal to recognise marriage between same-sex couples. If we accept that the purpose of civil marriage is to promote the nurturing of children any objection to same-sex marriage can only be based on a suggestion that there is a difference between heterosexual and same-sex couples in their commitment to nurturing their children.

If that is the objection, then the campaign should be to repeal the same-sex civil partnership legislation, not to oppose the recognition of same-sex marriage, since there is no difference between them as regards the promotion of child nurture.

[macdanger2]

I'll be voting yes in the referendum but I thought it was outrageous for the MD of Twitter in Ireland to stick his oar in on the matter

[Gabriel_Hurl]

I'll be voting yes in the referendum but I thought it was outrageous for the MD of Twitter in Ireland to stick his oar in on the matter

What's this now?