The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[Eamonnca1]

Still waiting, Tony.

[Oraisteach]

Waiting for Godot or Waiting for God, oh?

[T Fearon]

Waiting for what? A bus?

[Eamonnca1]

You to answer the question about "unnatural" homosexual behaviour that happens to be widespread in nature. Are you denying that it exists in nature?

[armaghniac]

A constitution should guarantee rights for every individual. "Greater good" is a nebulous concept that can be harnessed for better or worse.

There are no rights involved in this issue.
And "Greater good" might indeed seem worse when it was the opposite of what you are trying to do.

You to answer the question about "unnatural" homosexual behaviour that happens to be widespread in nature. Are you denying that it exists in nature?

This is a bit of a cul-de-sac in any case. Animals do lots of things, eat their young, crap on the streets, lick their balls; none of this is a good recommendation for human behaviour.

[macdanger2]

Anyway, our constitution does not actually define marriage (up to recent years this was no debate as to it's definition) so nobody can state categorically that the constitution discriminates against gays and lesbians. Of course our actual legislation is a different matter and is subject to the parameters of our constitution. No constitution (whether that of a nation, political party, sports club) can be all things to all people - it has to formulated for the greater good (which is what this debate is all about).

I will be voting No but I do respect and understand many of the viewpoints put forward by the Yes side - I would say I am 80% NO.

You're correct in what you say (about the constitution) but I don't understand why you're voting No?

[topcuppla]

You to answer the question about "unnatural" homosexual behaviour that happens to be widespread in nature. Are you denying that it exists in nature?

Is this the extent of your argument that it is natural, it's a bit lame.

[J70]

A constitution should guarantee rights for every individual. "Greater good" is a nebulous concept that can be harnessed for better or worse.

There are no rights involved in this issue.
And "Greater good" might indeed seem worse when it was the opposite of what you are trying to do.

You to answer the question about "unnatural" homosexual behaviour that happens to be widespread in nature. Are you denying that it exists in nature?

This is a bit of a cul-de-sac in any case. Animals do lots of things, eat their young, crap on the streets, lick their balls; none of this is a good recommendation for human behaviour.

I thought it was about the right to marry your lover, whatever the sex?

[AZOffaly]

Guys, I'm trying to find out the new, updated differences between the Civil Partnership legislation, and the rights a married couple have. Apparently a professor in Maynooth identified 21, as a lot of the original 169 have been closed off via legislation since the website I consulted (referred to earlier on) was updated. Has anyone a concise list of what Gay couples are not entitled to that Straight couples are?

Anyone any luck with this? I can't find a list of them anywhere. It's a bit annoying.

[muppet]

Can anyone explain how a Yes vote does the opposite to 'support', or in any way undermines, families?

I did, several times.

Perhaps you should get a franchise for these for the yes campaign.

You answered the question 'please show me what a normal marriage is'. Thanks for that.

You didn't answer the question how voting Yes undermines these marriages. You got offended with the word 'undermine' which you claimed was being all 'negative'. This despite you insisting a No vote supports these marriages. So again, replace the word undermine with whatever word you feel is the appropriate opposite of 'support' and maybe answer the question.

Or just ignore this post, but don't pretend you have answered the question when you haven't.

[Sidney]

A Yes vote strengthens the concept of the family and strengthens constitutional protection for families and children.

Every major children's charity has called for a Yes vote.

[armaghniac]

A brother and sister can also procreate. If, as armaghniac believes, procreation is the basis for marriage, logic and consistency demands their inclusion.

That's a mature contribution, a concise statement of the yes argument, let everyone do everything.

I'm not calling for that. Your logic is.

How about yourself, Sidney, as you believe that any combination of two people should marry, do you support marriage for brothers and sisters, sons and mothers, brothers and brothers and so on?

[Sidney]

A brother and sister can also procreate. If, as armaghniac believes, procreation is the basis for marriage, logic and consistency demands their inclusion.

That's a mature contribution, a concise statement of the yes argument, let everyone do everything.

I'm not calling for that. Your logic is.

How about yourself, Sidney, as you believe that any combination of two people should marry, do you support marriage for brothers and sisters, sons and mothers, brothers and brothers and so on?

No. Obviously not. Obviously I don't believe that any combination of two people should marry but then I haven't used that logic.

I don't for instance believe a man should be able to marry a 10 year old girl. It's possible for a 10 year old to procreate - a 10 year old girl who was the victim of rape in Paraguay is currently being denied an abortion and forced to carry a child which likely won't survive anyway and which could kill her, to term. Why? Because Roman Catholic doctrine interferes in that society, as it still does here.

But anyway, the logic you use calls for two of the combinations you mentioned to be allowed. Because two of those combinations can procreate. And elderly and infertile male-female couples can't. And if you use the ability to procreate as the basis of marriage, as the No side does, don't complain when the weak points of that logic are exposed.

If you don't support brother-sister marriages or mother-son marriages, and I didn't suggest you do, don't use the "ability to procreate is the fundamental basis of marriage" argument.

[Eamonnca1]

You to answer the question about "unnatural" homosexual behaviour that happens to be widespread in nature. Are you denying that it exists in nature?

Is this the extent of your argument that it is natural, it's a bit lame.

Well I'm glad it's not the extent of my argument.

[armaghniac]

How about yourself, Sidney, as you believe that any combination of two people should marry, do you support marriage for brothers and sisters, sons and mothers, brothers and brothers and so on?

No. Obviously not. Obviously I don't believe that any combination of two people should marry but then I haven't used that logic.

If two consenting adults want to marry, then they should, that is the principle of the yes campaign, is it not?
Perhaps you, or your fellow travellers, would like to expand on this point.

I don't for instance believe a man should be able to marry a 10 year old girl.

Not consenting adults.

If you don't support brother-sister marriages or mother-son marriages, and I didn't suggest you do, don't use the "ability to procreate is the fundamental basis of marriage" argument.

Brother sister marriages are not a sound basis for family formation and is irrelevant to the No argument. The No argument is that the present basis of marriage is sound and well tested and does not need to changed.