The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[armaghniac]

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

As legal marriage affects such things, it is hardly whataboutery, the whataboutery has come from you.

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

There may be. But the fact that known child abusers can get married is not a justification for same sex marriagem in my opinion. But you see to think it is. The fact that you continually cite the existence of flawed marriage in support of your argument tends to suggest that you see SSM as a flawed marriage, but think it should be allowed anyway given all the existing flawed marriages. Not a very convincing argument, all in all.

[LCohen]

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.

One side of the argument seems to well and truly bankrupt.

You have argued that the No Canpaign is based upon having kids. Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married because they can't have kids. But you have no desire to see marriage or the benefits of marriage withheld from hetrosexuals who cannot or choose not to have kids. Your argument is self defeating and bankrupt. You are treating people differently not because of the fact of them having kids or their capacity to have kids but purely because of their sexuality.

It has been argued that homosexuals do not provide adequate care for kids. Yet marriage and the benefits of marriage are not to be withheld from hetrosexuals based upon their track record in looking after kids or capacity to look after kids. Your argument is self defeating and bankrupt. You are treating people differently not because of their record of/capacity to look after kids but purely because of their sexuality.

You have argued that society affords (legal and taxation) benefits to married couples because of the role of marriage in rearing families. You argue for those benefits to retained by hetrosexuals who do not raise their own kids, cannot raise own kids or raise their kids badly.  Your argument is self defeating and bankrupt. You are treating people differently not because role or performance in raising kids but purely because of their sexuality.

You have argued that affording taxation benefits. But you say yourself that your argument is not based actual numbers or individual circumstances (how can tax be collected or forewent if its not based upon either numbers or individual circumstances?). An argument on taxation that not based upon numbers or individual circumstances is inherently bankrupt.

Your tax argument is supposedly based the role of married couples in raising children and yet is not based upon the whether the couple have kids, have the capacity to have kids, have the desire to have kids or how well they perform in raising kids. It will instead be based upon sexuality.  Your argument is self defeating and bankrupt. You are treating people differently not because role or performance in raising kids but purely because of their sexuality

The only other argument being put forward by the no campaign is based in religion and scriptural evidence. It is difficult to evaluate this argument as this scriptural evidence is not being identified for consideration

[muppet]

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

As legal marriage affects such things, it is hardly whataboutery, the whataboutery has come from you.

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

There may be. But the fact that known child abusers can get married is not a justification for same sex marriagem in my opinion. But you see to think it is. The fact that you continually cite the existence of flawed marriage in support of your argument tends to suggest that you see SSM as a flawed marriage, but think it should be allowed anyway given all the existing flawed marriages. Not a very convincing argument, all in all.

I never said it was.

Child abusers can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at risk.
Smokers can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at a greater health risk.
Alcoholics can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at risk.
Criminals can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at risk.

Same-sex marriage should be allowed as a civil right imho and the arguments regarding tax (nonsense) and children (see above) are completely spurious in my opinion. As far as I can see these arguments are to mask something that people like Stew had the honesty to come straight out and admit earlier on the thread.

[armaghniac]

You have argued that the No Canpaign is based upon having kids. Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married because they can't have kids. But you have no desire to see marriage or the benefits of marriage withheld from hetrosexuals who cannot or choose not to have kids. Your argument is self defeating and bankrupt. You are treating people differently not because of the fact of them having kids or their capacity to have kids but purely because of their sexuality.

Child abusers can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at risk.
Smokers can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at a greater health risk.
Alcoholics can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at risk.
Criminals can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at risk.

Both of these make the case that relatively uncommon examples of individual reduced capacity in marriage are justification for the extension of that union to combinations which intrinsically do not have that capacity, whatever the individuals involved. This logic is fallacious.

Same-sex marriage should be allowed as a civil right imho and the arguments regarding tax (nonsense) and children (see above) are completely spurious in my opinion. As far as I can see these arguments are to mask something that people like Stew had the honesty to come straight out and admit earlier on the thread.

Aha, the usual playing of the man. You are entitled to have the view the Same-sex marriage as being a right, as you are not concerned about the damaging effect on marriage. But not to characterise my arguments are nonsense given your lack of success in putting forward effective counter points to them.

[muppet]

You have argued that the No Canpaign is based upon having kids. Homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to get married because they can't have kids. But you have no desire to see marriage or the benefits of marriage withheld from hetrosexuals who cannot or choose not to have kids. Your argument is self defeating and bankrupt. You are treating people differently not because of the fact of them having kids or their capacity to have kids but purely because of their sexuality.

Child abusers can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at risk.
Smokers can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at a greater health risk.
Alcoholics can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at risk.
Criminals can get married because it is a civil right, even though children of such a union could be at risk.

Both of these make the case that relatively uncommon examples of individual reduced capacity in marriage are justification for the extension of that union to combinations which intrinsically do not have that capacity, whatever the individuals involved. This logic is fallacious.

They do no such thing, they expose the hypocrisy of the denial of civil rights based on fallacies such as tax grounds and the protection of children.

Same-sex marriage should be allowed as a civil right imho and the arguments regarding tax (nonsense) and children (see above) are completely spurious in my opinion. As far as I can see these arguments are to mask something that people like Stew had the honesty to come straight out and admit earlier on the thread.

Aha, the usual playing of the man. You are entitled to have the view the Same-sex marriage as being a right, as you are not concerned about the damaging effect on marriage. But not to characterise my arguments are nonsense given your lack of success in putting forward effective counter points to them.

Playing the man?

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.

You do everything you accuse me of doing and more.

[LCohen]

Armaghniac

Why not have a different tax treatment for those with kids and those without?

That way you could fulfill your social function without discrimination? And taxation would have nothing to do with someone's sexuality - which of course it shouldn't

[armaghniac]

Armaghniac

Why not have a different tax treatment for those with kids and those without?

That way you could fulfill your social function without discrimination? And taxation would have nothing to do with someone's sexuality - which of course it shouldn't

You certainly could do that. This would change affect existing marriages, however, in response to the question about how this would affect existing marriages.

The Yes campaign should be up front about doing this.

[T Fearon]

Once again is it right to place kids to be reared in such relationships and expect them to develop normally with two same sex foster parents as opposed to the different perspectives to upbringing each parent brings in an opposite sex relationship

[muppet]

Once again is it right to place kids to be reared in such relationships and expect them to develop normally with two same sex foster parents as opposed to the different perspectives to upbringing each parent brings in an opposite sex relationship

The question is not 'is it right?'.

The question is 'is it legally wrong'....to exclude gay couples from adoption.

[LCohen]

Armaghniac

Why not have a different tax treatment for those with kids and those without?

That way you could fulfill your social function without discrimination? And taxation would have nothing to do with someone's sexuality - which of course it shouldn't

You certainly could do that. This would change affect existing marriages, however, in response to the question about how this would affect existing marriages.

The Yes campaign should be up front about doing this.

I don't think the yes campaign have advocated this. I merely asked you a question.

Ot was you who linked the debate on gay marriage to the tax/legal privileges granted because of the role of marriage in raising kids. When given the opportunity to link the tax/legal privileges to the existence of kids you chose not to so - how interesting? You fall back to drawing the distinction between homosexual and hetrosexual people instead. Your argument is untenable.

[LCohen]

Once again is it right to place kids to be reared in such relationships and expect them to develop normally with two same sex foster parents as opposed to the different perspectives to upbringing each parent brings in an opposite sex relationship

What would be wrong with kids growing up in such an environment?

What evidence is there that children have suffered harm in such an environment from such an environment?

We are talking here about voting to deny equality. Surely ever decent human would need robust evidence before soing so?

[armaghniac]

Ot was you who linked the debate on gay marriage to the tax/legal privileges granted because of the role of marriage in raising kids. When given the opportunity to link the tax/legal privileges to the existence of kids you chose not to so - how interesting? You fall back to drawing the distinction between homosexual and hetrosexual people instead. Your argument is untenable.

I am not proposing a change, the tax/legal privileges are already connected to unions which have a general capacity to produce children of the relationship, notwithstanding individual examples. I am simply saying these should be not extended beyond those they were intended for and you haven't explained why they should, other than whataboutery.

[muppet]

Ot was you who linked the debate on gay marriage to the tax/legal privileges granted because of the role of marriage in raising kids. When given the opportunity to link the tax/legal privileges to the existence of kids you chose not to so - how interesting? You fall back to drawing the distinction between homosexual and hetrosexual people instead. Your argument is untenable.

I am not proposing a change, the tax/legal privileges are already connected to unions which have a general capacity to produce children of the relationship, notwithstanding individual examples. I am simply saying these should be not extended beyond those they were intended for and you haven't explained why they should, other than whataboutery.

I already pointed out to you earlier on the thread, which you acknowledged, that my wife stopped working when we had kids. If we were single she could claim the dole, but we aren't and she can't. It isn't much of a privilege versus an unmarried couple with kids.

[armaghniac]

I already pointed out to you earlier on the thread, which you acknowledged, that my wife stopped working when we had kids. If we were single she could claim the dole, but we aren't and she can't. It isn't much of a privilege versus an unmarried couple with kids.

This is a mere point of detail, it doesn't affect the overall point one way or the other. However, if your wife wasn't looking for work she wasn't entitled to the dole in any case.

[muppet]

I already pointed out to you earlier on the thread, which you acknowledged, that my wife stopped working when we had kids. If we were single she could claim the dole, but we aren't and she can't. It isn't much of a privilege versus an unmarried couple with kids.

This is a mere point of detail, it doesn't affect the overall point one way or the other. However, if your wife wasn't looking for work she wasn't entitled to the dole in any case.

It is when it doesn't suit you.

However it is also a fact that completely undermines your tax argument.