The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[macdanger2]

Twas about a week ago

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0416/694562-referendum



Twitter supporting Yes vote in marriage referendum
Thursday 16 April 2015 20.44
The MD of Twitter said there is a good business case to be made for same-sex marriage The MD of Twitter said there is a good business case to be made for same-sex marriage Tasoieach Enda Kenny spoke at the breakfast event, where business leaders called for a Yes vote
The Managing Director of Twitter in Ireland has said the company is supporting a Yes vote in the upcoming same-sex marriage referendum.
Stephen McIntyre has said the company supports same-sex marriage in the US and there is a good business case to be made for it.
He said people do better in the workplace when they can be themselves, adding that it will attract more talent and be positive for Ireland's international reputation.
Mr McIntrye made the comments at an event attended by Taoiseach Enda Kenny where business and tech leaders called for a Yes vote.
The Iona Institute has criticised the call by the social media multinational, saying such corporations should avoid commenting on Irish politics.
Ben Conroy, an Iona spokesperson, said Mr McIntyre's statement that a No vote would be bad for business is "clearly ridiculous" in the context that Germany, "the most powerful economy in Europe". does not have same-sex marriage.
Mr Conroy also questioned whether Mr Kenny "would be so keen about multinationals getting involved in Irish politics if they were endorsing particular political parties?"
The Government's Special rapporteur on children addressed the seminar on the new Children and Family Relationships Act which allows gay couple to adopt for the first time.
He rejected the No side assertion that a Yes vote would bind gay adoption in the constitution.
Separately up to a 100 prominent Catholic and Protestants leaders have endorsed a leaflet  arguing for a No vote.
40,000 of the leaflets will be distributed at churches over the coming weeks.
'Same-sex marriage has nothing to do with parental rights' - James Reilly
Meanwhile, Minister for Children James Reilly says he does not want children to be used as pawns in the upcoming referendum.
He said the referendum has nothing to do with adoption and does not change adoption and parental rights.
Speaking at the seminar, Mr Reilly rejected arguments from the No side that passing the referendum would copper-fasten gay adoption rights in the constitution. 
He said the referendum will result in equal rights to loving couples and that is all it does.  He said the rest of it is "red herrings".

[Gabriel_Hurl]

yeah that link isn't working

[armaghniac]

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.

Fair play, Hardy, for a considered response.

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.

Well put, nurture is a good word. Marriage is an institution design for parents to stay together and 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.

Not quite. You wouldn't need a referendum if marriage didn't add anything extra. Some legal privileges are (rightly) reserved for those making the ultimate step of signing up for marriage.

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.

This is where you haven't followed your own logic. Same sex relationships do not have any children as a consequence of the relationship, they do not nurture their children. They may have children by other mechanisms like adoption, but so do other sorts of unmarried people and these should be supported through adoption mechanisms and the like and not through confusion with marriage, which is designed (mainly) to couple people who nurture their own children.

Now someone invariably pipes up about people who are infertile or whatever, but this is mere diversion. There is a difference in a group of people who do not have a characteristic you want to support and a group who generally have that characteristic, although certain individuals do not.

[Maguire01]

It's not a "mere diversion". It's where your whole argument comes crumbling down.

[armaghniac]

It's not a "mere diversion". It's where your whole argument comes crumbling down.

Quite. Just as if I can find one example of wasteful public spending then I can use that to justify further wasteful public spending, or if I can find one example of bad driving that justifies allowing people drive without doing the driving test. You seem to believe that once you have one example from a large number then you can proceed on that basis, oddly enough you don't seem to have adopted that logic in other matters discussed.

[Aestrics]

There are good reasons for permitting gay marriage.  The main reasons being that it would allow gay partners to have 'next of kin' status and would formalise 'relationship property'. 

Although gay couples don't conceive offspring with each other, there are people in gay relationships who have children of their own.  Allowing gay marriage would provide similar advantages for raising children that straight marriage has.

Allowing gay marriage, wouldn't weaken straight marriage.  It would have no effect on the rights or responsibilities of straight marriage, nor would it have any effect on the benefits of straight marriage or the decisions of straight couples to get married.

[Eamonnca1]

Haven't checked in on this thread on a while. What's the latest? Are the homophobes still complaining about being victimized every time someone calls them a homophobe?

[Maguire01]

It's not a "mere diversion". It's where your whole argument comes crumbling down.

Quite. Just as if I can find one example of wasteful public spending then I can use that to justify further wasteful public spending, or if I can find one example of bad driving that justifies allowing people drive without doing the driving test. You seem to believe that once you have one example from a large number then you can proceed on that basis, oddly enough you don't seem to have adopted that logic in other matters discussed.

Those comparisons make no sense.

[deiseach]

There are good reasons for permitting gay marriage.  The main reasons being that it would allow gay partners to have 'next of kin' status and would formalise 'relationship property'. 

Although gay couples don't conceive offspring with each other, there are people in gay relationships who have children of their own.  Allowing gay marriage would provide similar advantages for raising children that straight marriage has.

Allowing gay marriage, wouldn't weaken straight marriage.  It would have no effect on the rights or responsibilities of straight marriage, nor would it have any effect on the benefits of straight marriage or the decisions of straight couples to get married.

+1

[AZOffaly]

There are good reasons for permitting gay marriage.  The main reasons being that it would allow gay partners to have 'next of kin' status and would formalise 'relationship property'. 

Although gay couples don't conceive offspring with each other, there are people in gay relationships who have children of their own.  Allowing gay marriage would provide similar advantages for raising children that straight marriage has.

Allowing gay marriage, wouldn't weaken straight marriage.  It would have no effect on the rights or responsibilities of straight marriage, nor would it have any effect on the benefits of straight marriage or the decisions of straight couples to get married.

This is the reason I will probably vote Yes. I do believe that the best environment for a child's upbringing, as a rule, is a male-female family environment. But just as there are perfectly happy and well adjusted children from single parent families, and really screwed up kids from the 'traditional' family unit, I am in no doubt that a gay couple of either sex could and do raise children very successfully and happily.

I will vote Yes because at the moment, despite the civil partnership agreements etc, a child in a gay couple's family (either the biological child of one partner, or the adopted child of one partner (gay couples cannot adopt as a 'couple') is only legally bound to that partner. In the event of that partner absconding, or dying, the other partner legally has no right to the child.

This is wrong, and is the main reason for me voting yes.

[Esmarelda]

There are good reasons for permitting gay marriage.  The main reasons being that it would allow gay partners to have 'next of kin' status and would formalise 'relationship property'. 

Although gay couples don't conceive offspring with each other, there are people in gay relationships who have children of their own.  Allowing gay marriage would provide similar advantages for raising children that straight marriage has.

Allowing gay marriage, wouldn't weaken straight marriage.  It would have no effect on the rights or responsibilities of straight marriage, nor would it have any effect on the benefits of straight marriage or the decisions of straight couples to get married.

That's pretty much how I feel AZ.

I think the whole campaign has been pretty unpleasant from both sides. I expected it from the No side but the constant use of the word "Equality" by the Yes side is an attempt to guilt people into voting yes.

In my view, it has nothing to do with equality.

This is the reason I will probably vote Yes. I do believe that the best environment for a child's upbringing, as a rule, is a male-female family environment. But just as there are perfectly happy and well adjusted children from single parent families, and really screwed up kids from the 'traditional' family unit, I am in no doubt that a gay couple of either sex could and do raise children very successfully and happily.

I will vote Yes because at the moment, despite the civil partnership agreements etc, a child in a gay couple's family (either the biological child of one partner, or the adopted child of one partner (gay couples cannot adopt as a 'couple') is only legally bound to that partner. In the event of that partner absconding, or dying, the other partner legally has no right to the child.

This is wrong, and is the main reason for me voting yes.

[deiseach]

Apropos of nothing, I look at my offspring and the primordial needI have to protect him, and conclude that people who give love and affection to those who are not their own blood are the greatest heroes of them all.

[paul768]

The referendum is a sideshow, a distraction. The gov has thrown a stick and the population has gone bounding after it. Why was there not a referendum on the new taxes and permanent austerity? Why are we not consulted on stuff that matters.
Same sex couples have equal rights. Indeed, should there be an additional referendum following this for mixed sex couples to have civil partnerships plus marriage to make it equal?
Am I the only one who notices an air of intolerance to "No" voters? In my view society has become intolerant to dissent in general.

[AZOffaly]

Same sex couples do not have equal rights. That's the whole point. They have some equal rights, but not full equal rights.

[deiseach]

I'd love to know when was this magical time in the past when Ireland was more tolerant of dissent than it is now.