The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[Sidney]

(To armaghniac) You're not obliged to do, say or prove anything. We're simply making points in a debate. You made a point purporting to support your position and I challenged it.

I think your whole argument against the proposition in the referendum boils down to a fairly insipid, nebulous, generalised concern about an idealised conception of marriage that you haven't shown to be threatened by this proposition anyway.

As  I said, those proposing change should show that there will be no threat to marriage. In most cases they have carefully avoided any nuanced discussion of the point, although you Hardy have  shown more willingness than most.

It's a bit like adding Blanchardstown IT to TCD and having a fairly insipid, nebulous, generalised concern that the nature of TCD degrees might be affected by the change.

Far more valid comparisons would be how the extension of voting to women did not devalue the votes of men, and how the extension of voting to black people did not devalue the votes of white people. Even the opening of Croke Park to other sports is a more accurate comparison - it did not devalue Croke Park for GAA players, although that rather foolish opinion was not unheard of at the time amongst certain GAA people.

[macdanger2]

And how would same-sex marriage prevent this?

This is a typical black and white question, as if I am somehow obliged to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a catastrophe will result. I do not believe this will improve marriage, and I do not think that marriage should be changed in ways that do not improve it.  If you are proposing to change the constitution then you must advance strong evidence of the benefit to marriage of this change, not me.

You claimed to be supporting 'my concern is to support normal situations where there isn't a problem'.

Here are example of 'normal situations' as I see it (feel free to add):

1. Married man & woman with children.
2. Single woman with children.
3. Single man with children.
4. Woman living with children and a man, not the father.
5. Man living with children and a woman, not the mother.
6. Grandparents living with grandchildren.
7. One grandparent living with children.

If voting against same-sex marriage 'supports' any of the above, how does voting for same-sex marriage undermine any of them?

Once again the use of negative language "undermine".
Marriage is a form of positive legal privilege to support something society should support, if you extend positive preferment too widely then it becomes meaningless.

My point is the positive benefits of parents bringing up their own children, but everyone here is calling on me to bad mouth ever other arrangement.

But since you insist, I think this positive privilege should occur because if you have 1) above then you still have 2) or 3) if one parent dies or the like, and you have two sets of grandparents to allow 6) or 7) if both parents pass away in a crash or something.  4) and 5) are good as both genders are represented, but a step-parent may not be quite as invested in the children as a real parent. For instance, if a relationship breaks up a real parent will generally (and should) keep contact with their children, a step parent who had been in children's lives for several years might not remain involved if a relationship breaks up, and this is also true for same sex relationships.

This referendum will change nothing from a parenting point of view as you've already said yourself. Why is this still part of the discussion?

[gallsman]

a step parent who had been in children's lives for several years might not remain involved if a relationship breaks up, and this is also true for same sex relationships.

Is it?

I was at a wedding on Saturday where the bride was given away by her stepfather and the biological father was nowhere to be seen.

[armaghniac]

a step parent who had been in children's lives for several years might not remain involved if a relationship breaks up, and this is also true for same sex relationships.

Is it?

I was at a wedding on Saturday where the bride was given away by her stepfather and the biological father was nowhere to be seen.

Samples of one do not shed much light on the problem.
Had her biological father been married to her mother?

[Sidney]

And how would same-sex marriage prevent this?

This is a typical black and white question, as if I am somehow obliged to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a catastrophe will result. I do not believe this will improve marriage, and I do not think that marriage should be changed in ways that do not improve it.  If you are proposing to change the constitution then you must advance strong evidence of the benefit to marriage of this change, not me.

You claimed to be supporting 'my concern is to support normal situations where there isn't a problem'.

Here are example of 'normal situations' as I see it (feel free to add):

1. Married man & woman with children.
2. Single woman with children.
3. Single man with children.
4. Woman living with children and a man, not the father.
5. Man living with children and a woman, not the mother.
6. Grandparents living with grandchildren.
7. One grandparent living with children.

If voting against same-sex marriage 'supports' any of the above, how does voting for same-sex marriage undermine any of them?

Once again the use of negative language "undermine".
Marriage is a form of positive legal privilege to support something society should support, if you extend positive preferment too widely then it becomes meaningless.

My point is the positive benefits of parents bringing up their own children, but everyone here is calling on me to bad mouth ever other arrangement.

But since you insist, I think this positive privilege should occur because if you have 1) above then you still have 2) or 3) if one parent dies or the like, and you have two sets of grandparents to allow 6) or 7) if both parents pass away in a crash or something.  4) and 5) are good as both genders are represented, but a step-parent may not be quite as invested in the children as a real parent. For instance, if a relationship breaks up a real parent will generally (and should) keep contact with their children, a step parent who had been in children's lives for several years might not remain involved if a relationship breaks up, and this is also true for same sex relationships.

This referendum will change nothing from a parenting point of view as you've already said yourself. Why is this still part of the discussion?

Diversion. The only chance the no side have is to try and divert the discussion onto red herring issues that play to base prejudice. That and to laughably claim that they're being bullied and that they're being silenced. Yeah, silenced with their 50% of the media debate as mandated by law.

[Sidney]

a step parent who had been in children's lives for several years might not remain involved if a relationship breaks up, and this is also true for same sex relationships.

Is it?

I was at a wedding on Saturday where the bride was given away by her stepfather and the biological father was nowhere to be seen.

Samples of one do not shed much light on the problem.
Had her biological father been married to her mother?

The No side are only too happy to use samples of one when it suits them.

[gallsman]

a step parent who had been in children's lives for several years might not remain involved if a relationship breaks up, and this is also true for same sex relationships.

Is it?

I was at a wedding on Saturday where the bride was given away by her stepfather and the biological father was nowhere to be seen.

Samples of one do not shed much light on the problem.
Had her biological father been married to her mother?

My sample of one is one more than the zero from your evidence-lacking assertion above though, isn't it?

Yes, very much married and the bride still carries his name, not her stepfather's.

[armaghniac]

My sample of one is one more than the zero from your evidence-lacking assertion above though, isn't it?

There is research on step-parents and this does occur.

Yes, very much married and the bride still carries his name, not her stepfather's.

Well her father is a bollix, but one bollix is not a guide to the generality.

The No side are only too happy to use samples of one when it suits them.

perhaps, but that doesn't make it right.

[easytiger95]

I have to say I am sickened by not just the generalisations used here, but the casual willingness to sterotype other families arrangements as outside the "norm". There is no norm. Anyone unlucky enough to have had any experience of marriage breakdown knows there is no perfect way to deal with it. People are just people, and their flaws are what define them.

But of course, the father in the case above must have been "a complete bollix". Some of the No sides willingness to pigeonhole and rate relationships shows not only do they have no concept of equality, but an almost sociopathic lack of empathy with other people.

Imagine how children being raised by gay parents now feel, given where they stand on the sliding scale of normality? Or children from one parent homes? Or children of divorced and separated couples? They don't rank up there on the scale either.

And then they have the gall to say that they are motivated by concern for children, when they are the prime manufacturers of propaganda guaranteed to lower the self worth of these children?

God give me strength. And hopefully He'll give a copy of our constitution to some on these boards to read and understand - that we commit to cherish all the children of the state equally.

[Eamonnca1]

We know that.We object same sex marriage on the basis of opposition to equating the unnatural gay relationship with that of the natural hetrosexual relationship which has been the cornerstone of society since time immemorial.

There is no need to redefine marriage or distort the norm

WTF? I thought we'd already refuted this "unnatural" bollox!

[T Fearon]

You haven't.It is irrefutable

[muppet]

And how would same-sex marriage prevent this?

This is a typical black and white question, as if I am somehow obliged to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a catastrophe will result. I do not believe this will improve marriage, and I do not think that marriage should be changed in ways that do not improve it.  If you are proposing to change the constitution then you must advance strong evidence of the benefit to marriage of this change, not me.

You claimed to be supporting 'my concern is to support normal situations where there isn't a problem'.

Here are example of 'normal situations' as I see it (feel free to add):

1. Married man & woman with children.
2. Single woman with children.
3. Single man with children.
4. Woman living with children and a man, not the father.
5. Man living with children and a woman, not the mother.
6. Grandparents living with grandchildren.
7. One grandparent living with children.

If voting against same-sex marriage 'supports' any of the above, how does voting for same-sex marriage undermine any of them?

Once again the use of negative language "undermine".
Marriage is a form of positive legal privilege to support something society should support, if you extend positive preferment too widely then it becomes meaningless.

My point is the positive benefits of parents bringing up their own children, but everyone here is calling on me to bad mouth ever other arrangement.

But since you insist, I think this positive privilege should occur because if you have 1) above then you still have 2) or 3) if one parent dies or the like, and you have two sets of grandparents to allow 6) or 7) if both parents pass away in a crash or something.  4) and 5) are good as both genders are represented, but a step-parent may not be quite as invested in the children as a real parent. For instance, if a relationship breaks up a real parent will generally (and should) keep contact with their children, a step parent who had been in children's lives for several years might not remain involved if a relationship breaks up, and this is also true for same sex relationships.

If find this argument quite incredible. It is ok for you to say a No vote is 'support' for something, yet examining what a Yes vote could be is 'Once again the use of negative language'.

Then you state that marriage is something that society should support. But only on your terms. Society it seems must be as you see it.

But regardless, you never even approached explaining how allowing same-sex marriage 'undermines' or goes against supporting, or however you want to describe it, any of the normal arrangements I listed. You simply outlined why you thought they were fine. How is your No vote 'supporting' these arrangements?

[Eamonnca1]

You haven't.It is irrefutable

So you still think homosexual behaviour doesn't exist in nature?

[armaghniac]

I have to say I am sickened by not just the generalisations used here, but the casual willingness to sterotype other families arrangements as outside the "norm". There is no norm. Anyone unlucky enough to have had any experience of marriage breakdown knows there is no perfect way to deal with it. People are just people, and their flaws are what define them.

But of course, the father in the case above must have been "a complete bollix". Some of the No sides willingness to pigeonhole and rate relationships shows not only do they have no concept of equality, but an almost sociopathic lack of empathy with other people.

I cannot win here. Gallsman produced an example where a stepfather had done a better job than a biological father, I agreed that the biological father wasn't great, and you attack me!!!

Imagine how children being raised by gay parents now feel, given where they stand on the sliding scale of normality? Or children from one parent homes? Or children of divorced and separated couples? They don't rank up there on the scale either.

And then they have the gall to say that they are motivated by concern for children, when they are the prime manufacturers of propaganda guaranteed to lower the self worth of these children?

I said nothing about such children, only about the conduct of their parents. I admire the children for making a go of things in less than ideal circumstances.

God give me strength. And hopefully He'll give a copy of our constitution to some on these boards to read and understand - that we commit to cherish all the children of the state equally.

Indeed, we strive to give them an equal right to a father and mother.

This rant was typical of the conduct of this debate. They talk about equality, while proposing that further groups be added to the unequal status of marriage, but refuse to justify this. They say that others should not judge, while calling them bigots and homophobes. They invoke God, while abusing those who believe in God.
And as for rating thing, how on earth can any public policy be made if there no willingness to identify what you want to do. Are the road safety campaigns to be abolished because they stereotype people who speed? Are the campaigns to encourage parents to feed their children more veg and less biscuits to be canned because people are just people?

If find this argument quite incredible. It is ok for you to say a No vote is 'support' for something, yet examining what a Yes vote could be is 'Once again the use of negative language'.

Then you state that marriage is something that society should support. But only on your terms. Society it seems must be as you see it.

But regardless, you never even approached explaining how allowing same-sex marriage 'undermines' or goes against supporting, or however you want to describe it, any of the normal arrangements I listed. You simply outlined why you thought they were fine. How is your No vote 'supporting' these arrangements?

You may not agree with my points, but there is nothing incredible about them.

I've been entirely logical and consistent, which is more than can be said for some. Society supports marriage because it brings men and women together to have their own children, adding in groups who do not this can only reduce support for marriage.  You may want this, but I do not.

[macdanger2]

I've been entirely logical and consistent, which is more than can be said for some. Society supports marriage because it brings men and women together to have their own children, adding in groups who do not this can only reduce support for marriage.  You may want this, but I do not.

You have been consistent in your views armaghniac and from what I've read of your posts, the above is the essence of what you think on the matter?

For me, this is flawed on two points:

Society supports marriage because it brings men and women together to have their own children

Society also supports marriage for couple who have gone past child-bearing age.

adding in groups who do not this can only reduce support for marriage

I don't understand how extending the rights associated with marriage (and we're talking primarily about legal / financial rights) reduces the right for married couples who have children. The rights of married couples with children remains the same. Does allowing women who have gone past child-bearing age to marry also reduce these rights??