The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[J70]

Still waiting, Tony.

Since you like to call for clarification, where do you stand on people being allowed to marry their granny?

If it ever arises I can assure you I won't be in favour.

What if the granny had a sex change and became the granda, would that be ok?

I'd say you watch some mad porn...

Between sex changed grannies and all the gay stuff you watch you must have yourself pulled asunder.

According to you it would be totally natural to be aroused by transsexuals or homosexuals, so why are you using it in a derogatory way.  As I keep saying you would all shit a brick if your child told you they were gay, internet warriors who harbor prejudicial thoughts but like to feel good and post happy gay right thoughts.  You are a hypocrite.

Right, just because you think that way and can't imagine anyone not doing so, it means everyone thinks that way.

It's called "argument from personal incredulity", a classic type of logical fallacy.

[J70]

So, should brother and sister marriages be included?

If that is directed at me, then no, obviously not. Inbreeding has bad enough effects when cousins marry.

But, surely marriage has nothing to do with children, according to yourself.

So what are you proposing, allowing them to marry and sterilizing them?

Unless a gay person decides to use a sibling as a surrogate parent, I don't see the relevance of brother-sister relationships to gay marriage.

Perhaps you can explain it.

ok then is it ok for a man to marry his father, or a daughter her mother? Or indeed a man to marry his mother, if she is past child bearing age?

The libertarian in me would say "why not?"

But I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist.

I've never heard of anyone lobbying for that right though. Even in animals, steps have evolved to avoid mating with close relatives. There is a reason that, for example, one sex usually disperses a good distance from the natal home range and individual males don't dominate mating for very long.

So again, I do not see the relevance to gay marriage.

[armaghniac]

ok then is it ok for a man to marry his father, or a daughter her mother? Or indeed a man to marry his mother, if she is past child bearing age?

The libertarian in me would say "why not?"

But I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist.

I've never heard of anyone lobbying for that right though. Even in animals, steps have evolved to avoid mating with close relatives. There is a reason that, for example, one sex usually disperses a good distance from the natal home range and individual males don't dominate mating for very long.

Some people do favour incestuous marriage, not very many, but then the number is not the point as we have been told
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17690997

So again, I do not see the relevance to gay marriage.

A simplistic justification has been advanced that two people love each other and should consequently be allowed marriage, this is a "right". This is an example where it seems that several of you do not think that two people who love each other should be allowed marry. Now you would say that this is a different case than gay marriage and probably somebody less sophisticated with describe this as a "distraction" and others will post silly cartoons. But there is a point here in that much of this debate has been conducted in simplistic black and white terms which are very dangerous to the conduct of democracy.

Human society has evolved an understanding of marriage, which includes unions of the same sex, but not incestuous ones and does not include same sex unions. This understanding of marriage arises from real differences in the nature of relationships and does not need changed, and certainly should not be changed in the context of the trite soundbites of this campaign.

[J70]

ok then is it ok for a man to marry his father, or a daughter her mother? Or indeed a man to marry his mother, if she is past child bearing age?

The libertarian in me would say "why not?"

But I am not a psychologist or psychiatrist.

I've never heard of anyone lobbying for that right though. Even in animals, steps have evolved to avoid mating with close relatives. There is a reason that, for example, one sex usually disperses a good distance from the natal home range and individual males don't dominate mating for very long.

Some people do favour incestuous marriage, not very many, but then the number is not the point as we have been told
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17690997

So again, I do not see the relevance to gay marriage.

A simplistic justification has been advanced that two people love each other and should consequently be allowed marriage, this is a "right". This is an example where it seems that several of you do not think that two people who love each other should be allowed marry. Now you would say that this is a different case than gay marriage and probably somebody less sophisticated with describe this as a "distraction" and others will post silly cartoons. But there is a point here in that much of this debate has been conducted in simplistic black and white terms which are very dangerous to the conduct of democracy.

Human society has evolved an understanding of marriage, which includes unions of the same sex, but not incestuous ones and does not include same sex unions. This understanding of marriage arises from real differences in the nature of relationships and does not need changed, and certainly should not be changed in the context of the trite soundbites of this campaign.

So your argument is that "it doesn't need to be changed" and that those who advocate changes are being logically inconsistent in not being in favour of opening it up to all types of relationships, just gay ones?

I disagree with the first part, obviously, which we've covered extensively, and obviously everything else springs from that disagreement.

And as for the second part, society deems incest to be unacceptable, possibly partly due to its usual manifestation as child abuse, but probably also due to the natural instinctual aversion to sexual relations with immediate relatives. Leaving the child abuse aside for the moment, you might respond along the lines of most people also being naturally repulsed by homosexual sexual relations (lesbian porn aside :p). Which is fair enough, and basically it comes back down to what society deems acceptable. Society deemed homosexuality unacceptable in the past, but we've moved to the point where there is no justifiable reason for maintaining such attitudes. So the movement for gay marriage stems from and is continuation of the normalization of homosexuality. Incest is a separate issue. It has not been normalized in modern society, and from this perspective its hard to see how it ever might be. Paedophilia may also be perfectly natural for those who experience those urges, but we deem it unacceptable for the obvious reason that immature children are involved. Just because an urge or a tendency, sexual or not, may be natural, does not mean that society has to embrace it. Each issue needs to be considered on its own merits. Right now we are considering gay marriage. There is no good reason I've yet seen for continuing to outlaw it. That the traditional definition of marriage "doesn't need to be changed" is not a compelling reason whatsoever, especially when the legalization of gay marriage will do nothing to affect traditional marriage in the first place.

[Hardy]

A simplistic justification has been advanced that two people love each other and should consequently be allowed marriage, this is a "right"

It's not a right at present. The purpose of the referendum is to determine whether it becomes a right.

much of this debate has been conducted in simplistic black and white terms

In a sense it has to be, since ultimately the question being posed is a yes/no choice. Should same-sex marriage be allowed? Black and white.

This understanding of marriage ... does not need changed

The people will decide whether it needs to be changed.

[easytiger95]

A simplistic justification has been advanced that two people love each other and should consequently be allowed marriage, this is a "right". This is an example where it seems that several of you do not think that two people who love each other should be allowed marry. Now you would say that this is a different case than gay marriage and probably somebody less sophisticated with describe this as a "distraction" and others will post silly cartoons. But there is a point here in that much of this debate has been conducted in simplistic black and white terms which are very dangerous to the conduct of democracy.

Human society has evolved an understanding of marriage, which includes unions of the same sex, but not incestuous ones and does not include same sex unions. This understanding of marriage arises from real differences in the nature of relationships and does not need changed, and certainly should not be changed in the context of the trite soundbites of this campaign.

And it continues to evolve, which is why there is a call for same-sex marriage. There obviously has been no evolution towards marriage between members of the same family, otherwise it would be on the ballot paper. That is the nature of evolution, changes that are beneficial usually come to the fore. So your position seems to be that marriage should evolve only to include heterosexual couples. Do you believe in evolution?

[armaghniac]

And it continues to evolve, which is why there is a call for same-sex marriage. There obviously has been no evolution towards marriage between members of the same family, otherwise it would be on the ballot paper. That is the nature of evolution, changes that are beneficial usually come to the fore. So your position seems to be that marriage should evolve only to include heterosexual couples. Do you believe in evolution?

Evolution normally moves towards thins that are beneficial, this does not benefit society as a whole, but merely panders to a pressure group. It certainly isn't an issue that the public were exercised about, if it were not the darling of the media. And while Hardy is correct to say that the people will speak, (perhaps 25% of people will vote for this, more will not bother voting), but against a background of media manipulation and the repeated use of language such as "outlaw" which implies that same sex relationships are somehow prevented and the falsehood that this will not affect traditional marriage. The whole thing is reminiscent of the media led groupthink in the property boom.

[screenexile]

And it continues to evolve, which is why there is a call for same-sex marriage. There obviously has been no evolution towards marriage between members of the same family, otherwise it would be on the ballot paper. That is the nature of evolution, changes that are beneficial usually come to the fore. So your position seems to be that marriage should evolve only to include heterosexual couples. Do you believe in evolution?

Evolution normally moves towards thins that are beneficial, this does not benefit society as a whole, but merely panders to a pressure group. It certainly isn't an issue that the public were exercised about, if it were not the darling of the media. And while Hardy is correct to say that the people will speak, (perhaps 25% of people will vote for this, more will not bother voting), but against a background of media manipulation and the repeated use of language such as "outlaw" which implies that same sex relationships are somehow prevented and the falsehood that this will not affect traditional marriage. The whole thing is reminiscent of the media led groupthink in the property boom.

I may have missed it but please explain to me how gay people being allowed to marry even remotely affects my marriage??

[easytiger95]

And it continues to evolve, which is why there is a call for same-sex marriage. There obviously has been no evolution towards marriage between members of the same family, otherwise it would be on the ballot paper. That is the nature of evolution, changes that are beneficial usually come to the fore. So your position seems to be that marriage should evolve only to include heterosexual couples. Do you believe in evolution?

Evolution normally moves towards thins that are beneficial, this does not benefit society as a whole, but merely panders to a pressure group. It certainly isn't an issue that the public were exercised about, if it were not the darling of the media. And while Hardy is correct to say that the people will speak, (perhaps 25% of people will vote for this, more will not bother voting), but against a background of media manipulation and the repeated use of language such as "outlaw" which implies that same sex relationships are somehow prevented and the falsehood that this will not affect traditional marriage. The whole thing is reminiscent of the media led groupthink in the property boom.

Using your logic one could say that all of the great social evolutions of the past 200 years were merely pandering to pressure groups. Certainly the abolition of slavery in America destroyed the economies of the southern states, within which the vast majority of people ( who were white) were benefiting hugely from slave labour. Similarly the moves across the western world to extend the vote to women who were, at the time, a pressure group without political or economic power. Similarly the Civil rights movements in America and Northern Ireland - vocal minorities demanding rights, not because of their ability to dominant the agenda, but precisely because they were unable to exercise influence within the systems as they stood. It is the nature of social evolutions that they begin as challenges to the established order.

In case you forgot, there was a constitutional convention that agreed on the need to have this referendum, and as representatives of the nation as a whole, they moved the motion.

Your "media manipulation" is to me a failure of the No side to articulate a coherent and logical argument to oppose the Yes side, as illustrated by your repeated refusal to answer the question - how does same sex marriage undermine existing and future heterosexual marriage? The No side are receiving the same air time, there is a constitutional imperative for balance in the debate and they have the backing of the Catholic Hierarchy and various socially conservative pressure groups from across Ireland and the world. Yet they still couldn't check to see if the couple in their poster actually supported the cause they were using them to front. It seems to me your "media manipulation" is like someone fuming at last night's Champions League coverage for not concentrating on Bernat giving away the ball for Messi's first goal. I'd love to engage in your argument, if you can provide one, but making unfounded accusations about the media and ad hominem attacks on other posters here does not an argument make. In fact they are classic diversionary tactics and are easily recognised as such.

[armaghniac]

Using your logic one could say that all of the great social evolutions of the past 200 years were merely pandering to pressure groups. Certainly the abolition of slavery in America destroyed the economies of the southern states, within which the vast majority of people ( who were white) were benefiting hugely from slave labour. Similarly the moves across the western world to extend the vote to women who were, at the time, a pressure group without political or economic power. Similarly the Civil rights movements in America and Northern Ireland - vocal minorities demanding rights, not because of their ability to dominant the agenda, but precisely because they were unable to exercise influence within the systems as they stood. It is the nature of social evolutions that they begin as challenges to the established order.

These examples are not helpful. Slavery in America, and even civil rights were in one locality, as was the 6 counties, they say nothing about the world in general.
The example of woman is closer to being useful, but women getting the vote did not change the nature of voting, only the set of people doing it and the franchise had been increasingly extended.

In case you forgot, there was a constitutional convention that agreed on the need to have this referendum, and as representatives of the nation as a whole, they moved the motion.

I don't know who is on the constitutional convention, do you? In any case the proper thing is to have the vote and vote no.

Your "media manipulation" is to me a failure of the No side to articulate a coherent and logical argument to oppose the Yes side, as illustrated by your repeated refusal to answer the question - how does same sex marriage undermine existing and future heterosexual marriage? The No side are receiving the same air time, there is a constitutional imperative for balance in the debate and they have the backing of the Catholic Hierarchy and various socially conservative pressure groups from across Ireland and the world. Yet they still couldn't check to see if the couple in their poster actually supported the cause they were using them to front. It seems to me your "media manipulation" is like someone fuming at last night's Champions League coverage for not concentrating on Bernat giving away the ball for Messi's first goal. I'd love to engage in your argument, if you can provide one, but making unfounded accusations about the media and ad hominem attacks on other posters here does not an argument make. In fact they are classic diversionary tactics and are easily recognised as such.
[/quote]

[muppet]

And it continues to evolve, which is why there is a call for same-sex marriage. There obviously has been no evolution towards marriage between members of the same family, otherwise it would be on the ballot paper. That is the nature of evolution, changes that are beneficial usually come to the fore. So your position seems to be that marriage should evolve only to include heterosexual couples. Do you believe in evolution?

Evolution normally moves towards thins that are beneficial, this does not benefit society as a whole, but merely panders to a pressure group. It certainly isn't an issue that the public were exercised about, if it were not the darling of the media. And while Hardy is correct to say that the people will speak, (perhaps 25% of people will vote for this, more will not bother voting), but against a background of media manipulation and the repeated use of language such as "outlaw" which implies that same sex relationships are somehow prevented and the falsehood that this will not affect traditional marriage. The whole thing is reminiscent of the media led groupthink in the property boom.

Hah?!

It does nothing of the sort. Genes mutate randomly and life carries on with the consequences.

[Sidney]

The whole thing is reminiscent of the media led groupthink in the property boom.

I bet you heard Breda O'Brien say that and decided to run with it as a soundbyte which you probably think sounds discerning but in reality is completely vacuous.

In agreement on this issue you have political parties which are directly opposed to each other on pretty much everything else. Fine Gael and Sinn Fein agree. Joe Higgins agrees. Do you think Joe Higgins does groupthink?

IBEC and all the trade unions agree on this.

At some point you have to take a step back and say, when all the arguments and all the evidence points to something being right, and when its opponents can't muster a single coherent argument between them, that it's the No side that are clearly out of step.

Is it groupthink that Cameron is going to be PM again or that Kilkenny have been the best hurling team over the last 15 years?

[Oraisteach]

BTW, apparently a Nebraska woman is suing gay people.  That's right, all of them.  Better get tubes and tubes of KY Jelly to squeeze them all into that courtroom.

[imtommygunn]

http://time.com/3848666/nebraska-woman-sues-gays/

[muppet]

http://time.com/3848666/nebraska-woman-sues-gays/

Thankfully we would never have anyone that bigoted or intolerant. Sure we wouldn't?