The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[armaghniac]

I don't think it is wrong either. I do think that public policy should encourage children to be brought up by their own parents.

Public policy does do this by adding to the benfits accrued when couples marry, as we discussed last night.

So if it does this, why on earth are we proposing to extend marriage to a set of couples who do not require this benefit?

[easytiger95]

Because marriage is not just about children, as we discussed last night. Do you want me to post the conversation again where you were unable to come up with any kind of a convincing argument as to why the state should prohibit marriage? I might just do that.

[easytiger95]

If the referendum passes than the government can promote the state of marriage and can confer the benefits of that state on both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples - thus promoting social stability. And for those who have been in marriages that have broken down there are supports and legal recourse available.

The scale of government intervention is only warranted to protect children, it should not be overly involved in the conduct of adult sexual relationships.

These benefits are not available to single people or those who chose not to get married whilst in a relationship. So everyone does not get the same.

No, these people just get to pay for it.

[easytiger95]

If the referendum passes than the government can promote the state of marriage and can confer the benefits of that state on both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples - thus promoting social stability. And for those who have been in marriages that have broken down there are supports and legal recourse available.

The scale of government intervention is only warranted to protect children, it should not be overly involved in the conduct of adult sexual relationships.

These benefits are not available to single people or those who chose not to get married whilst in a relationship. So everyone does not get the same.

No, these people just get to pay for it.

No the scale of government intervention is warranted to promote a family as the most stable social unit to base our society on. Our constitution currently defines a family as a married heterosexual couple. The referendum may extend that to same sex couples. The benefits of basing our society on this unit includes and goes beyond the nurturing of children (as it must as not every marriage is capable of or chooses to procreate). A marriage commitment between people is widely considered to promote social cohesion, separate of the issue of children.

And "no these people just pay for it" indicates a staggering ignorance of the family law and taxation system. The entire edifice is designed to keep couples (whether they have children or not) together in the form of free mediation and counselling services. Married couples have responsibilities to each other that are not dissolved by a break up and must be resolved through mediation or judicial separation. The tax system confers benefits on married couples (whether they have children or not) which will always be unavailable to single people. So, no, they can't pay for it, unless you're talking in a general sense, where wealth makes things easier for people. Which it does. But is doesn't buy you the place a married couple holds in the constitution, which is different to, and not available to single people.

[easytiger95]

No the scale of government intervention is warranted to promote a family as the most stable social unit to base our society on. Our constitution currently defines a family as a married heterosexual couple. The referendum may extend that to same sex couples. The benefits of basing our society on this unit includes and goes beyond the nurturing of children (as it must as not every marriage is capable of or chooses to procreate). A marriage commitment between people is widely considered to promote social cohesion, separate of the issue of children.

The scale of support for marriage is justified by the existence of children resulting from the relationship. Civil partnership already confers any required state support for adult relationships.

The tax system confers benefits on married couples (whether they have children or not) which will always be unavailable to single people.

So the single people pay for it, as I said. What is the public policy reason why a single person incurring the expenses of a household on their own has to pay more tax to support a single sex couple sharing their household expenses?

[easytiger95]

Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true. The scale of support for marriage is justified because as we a democracy, like most of the other Western countries, decided that marriage was the best arrangement to promote stability and social cohesion, whether children were involved or not. Look up the definition of a family in our constitution.

This is not true because I repeat it, it is true because that is the understanding of marriage in every society of the world.
And as for the constitution, when this was written there would have no need to spell out the association of marriage and children as the bizarre arguments you are advancing would not have been anticipated.

You're also selectively quoting - I also cited the family law system, which confers both rights and responsibilities on married partners which it does not to single people. These rights and responsibilities cannot be paid for.

Fair enough, civil partnership provides these things.

As to your specific point on tax - as above, we have decided as a society that married families are the most stable unit to build our society upon ( not a point I am sold on, as my previous posts will attest, as i don't believe in ideal families - but as citizen i am required to live by our laws). As such, if the referendum goes through, same sex couples will have the same rights as hetero married couples and will accrue the same benefits. As there has not been a clamour to change our tax system to so that singles do not support hetero married couples, I can only assume that any objections brought up re same sex couples and tax is because of the sexuality of the couples involved.

Indeed you don't believe in ideal families, or families at all, that much is obvious.
When families are referred to in the context of taxes, welfare payments, etc. there is an implicit association of children. As the majority of married couples do have children, then no clamour arises. The addition of combinations where zero percent of them can have children is breaking this association and can only lead to less generous treatment of marriage in the tax code in the future. If marriage has no particular status and is only associated with adults then in the interests of "equality" there is no reason for unmarried people to subsidise married ones.

Either marriage is stable, socially cohesive institution, with or without children, or it is not. If it is, and marriage is extended to same sex couples, then fairness dictates they should benefit for contributing to that social cohesion.

Same sex couples as a class do not contribute children being brought up by their parents and so should receive less benefit for less contribution.

[easytiger95]

This is not true because I repeat it, it is true because that is the understanding of marriage in every society of the world.
And as for the constitution, when this was written there would have no need to spell out the association of marriage and children as the bizarre arguments you are advancing would not have been anticipated.

That understanding may be in religions throughout the world, but as I pointed out earlier, that cannot hold true for civil law, and does not hold true in our constitution, because married people sometimes do not have children. If knowing the law and its implications is bizarre, then fine, in a logic free universe, I need a strait jacket.

Indeed you don't believe in ideal families, or families at all, that much is obvious.

You know nothing about my attitudes. My family is the most important thing in my life. But I don't think that gives me the right to judge or circumscribe how other people organise their families, through choice or situation.

When families are referred to in the context of taxes, welfare payments, etc. there is an implicit association of children. As the majority of married couples do have children, then no clamour arises. The addition of combinations where zero percent of them can have children is breaking this association and can only lead to less generous treatment of marriage in the tax code in the future. If marriage has no particular status and is only associated with adults then in the interests of "equality" there is no reason for unmarried people to subsidise married ones.

As soon as you get married, your tax status changes. If you have children, they can then increase the benefits that accrue, but there is a reason on all the forms that they ask "married or single?" first and then ask "if married, do you have any dependants?" Your argument all along has been that same sex couples erodes the status of marriage - but nothing in the civil law or taxation code changes. Not one benefit is taken away from heterosexual couples. The status of marriage remains above that of single people, as it always has. And the status of children, adoption and parents access to their child has already been dealt with by the Oireachtas. You have no argument.

Same sex couples as a class do not contribute children being brought up by their parents and so should receive less benefit for less contribution.

They can of course, either through adoption or fertility treatment, be parents to children, give them a stable, loving home and receive any tax benefits that accrue. Provided that firstly, they get married.

[easytiger95]

Apologies to all others on the thread - Armaghniac has a goldfish like level of attention span. But i think it is even more annoying to let troll like behaviour go, such as having the same argument over and over again, when the answers you have received have been reasoned, and you have failed to provide an justification for your own position.

[armaghniac]

I've been on here and have argued é case in logical terms with 10 people continually calling for No arguments and then ignoring what Í have said. But for having the audacity to oppose the groupthink I am characterised as a troll! This is illustrative of the entire campaign where every effort is made to stifle debate. Good night!

[easytiger95]

Whereas you characterised me as someone who called you a homophobe, which never happened, someone who did not believe in family in any shape or form, and now someone who refuses to engage in debate and is in thrall to group think (despite me posting the entirety of our back and forth from last night). However, I feel my beliefs are my beliefs, no matter how many or how few agree with them.

I have debated you, and in my own opinion, I think that my argument was more convincing. I have given my opinions openly and they are free to examine - unfortunately you do not feel the same about your own views.

If you don't have the facts to back up your argument it is always easy to blame others for "stifling" debate. Should you source these facts and come up with the answers to the questions I and others have been asking you, I hope you feel free to re engage.

Good night.

[topcuppla]

I have debated you, and in my own opinion, I think that my argument was more convincing. I have given my opinions openly and they are free to examine - unfortunately you do not feel the same about your own views.

Self praise is no praise!

[armaghniac]

Whereas you characterised me as someone who called you a homophobe, which never happened, someone who did not believe in family in any shape or form, and now someone who refuses to engage in debate and is in thrall to group think (despite me posting the entirety of our back and forth from last night). However, I feel my beliefs are my beliefs, no matter how many or how few agree with them.

I stated that those supporting this campaign had called people homophobes, I accept that the actions of others do not imply that you agree with this. However, you did call me a troll and something about a goldfish, and the basis for calling me a troll was that I was still here, which does suggest a refusal to engage in debate.

I have debated you, and in my own opinion, I think that my argument was more convincing. I have given my opinions openly and they are free to examine - unfortunately you do not feel the same about your own views.

I do not share your opinions that your argument was convincing.

If you don't have the facts to back up your argument it is always easy to blame others for "stifling" debate. Should you source these facts and come up with the answers to the questions I and others have been asking you, I hope you feel free to re engage.

I do not know what "facts" you wish to see. One might be that 75%+ of marriages have children of that marriage, and you are proposing to redefine marriage to a group who have 0% children of the marriage. Do I need to use some statistical technique to show that these are different populations?

[topcuppla]

The only fact you will find here armaghniac, is these self appointed intellectual guardians of homosexuality will lambaste and berate anyone who questions any facet of gay society and brand them homophobic.  You are totally correct as is Eamon Martin when you say that this mass hysteria and collective moral outrage at anyone daring to have an opinion at odds with the gay moral conscious of these people is stifling debate and for that very reason the outcome of the referendum will have no reflection on current polling.

[topcuppla]

Probably homophobic

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/marriage-referendum-about-family-not-equality-archbishop-1.2206825!

[screenexile]

Probably homophobic

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/marriage-referendum-about-family-not-equality-archbishop-1.2206825!

What a nonsense... maybe we shouldn't let infertile couples get Married either!!

Ridiculous argument!