The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[muppet]

Surely the burden of proof falls more on those who wish to change the status quo?

As the master said to the slave.

[muppet]

So I've heard the jist of the story of 50 shades of grey. And there have been some high profile cases recently of young men (pre the legal age of consent) being seduced (under the law: abused) by older women.
If a consenting older woman and a consenting younger man/boy want to be together why can't they be? Why is their desire/love/lust not equal to yours?

Because the law and experience tells us that the young are not mature enough to make such a decision so we put an arbitrary age on it to protect easily influenced (and thus easily abused) children.

[foxcommander]

I'll be voting NO as I'm of the opinion that Marriage is a special thingy between a man and a woman.
Gay couples have Civil ppartnership which gives them the same legal rights and protection as marriage.

There's words for people like you.

Correction -
There ARE words.

Let's play countdown

O H M O P H O B E

See if you can make a word out of that....

So, will you label anyone who dares to vote no, as I would, a homophobe?

No, just rossfan in this case as he's the one who said it.

[The Iceman]

So I've heard the jist of the story of 50 shades of grey. And there have been some high profile cases recently of young men (pre the legal age of consent) being seduced (under the law: abused) by older women.
If a consenting older woman and a consenting younger man/boy want to be together why can't they be? Why is their desire/love/lust not equal to yours?

Because the law and experience tells us that the young are not mature enough to make such a decision so we put an arbitrary age on it to protect easily influenced (and thus easily abused) children.

what did stepping out of the cave teach us?
every woman who has read this new book probably think now that it was ok for this lad to have been "abused" at 15 by the older woman to make him in to the man he is today....
what if society starts leaning that way - you might not think it now but 50 years ago who would have thought Protestants and Catholics would be getting married.. or two men?

where are lines drawn and erased and by whom?

[J70]

So I've heard the jist of the story of 50 shades of grey. And there have been some high profile cases recently of young men (pre the legal age of consent) being seduced (under the law: abused) by older women.
If a consenting older woman and a consenting younger man/boy want to be together why can't they be? Why is their desire/love/lust not equal to yours?

Once the kid his 16 or 18 or whatever the legal age in the jurisdiction is, then they can currently be together, can't they?

If you want to debate age of consent, voting age, drinking age, driving age and all the other child-into-adulthood thresholds,  that is a separate issue.

[muppet]

So I've heard the jist of the story of 50 shades of grey. And there have been some high profile cases recently of young men (pre the legal age of consent) being seduced (under the law: abused) by older women.
If a consenting older woman and a consenting younger man/boy want to be together why can't they be? Why is their desire/love/lust not equal to yours?

Because the law and experience tells us that the young are not mature enough to make such a decision so we put an arbitrary age on it to protect easily influenced (and thus easily abused) children.

what did stepping out of the cave teach us?
every woman who has read this new book probably think now that it was ok for this lad to have been "abused" at 15 by the older woman to make him in to the man he is today....
what if society starts leaning that way - you might not think it now but 50 years ago who would have thought Protestants and Catholics would be getting married.. or two men?

where are lines drawn and erased and by whom?

I didn't read that book so we not be speaking about the same thing.

If society 'starts leaning' that way? It used to be that way. Women got married at 16 and younger in this country 150 years ago.

[J70]

Didn't Jerry Lee Lewis marry his 13 year old cousin?

[Oraisteach]

So, Iceman, pull your thought to its logical conclusion--who'd have thought fifty shades of grey, I mean fifty years ago, that Protestants or Catholics could get married . . . Or two men, BUT today Protestants and Catholics do get married (snagged me a Proddy) and all is well, as it would be if two men got married.  Unless the two men decide to draw cartoons of Mohammed and print them in the Belfast Telegragh.  Well, then there'd be Hell to pay, but that's another scenario.  The world will not end if same-sex couples marry.  And maybe another barrier obstructing equality can be removed.

[The Iceman]

So, Iceman, pull your thought to its logical conclusion--who'd have thought fifty shades of grey, I mean fifty years ago, that Protestants or Catholics could get married . . . Or two men, BUT today Protestants and Catholics do get married (snagged me a Proddy) and all is well, as it would be if two men got married.  Unless the two men decide to draw cartoons of Mohammed and print them in the Belfast Telegragh.  Well, then there'd be Hell to pay, but that's another scenario.  The world will not end if same-sex couples marry.  And maybe another barrier obstructing equality can be removed.

I just don't know where the equality line is drawn. That's what I am asking here. who draws that line?

[Hardy]

So, Iceman, pull your thought to its logical conclusion--who'd have thought fifty shades of grey, I mean fifty years ago, that Protestants or Catholics could get married . . . Or two men, BUT today Protestants and Catholics do get married (snagged me a Proddy) and all is well, as it would be if two men got married.  Unless the two men decide to draw cartoons of Mohammed and print them in the Belfast Telegragh.  Well, then there'd be Hell to pay, but that's another scenario.  The world will not end if same-sex couples marry.  And maybe another barrier obstructing equality can be removed.

I just don't know where the equality line is drawn. That's what I am asking hershe. who draws that line?

Society, through the democratic process. That's why we're having a referendum.  Who else should draw it?

[J70]

So, Iceman, pull your thought to its logical conclusion--who'd have thought fifty shades of grey, I mean fifty years ago, that Protestants or Catholics could get married . . . Or two men, BUT today Protestants and Catholics do get married (snagged me a Proddy) and all is well, as it would be if two men got married.  Unless the two men decide to draw cartoons of Mohammed and print them in the Belfast Telegragh.  Well, then there'd be Hell to pay, but that's another scenario.  The world will not end if same-sex couples marry.  And maybe another barrier obstructing equality can be removed.

I just don't know where the equality line is drawn. That's what I am asking here. who draws that line?

Sometimes popular vote, sometimes the judiciary making constitutional rulings, sometimes legislators.

[LCohen]

Well then, since you are such an advocate of "equality", why are married people treated differently from single people, shouldn't everyone be equal?

Yes
everyone should be equal. Nobody reasonable would use one inequality to justify another inequality

[armaghniac]

Interracial marriage was illegal in parts of the US as recently as the sixties. The same decade saw Aboriginal people in Australia removed from the native fauna list. Homosexual acts were illegal as was contraception in Ireland until the 80s.

This is comparing apples and cabbages, which is par for the course.Interracial sexual relations and homosexual ones were outright prohibited, the intention was to not allow them happen. Likewise the intention was to prevent the use of contraceptives, it wasn't the case that it was ok it you called it birth control. Same sex relations are now in no way prohibited, what is at issue is whether we should fund them with tax relief and the like.

So, Iceman, pull your thought to its logical conclusion--who'd have thought fifty shades of grey, I mean fifty years ago, that Protestants or Catholics could get married . . . Or two men, BUT today Protestants and Catholics do get married (snagged me a Proddy) and all is well, as it would be if two men got married.  Unless the two men decide to draw cartoons of Mohammed and print them in the Belfast Telegragh.  Well, then there'd be Hell to pay, but that's another scenario. 

Another pointless comparison, my aunt married a protestant 70 years ago, there was no legal restriction on doing so.

The world will not end if same-sex couples marry

No, but it will be poorer place if marriage is devalued in this way.

Well then, since you are such an advocate of "equality", why are married people treated differently from single people, shouldn't everyone be equal?

Yes everyone should be equal. Nobody reasonable would use one inequality to justify another inequality

So single people should be equal to married people?

[muppet]

So single people should be equal to married people?

This is silly.

A single person is equal to a married person, with the exception of the rights they agreed to amend as a result of the marriage.

[LCohen]

Apart from the opposition to homosexuality / gay marriage explicit in scripture

But there is no opposition to homosexuality / gay marriage in the bible.

what chance has any child of growing up normal in a gay marriage scenario? What chance has it got of experiencing the natural heterosexual perspective so vital for normality,procreation etc? Zilch in my opinion,and whatever about gay marriage I don't see how anyone could rationally support the upbringing of children in such an environment

There are good parents, there are bad parents and there are ok parents.
There will be good parents, there will be bad parents and there will be ok parents. The latter is an eternal truth. It won't be impacted upon by legalising gay marriage