The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[armaghniac]

I already pointed out to you earlier on the thread, which you acknowledged, that my wife stopped working when we had kids. If we were single she could claim the dole, but we aren't and she can't. It isn't much of a privilege versus an unmarried couple with kids.

This is a mere point of detail, it doesn't affect the overall point one way or the other. However, if your wife wasn't looking for work she wasn't entitled to the dole in any case.

It is when it doesn't suit you.

However it is also a fact that completely undermines your tax argument.

Without some detailed calculations it is unclear whether you have a point of any sort. But even if you do prove to have such an example, one example does not prove anything just as one aged alcoholic infertile smoker getting married does not prove anything. If this was another thread and someone said that they did not have to pay tax because Brian Cowan was getting some it, you would be first to point out that one example of waste in public expenditure does not mean that most public expenditure does good.

[muppet]

I already pointed out to you earlier on the thread, which you acknowledged, that my wife stopped working when we had kids. If we were single she could claim the dole, but we aren't and she can't. It isn't much of a privilege versus an unmarried couple with kids.

This is a mere point of detail, it doesn't affect the overall point one way or the other. However, if your wife wasn't looking for work she wasn't entitled to the dole in any case.

It is when it doesn't suit you.

However it is also a fact that completely undermines your tax argument.

Without some detailed calculations it is unclear whether you have a point of any sort. But even if you do prove to have such an example, one example does not prove anything just as one aged alcoholic infertile smoker getting married does not prove anything. If this was another thread and someone said that they did not have to pay tax because Brian Cowan was getting some it, you would be first to point out that one example of waste in public expenditure does not mean that most public expenditure does good.

You are the one making the specific claims (tax and effect on children) and you have not backed them up with any evidence whatsoever. When someone suggests a similar argument, by way of comparison, you throw all of the toys out of the pram and demand evidence, and/or accuse them of attacking you.

Why don't honestly tell us why you are against it?

[armaghniac]

You are the one making the specific claims (tax and effect on children) and you have not backed them up with any evidence whatsoever. When someone suggests a similar argument, by way of comparison, you throw all of the toys out of the pram and demand evidence, and/or accuse them of attacking you.

But that's the point. I contended that the reason that there was substantial legal support for marriage was because society was investing in the children that provides its future. Nobody has claimed that the discrimination inherent in that support is justified by some other reason, instead we get individual examples of this and that. If someone is using an individual example to illustrate their argument it is surely reasonable to ask for some details of that example and is not "throwing the toys out the pram".

In any case I've made my point, continually responding to examples of "Jimmy was brought up by a same sex couple and he's a lovely fellow", or "my aunty Mary never had any children and do you think she should be married" will not illustrate my point any further. Some people will vote for this and regardless of the consequences.

[muppet]

You are the one making the specific claims (tax and effect on children) and you have not backed them up with any evidence whatsoever. When someone suggests a similar argument, by way of comparison, you throw all of the toys out of the pram and demand evidence, and/or accuse them of attacking you.

But that's the point. I contended that the reason that there was substantial legal support for marriage was because society was investing in the children that provides its future. Nobody has claimed that the discrimination inherent in that support is justified by some other reason, instead we get individual examples of this and that. If someone is using an individual example to illustrate their argument it is surely reasonable to ask for some details of that example and is not "throwing the toys out the pram".

In any case I've made my point, continually responding to examples of "Jimmy was brought up by a same sex couple and he's a lovely fellow", or "my aunty Mary never had any children and do you think she should be married" will not illustrate my point any further. Some people will vote for this and regardless of the consequences.

Armaghniac, the great convenience in this argument is that you can make the claim 'the reason that there was substantial legal support for marriage was because society was investing in the children that provides its future' without the burden of having to back it up with anything, while then taking a snipers position at any contrarian responses.

You are correct that some people will vote regardless of the consequences. There is another old thread here on the Seanad referendum. I was in the minority there wanting it to be scrapped. Seem smart people put out a soundbite that a no vote could be a vote for reform of the Seanad. That was quite popular here too. Of course once the no vote was in, that was the last we heard of reform.

If we have learned anything about referendums in Ireland, it is that the vote can fly off chasing any kite cleverly launched with the right soundbite.

[foxcommander]

Ot was you who linked the debate on gay marriage to the tax/legal privileges granted because of the role of marriage in raising kids. When given the opportunity to link the tax/legal privileges to the existence of kids you chose not to so - how interesting? You fall back to drawing the distinction between homosexual and hetrosexual people instead. Your argument is untenable.

I am not proposing a change, the tax/legal privileges are already connected to unions which have a general capacity to produce children of the relationship, notwithstanding individual examples. I am simply saying these should be not extended beyond those they were intended for and you haven't explained why they should, other than whataboutery.

I already pointed out to you earlier on the thread, which you acknowledged, that my wife stopped working when we had kids. If we were single she could claim the dole, but we aren't and she can't. It isn't much of a privilege versus an unmarried couple with kids.

Can't the married/unmarried loophole be fixed by the mother of the child being obligated to provide the fathers name on the birth cert. Whomever the lucky chap is then is liable for the welfare of the child and the mother.
DNA testing facilities would boom but this might be the only way to stop the epidemic. If no welfare is given without a name then you'd see a change in attitude.

[muppet]

Ot was you who linked the debate on gay marriage to the tax/legal privileges granted because of the role of marriage in raising kids. When given the opportunity to link the tax/legal privileges to the existence of kids you chose not to so - how interesting? You fall back to drawing the distinction between homosexual and hetrosexual people instead. Your argument is untenable.

I am not proposing a change, the tax/legal privileges are already connected to unions which have a general capacity to produce children of the relationship, notwithstanding individual examples. I am simply saying these should be not extended beyond those they were intended for and you haven't explained why they should, other than whataboutery.

I already pointed out to you earlier on the thread, which you acknowledged, that my wife stopped working when we had kids. If we were single she could claim the dole, but we aren't and she can't. It isn't much of a privilege versus an unmarried couple with kids.

Can't the married/unmarried loophole be fixed by the mother of the child being obligated to provide the fathers name on the birth cert. Whomever the lucky chap is then is liable for the welfare of the child and the mother.
DNA testing facilities would boom but this might be the only way to stop the epidemic. If no welfare is given without a name then you'd see a change in attitude.

Man gets girl pregnant and runs off. Girl then loses benefits. Brilliant idea.

Meanwhile back on topic.........

[Esmarelda]

Just putting this up to see what anyone thinks of it.

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

[muppet]

Just putting this up to see what anyone thinks of it.

http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

It doesn't compare families with the usual parents demographic (what is calls Intact Biological Family) straight man/woman versus parents comprised of man/man or woman/woman. The study analysed the well-being of a group of 18-39 year olds it found that "Of these, 175 reported that their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship while they were growing up, and 73 said the same about their father. "

This is not a comparison of straight couples rearing children versus gay couples rearing children.

This is actually analysis of couples with one or other pretending to be straight, rearing children. A different thing entirely.

As far as I can see, this is a study to prove the deviance of homosexuals, using data of children who believe a parent may have had homosexual encounters, and then using this small sample to draw some big conclusions:

"The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have "ever been physically forced" to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). "

And then here is the final conclusion:

"The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever."

This is complete non-sense because there isn't a reference to one single respondent being reared by 'same-sex parents'.

Hidden throughout the article are points that logically render it nonsense, but they are quickly overturned by spin. Here are some examples:

"Unlike the previous studies on children of homosexual parents, he has put together a representative, population-based sample that is large enough to draw scientifically and statistically valid conclusions. For these reasons, his "New Family Structures Study" (NFSS) deserves to be considered the "gold standard" in this field."

This was not a study on children of homosexual parents.

This is what they are basing everything on:

.......in the end almost 3,000, a representative sample, actually completed the survey questionnaire. Of these, 175 reported that their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship while they were growing up, and 73 said the same about their father.....

This is an insult to scientific method. A survey where 5.8% of respondents who ticked a box because they thought their mother had a same sex relationship and the 2.4% of respondents who thought their father had a same sex relationship, is not a basis for anything, let alone claiming to be 'The New Gold Standard' in analysis of the effect of 'same-sex marriage' on children.

The high mathematical standard of "statistical significance" was more difficult to reach for the children of "gay fathers" in this study because there were fewer of them.

No shit?

The usual datum for statistical significance afaik is 5%. It can vary but, given the article doesn't mention what the datum was, I am guessing it was 5%. Thus the 'gay' father (who might not describe himself as gay at all - he wasn't asked) stats are not statistically significant, but the article still includes conclusions drawn from them. The lesbian mothers stats just make the threshold for significance, but then the respondents were not the individuals who were being called lesbians, it was their children.

The whole premise of the study is that a number of adults who believed one of their parents were homosexuals (the parents had no right of reply) we more likely to display anti-social tendencies or be victims of anti-social events, than children who didn't think either of their parents were homosexuals.

This study is perfect for the likes of The Daily Mail.

[Hardy]

Well analysed, muppet.

[armaghniac]

All of these "studies" lack the size and structured nature to draw useful conclusions from them, which won't stop them being used by various factions.

[thebigfella]

Well analysed, muppet.

Agreed, saved me the effort of responding.

[J70]

Apparently the governor of Texas and his underlings want to "undo" the marriage of a lesbian couple who were permitted to marry last week, a once-off kind of job because one of them is dying of ovarian cancer.

Should make for good optics, "compassionate" christian conservatives stripping a dying woman of her marital status in a bitter, futile attempt to delay the inevitable,  coming down from the Supreme Court in June.

[stew]

e author=J70 link=topic=25487.msg1442217#msg1442217 date=1424715422]
Apparently the governor of Txexas and his underlings want to "undo" the marriage of a lesbian couple who were permitted to marry last week, a once-off kind of job because one of them is dying of ovarian cancer.

Should make for good optics, "compassionate" christian conservatives stripping a dying woman of her marital status in a bitter, futile attempt to delay the inevitable,  coming down from the Supreme Court in June.
[/quote]

What a shower of scumbags!

Thars

[Maguire01]

You are the one making the specific claims (tax and effect on children) and you have not backed them up with any evidence whatsoever. When someone suggests a similar argument, by way of comparison, you throw all of the toys out of the pram and demand evidence, and/or accuse them of attacking you.

But that's the point. I contended that the reason that there was substantial legal support for marriage was because society was investing in the children that provides its future. Nobody has claimed that the discrimination inherent in that support is justified by some other reason, instead we get individual examples of this and that. If someone is using an individual example to illustrate their argument it is surely reasonable to ask for some details of that example and is not "throwing the toys out the pram".

So, using that line, if the gay couples adopt (or go down the surrogacy route) and raise children, they're making the same contribution to society as (many) heterosexual couples. That being the scenario, what's the logic in your argument?

[armaghniac]

You are the one making the specific claims (tax and effect on children) and you have not backed them up with any evidence whatsoever. When someone suggests a similar argument, by way of comparison, you throw all of the toys out of the pram and demand evidence, and/or accuse them of attacking you.

But that's the point. I contended that the reason that there was substantial legal support for marriage was because society was investing in the children that provides its future. Nobody has claimed that the discrimination inherent in that support is justified by some other reason, instead we get individual examples of this and that. If someone is using an individual example to illustrate their argument it is surely reasonable to ask for some details of that example and is not "throwing the toys out the pram".

So, using that line, if the gay couples adopt (or go down the surrogacy route) and raise children, they're making the same contribution to society as (many) heterosexual couples. That being the scenario, what's the logic in your argument?

As I said adoption is a red herring, given the small numbers adopted there are enough normal couples to adopt them.
I don't wish to encourage surrogacy, many civilised countries outlaw it entirely.