The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[LCohen]

The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.

Ridiculous hyperbole much?

Gay marriage has been legal in parts of the US for more than a decade. What negative effects is that having on "marriage as a useful concept"?

As Gandhi said about the French Revolution, it is too early to say. Marriage has existed for thousands of years and you expect the effect of a change to be evident in 10, you are not serious.

Marriage has certain fiscal advantages which society provides to encourage men and women to get together and raise their children together. This is an attempt by people opposed to that concept to freeload on established arrangements. THe proposition here is  we we're a same sex couple, we're going to set up house together, would the rest of your please chip in to pay for this. This proposition would be rejected as there is no public policy reason for this. But by freeloading on established arrangements people want to achieve this by the back door.

You are just inventing things now.

You believe that those in the yes campaign are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? What is your evidence for this.

Personally I think you are dangerously unhinged.

[muppet]

This issue causes a national referendum?? WTF. Wasting cash again.
If we concentrated on fixing the actual problems in the country rather than this smokescreen we'd be better off.
No chance of adding a few items up for debate and to the voting ticket. Water charges anyone?

Still, takes the heat off the government. That'll do nicely.

You are right.

Imagine having to tolerate a referendum on tolerance.

[magpie seanie]

Nearly afraid to post on this thread after some of what I've read but here goes. At the outset of the campaign I was going to vote yes. I had reservations but overall I just thought "live and let live". However, since the debate has started and I've read a little and read parts of the constitution my reservations have resurfaced with a vengeance. They're to do with the family, children etc. At the risk of being called a bigot I do believe it is better (all things being equal) for a child to have a mother and a father. I apologise if that's offensive to people but I can't help feeling that way. If this referendum is passed it will fundamentally change the constitutional definition of "family" as a "family" is based on marriage.

This is how I feel and why I think I will be voting no.

Now, I'll get the suit of armour.

[T Fearon]

MS you should never be afraid to air your convictions.There is a reason why there are two sexes,and it is utterly ridiculous to elevate unnatural phenomena onto an equal plane with normal,conventional.As usual in these debates the effect on children growing up with two same sex parents is not considered.In my view it cannot be a good environment,every child needs a mother and father to nurture them through the formative years,not two mothers and no father nor vice versa.

[J70]

Nearly afraid to post on this thread after some of what I've read but here goes. At the outset of the campaign I was going to vote yes. I had reservations but overall I just thought "live and let live". However, since the debate has started and I've read a little and read parts of the constitution my reservations have resurfaced with a vengeance. They're to do with the family, children etc. At the risk of being called a bigot I do believe it is better (all things being equal) for a child to have a mother and a father. I apologise if that's offensive to people but I can't help feeling that way. If this referendum is passed it will fundamentally change the constitutional definition of "family" as a "family" is based on marriage.

This is how I feel and why I think I will be voting no.

Now, I'll get the suit of armour.

What has "family" got to do with it? At the very least, a gay couple, as it stands, could get a surrogate to bear a child for them. A lesbian can could just go out for the night and get knocked up if she wanted to. Your "reservations" are irrelevant to this unless there is a prohibition on gay couples, married or not, having kids.

[J70]

The object of this exercise is not to achieve something, but is destructive, the object being the removal of marriage as a useful concept.

Ridiculous hyperbole much?

Gay marriage has been legal in parts of the US for more than a decade. What negative effects is that having on "marriage as a useful concept"?

As Gandhi said about the French Revolution, it is too early to say. Marriage has existed for thousands of years and you expect the effect of a change to be evident in 10, you are not serious.

Marriage has certain fiscal advantages which society provides to encourage men and women to get together and raise their children together. This is an attempt by people opposed to that concept to freeload on established arrangements. THe proposition here is  we we're a same sex couple, we're going to set up house together, would the rest of your please chip in to pay for this. This proposition would be rejected as there is no public policy reason for this. But by freeloading on established arrangements people want to achieve this by the back door.

I think marriage as an institution has been undermined by straight people between divorce and not bothering  getting married  (which is grand as well).  Gay couples should have the same pension rights as straight people and if they want to f**k up their marriages like straight people let them at it.

Two wrongs do not make a right. Some people undermining marriage is no justification whatsoever for allowing an increased number of people undermine marriage.

Once again, how will permitting gay couples to marry undermine marriage?

[armaghniac]

You believe that those in the yes campaign are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? What is your evidence for this.

I believe that they are opposed to the support of society for children being raised by their own parents, otherwise there wouldn't have this campaign at all.

Personally I think you are dangerously unhinged.

It doesn't take long to start playing the man rather than the ball, does it? Par for the course, as previously by other posters here who couldn't effectively argue my points and so resorted to abuse. Believing that marriage should be as it has always been may not be "progressive", but is hardly unhinged by any reasonable definition.

[Hardy]

Seanie, the problem with articulating the view that communism can have points in its favour, is that you can suddenly find yourself being endorsed by Pol Pot.

[J70]

You believe that those in the yes campaign are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? What is your evidence for this.

I believe that they are opposed to the support of society for children being raised by their own parents, otherwise there wouldn't have this campaign at all.

You "believe"?

Based on what?

You don't think its even remotely possible that gay people simply want for their relationships the same respect and legitimacy straight people receive?

[LCohen]

You'll not be surprised to learn I'm in the No camp.For moral and religious reasons I object to these practices being equated to the status of normal male female relationships as defined by scripture.

"these practices"??

With posts like the one above tony you are going to run the risk of being labelled a truly horrific, hate-riddled bigot of the first degree. Before jumping to that conclusion myself i will grant you the right to at least explain yourself. Can you please detail where in scripture homosexuality is deemed to compromise morality or offend "god"?

Sorry Tony

i missed the bit where you found the evidence in the bible to justify your views?

[LCohen]

Nearly afraid to post on this thread after some of what I've read but here goes. At the outset of the campaign I was going to vote yes. I had reservations but overall I just thought "live and let live". However, since the debate has started and I've read a little and read parts of the constitution my reservations have resurfaced with a vengeance.

What contributions to the debate have lead you to cease to believe in equality?

quote author=magpie seanie link=topic=25487.msg1437763#msg1437763 date=1423338806]
They're to do with the family, children etc. At the risk of being called a bigot I do believe it is better (all things being equal) for a child to have a mother and a father. I apologise if that's offensive to people but I can't help feeling that way. If this referendum is passed it will fundamentally change the constitutional definition of "family" as a "family" is based on marriage.
[/quote]
Which children will be robbed of having a father and a mother? Serious question.

[LCohen]

MS you should never be afraid to air your convictions.There is a reason why there are two sexes,and it is utterly ridiculous to elevate unnatural phenomena onto an equal plane with normal,conventional.As usual in these debates the effect on children growing up with two same sex parents is not considered.In my view it cannot be a good environment,every child needs a mother and father to nurture them through the formative years,not two mothers and no father nor vice versa.

I think we all know why there are 2 sexes - the procreation of the species. But what has that got to do with the current debate on equality?

If as you claim that homosexuality is unnatural, where do you think it arises from? Again a serious question.

What has this debate got to do with children?

[J70]

MS you should never be afraid to air your convictions.There is a reason why there are two sexes,and it is utterly ridiculous to elevate unnatural phenomena onto an equal plane with normal,conventional.As usual in these debates the effect on children growing up with two same sex parents is not considered.In my view it cannot be a good environment,every child needs a mother and father to nurture them through the formative years,not two mothers and no father nor vice versa.

How is homosexuality unnatural?

1. Who chooses their sexual orientation? Did you choose to be (presumably) attracted to women? If your orientation natural?

2. Homosexual behaviour is very common among other species. For example, read up on our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos.

3. Down syndrome and a host of other genetically-determined conditions are rare. 1 in 700 babies is born with Down syndrome. The prevalence of homosexuality is much higher. Rarity does not equal "unnatural".

[LCohen]

You believe that those in the yes campaign are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? What is your evidence for this.

I believe that they are opposed to the support of society for children being raised by their own parents, otherwise there wouldn't have this campaign at all.

Personally I think you are dangerously unhinged.

It doesn't take long to start playing the man rather than the ball, does it? Par for the course, as previously by other posters here who couldn't effectively argue my points and so resorted to abuse. Believing that marriage should be as it has always been may not be "progressive", but is hardly unhinged by any reasonable definition.

I use the word unhinged because the debate is about marriage. It has nothing to do with children. If it is to do with children then please detail how the children of a hetrosexual union (whether the 2 individuals are estranged, in a relationship, married or don't even know each other) will be impacted?

Give me some evidence of these impacts on children or give me some evidence that supports your belief that those in the yes campaign "are opposed to the support of society for children being raised by their own parents" or some evidence that the campaign is not in fact about equality and then I will reassess the allegation that you are unhinged. In the meantime the allegation must stand.

[armaghniac]

You believe that those in the yes campaign are opposed to men and women marrying and raising children? What is your evidence for this.

I believe that they are opposed to the support of society for children being raised by their own parents, otherwise there wouldn't have this campaign at all.

You "believe"?

Based on what?

You don't think its even remotely possible that gay people simply want for their relationships the same respect and legitimacy straight people receive?

Of course  I think that gay people want the same as married people, that's the whole  point,!. They want the benefits for themselves without providing the benefits to society.

I use the word unhinged because the debate is about marriage. It has nothing to do with children

Anyone who believes that it is unhinged to point out the association of marriage with families is either profoundly ignorant or is living in some make believe world of their own construction.