The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[AZOffaly]

How is it at the 'expense' of other citizens? I am under the impression that this will just allow gay people to get married, and enjoy the same rights as every other married couple?

Those "rights" include taxation privileges, do they not?

Such as what? Will a gay couple who marry not be subject to the same tax law as everyone else?

[armaghniac]

How is it at the 'expense' of other citizens? I am under the impression that this will just allow gay people to get married, and enjoy the same rights as every other married couple?

Those "rights" include taxation privileges, do they not?

Such as what? Will a gay couple who marry not be subject to the same tax law as everyone else?

I expect they will be subject to the same tax law as everyone else.
If you have two unmarried people, or one unmarried person, who pay more tax to that a gay couple can pay less, what is the value proposition that justifies that being the case?

[muppet]

How is it at the 'expense' of other citizens? I am under the impression that this will just allow gay people to get married, and enjoy the same rights as every other married couple?

Those "rights" include taxation privileges, do they not?

Such as what? Will a gay couple who marry not be subject to the same tax law as everyone else?

I expect they will be subject to the same tax law as everyone else.
If you have two unmarried people, or one unmarried person, who pay more tax to that a gay couple can pay less, what is the value proposition that justifies that being the case?

Are you saying we shouldn't allow gay marriage as it will reduce the tax take?

[J70]

I have a good friend that is a homosexual, he recently sent me an invite to his wedding, I declined the invite on the grounds that I simply have no interest in watching two lads get married to each other, that said I wish them well and  bought them a present which was returned.

Things are further complicated by the fact that I coach his three sons and all are under contract with me until June fifteenth next year, his partner has told him he is banning me from ever entering their home and that he is going to take me to court to fight the contract my mate signed, being a stubborn hoor I could and might spend whatever it takes to piss him off but I will probably let them go and move on.

Tony is hammered on this thread because of his stance, three years ago I would have agreed with him one hundred percent however as long as they dont get married in a Christian Church it does not bother me, I reserve the right to be repulsed by homosexuality but i respect the fact my friend has the right to wed in many states here in the USA.I would vote yes with a heavy heart because not to do so would be a vote to discriminate against fellow citizens and that I cannot live with in good conscience!

Jaysus Stew, that is a sad story and a very impersonal, detached way to view a friend's wedding. Its not just two gay men getting married - its a friend marrying the person he loves.

I'm sure many gay people are repulsed by the thought of heterosexual relations. I find the idea of being with a man repulsive myself.  I also would rather not think of my parents or, someday, my kids being sexually active. Luckily there's a lot more to everyday relationships than just sexuality.

[Esmarelda]

I loved my pet rabbit before it died, but I wasn't allowed to marry it.

When I was fifteen, I wanted to drive my Dad's car but the state forbade it.

Luckily now I'm old enough to drive but I can't even bring my new cocker spaniel to the cinema never mind anything else. And we have to be very careful who sees us drinking beer from a bong.

[AZOffaly]

How is it at the 'expense' of other citizens? I am under the impression that this will just allow gay people to get married, and enjoy the same rights as every other married couple?

Those "rights" include taxation privileges, do they not?

Such as what? Will a gay couple who marry not be subject to the same tax law as everyone else?

I expect they will be subject to the same tax law as everyone else.
If you have two unmarried people, or one unmarried person, who pay more tax to that a gay couple can pay less, what is the value proposition that justifies that being the case?

Would it be okay if every gay person married a member of the opposite sex? That would have the same impact? Or do you think this is some sort of tax natural selection? I'm not really following this, it seems a bit tenuous to me. The more people we allow get married, the harder it will be on single people. Is that it?

[armaghniac]

Would it be okay if every gay person married a member of the opposite sex? That would have the same impact? Or do you think this is some sort of tax natural selection? I'm not really following this, it seems a bit tenuous to me. The more people we allow get married, the harder it will be on single people. Is that it?

It isn't rocket science. If you are proposing to increase the set of people receiving a tax allowance or benefit than you should have some justification for that, and and justification that goes beyond whataboutery.

[AZOffaly]

I must say that's a bizarre reason. Effectively every gay person in Ireland could marry a person of the opposite sex, thereby having the same net effect (at least) and you'd be happy.

[armaghniac]

I must say that's a bizarre reason.

You are entitled to think that, but not to deny the logic of my point.
But my point is that this is not about people having a day out and living happily ever after, this is already possible. It is about legal rules and whatnot. Yet much of the commentary is based on the false proposition that the day out and living happily ever after is somehow not possible now.

[J70]

I must say that's a bizarre reason. Effectively every gay person in Ireland could marry a person of the opposite sex, thereby having the same net effect (at least) and you'd be happy.

But then we wouldn't have to know there were gay married people, and they might produce kids with two "normal" parents, so it would all be ok.

[Hardy]

Armaghniac - I'm not sure of the tax or other concessions available available to married people that are not available to those in civil partnerships. Can you clarify?

[armaghniac]

Armaghniac - I'm not sure of the tax or other concessions available available to married people that are not available to those in civil partnerships. Can you clarify?

There are a few obscure differences, highlighted by the yes campaign. But the legal difference means that a difference could be introduced in the future.

But then we wouldn't have to know there were gay married people, and they might produce kids with two "normal" parents, so it would all be ok.

The contempt for the interests of children is a mark of the tenor of this campaign.

[gallsman]

Armaghniac - I'm not sure of the tax or other concessions available available to married people that are not available to those in civil partnerships. Can you clarify?

There are a few obscure differences, highlighted by the yes campaign. But the legal difference means that a difference could be introduced in the future.

But then we wouldn't have to know there were gay married people, and they might produce kids with two "normal" parents, so it would all be ok.

The contempt for the interests of children is a mark of the tenor of this campaign.

The sneering obnoxiousness of those who pretend to be safeguarding the interests of children (from a "threat" that has no scientific basis whatsoever) to mask their own bigotry is a mark of the tenor of the no "campaign".

Thankfully most people in 21st century Ireland are civilised enough to see through this.

[armaghniac]

Thankfully most people in 21st century Ireland are civilised enough to see through this.

I think the implication that civilised people are only on one side of the debate is equally informative.

[J70]

Armaghniac - I'm not sure of the tax or other concessions available available to married people that are not available to those in civil partnerships. Can you clarify?

There are a few obscure differences, highlighted by the yes campaign. But the legal difference means that a difference could be introduced in the future.

But then we wouldn't have to know there were gay married people, and they might produce kids with two "normal" parents, so it would all be ok.

The contempt for the interests of children is a mark of the tenor of this campaign.

Your comment proceeds from the presumption that I acknowledge that there is something contrary to the best interests of children in allowing gay couples to raise them.

I don't!