The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[Hardy]

Armaghniac, it's important but entirely irrelevant to this debate. We established in a previous conversation that the privileges extended to married couples are to encourage child nurture , not to recognise reproductive capacity.

[J70]

LGBT's were oppressed now they will become the oppressors and not settle for anything less than "Church weddings"

What nonsense.

A quick google search will show up multiple cases ongoing where couples are suing Churches for not allowing them to marry there - and in some cases winning! Forcing Churches to perform ceremonies or face penalty is oppression in my book....

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/judge-rules-christian-facility-cannot-ban-same-sex-civil-union-ceremony-on

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/20/city-threatens-to-arrest-ministers-who-refuse-to-perform-same-sex-weddings/

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/

I read the links - in the first one, it is a facility owned by the religioius group. They are being accused of discriminating in renting out the room. I'd have to think about it for a bit, but given that it was three years ago, how did it turn out? In any case, the church was not forced to marry anyone.
Second one - it is a for profit outfit. I don't see the issue there if they want to operate as a business.
In the third one, there's a law suit. I don't see how they can or should win it though, if the UK laws are anything like US. Any outcome.

[mylestheslasher]

When I was young and had no sense I used to think gays were some sort of unnatural odd balls. I of course have grown older and wiser and seen a bit of the world and I realised there were good people all around me that are gay. It makes me ashamed of my thoughts when I was younger but then I was coming from a perspective of ignorance in rural Ireland. I am thankful now that these people are more and more coming out openly and are able to admit what they are. Anyone who believes in an Irish republic, a republic being a country that cherishes all its people no matter what race, creed or sexuality, should be voting yes in this referendum. It will make absolutely no difference to anyone who is not gay, life will go on as usual.

It's clearly just a poor choice of word in an otherwise good post, but the concept that somebody should have to "admit" that they are gay is fairly abhorrent.

It may not be the best word but what I meant was there are in this country a lot of people who are gay who are fighting themselves and can't bring themselves to admit/accept what they are for fear of what society has in store for them (for example, if they were related to Tony Fearon he would disown them). I am now thankful  that this is less and less the case. That's the point I was trying to make.

[armaghniac]

Armaghniac, it's important but entirely irrelevant to this debate. We established in a previous conversation that the privileges extended to married couples are to encourage child nurture , not to recognise reproductive capacity.

So, having a biological link to children is of no advantage whatsoever to nurture? In your world, nobody resembles their grandfather, blood is not thicker than water? Should Kate Middleton just have sent down to the orphanage for a sprog and not bother with all the morning sickness?

[Hardy]

Armaghniac, it's important but entirely irrelevant to this debate. We established in a previous conversation that the privileges extended to married couples are to encourage child nurture , not to recognise reproductive capacity.

So, having a biological link to children is of no advantage whatsoever to nurture? In your world, nobody resembles their grandfather, blood is not thicker than water? Should Kate Middleton just have sent down to the orphanage for a sprog and not bother with all the morning sickness?

If your position is that adoptive parents nurture less well than biological parents, your problem is with adoption, not marriage, heterosexual or same-sex.

[armaghniac]

If your position is that adoptive parents nurture less well than biological parents, your problem is with adoption, not marriage, heterosexual or same-sex.

Not at all. Adoption steps in where there is a problem and is very much needed, my concern is to support normal situations where there isn't a problem.

[Hardy]

If your position is that adoptive parents nurture less well than biological parents, your problem is with adoption, not marriage, heterosexual or same-sex.

And how does extending marriage rights

If your position is that adoptive parents nurture less well than biological parents, your problem is with adoption, not marriage, heterosexual or same-sex.

Not at all. Adoption steps in where there is a problem and is very much needed, my concern is to support normal situations where there isn't a problem.

Not at all. Adoption steps in where there is a problem and is very much needed, my concern is to support normal situations where there isn't a problem.

And how would same-sex marriage prevent this?

[armaghniac]

And how would same-sex marriage prevent this?

This is a typical black and white question, as if I am somehow obliged to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a catastrophe will result. I do not believe this will improve marriage, and I do not think that marriage should be changed in ways that do not improve it.  If you are proposing to change the constitution then you must advance strong evidence of the benefit to marriage of this change, not me.

[macdanger2]

This referendum is still not about same-sex parenting. Accepting or rejecting it will not change how and whether gay couples are allowed to adopt or become surrogate parents to children

[T Fearon]

We know that.We object same sex marriage on the basis of opposition to equating the unnatural gay relationship with that of the natural hetrosexual relationship which has been the cornerstone of society since time immemorial.

There is no need to redefine marriage or distort the norm

[Hardy]

(To armaghniac) You're not obliged to do, say or prove anything. We're simply making points in a debate. You made a point purporting to support your position and I challenged it.

I think your whole argument against the proposition in the referendum boils down to a fairly insipid, nebulous, generalised concern about an idealised conception of marriage that you haven't shown to be threatened by this proposition anyway.

[armaghniac]

(To armaghniac) You're not obliged to do, say or prove anything. We're simply making points in a debate. You made a point purporting to support your position and I challenged it.

I think your whole argument against the proposition in the referendum boils down to a fairly insipid, nebulous, generalised concern about an idealised conception of marriage that you haven't shown to be threatened by this proposition anyway.

As  I said, those proposing change should show that there will be no threat to marriage. In most cases they have carefully avoided any nuanced discussion of the point, although you Hardy have  shown more willingness than most.

It's a bit like adding Blanchardstown IT to TCD and having a fairly insipid, nebulous, generalised concern that the nature of TCD degrees might be affected by the change.

[muppet]

And how would same-sex marriage prevent this?

This is a typical black and white question, as if I am somehow obliged to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a catastrophe will result. I do not believe this will improve marriage, and I do not think that marriage should be changed in ways that do not improve it.  If you are proposing to change the constitution then you must advance strong evidence of the benefit to marriage of this change, not me.

You claimed to be supporting 'my concern is to support normal situations where there isn't a problem'.

Here are example of 'normal situations' as I see it (feel free to add):

1. Married man & woman with children.
2. Single woman with children.
3. Single man with children.
4. Woman living with children and a man, not the father.
5. Man living with children and a woman, not the mother.
6. Grandparents living with grandchildren.
7. One grandparent living with children.

If voting against same-sex marriage 'supports' any of the above, how does voting for same-sex marriage undermine any of them?

[Sidney]

When I was young and had no sense I used to think gays were some sort of unnatural odd balls. I of course have grown older and wiser and seen a bit of the world and I realised there were good people all around me that are gay. It makes me ashamed of my thoughts when I was younger but then I was coming from a perspective of ignorance in rural Ireland. I am thankful now that these people are more and more coming out openly and are able to admit what they are. Anyone who believes in an Irish republic, a republic being a country that cherishes all its people no matter what race, creed or sexuality, should be voting yes in this referendum. It will make absolutely no difference to anyone who is not gay, life will go on as usual.

It's clearly just a poor choice of word in an otherwise good post, but the concept that somebody should have to "admit" that they are gay is fairly abhorrent.

It may not be the best word but what I meant was there are in this country a lot of people who are gay who are fighting themselves and can't bring themselves to admit/accept what they are for fear of what society has in store for them (for example, if they were related to Tony Fearon he would disown them). I am now thankful  that this is less and less the case. That's the point I was trying to make.

Ah yeah I know the point you were making and I agree with you but the word "admit" just carries such negative connotations that it's one I'd avoid in any circumstances.

[armaghniac]

And how would same-sex marriage prevent this?

This is a typical black and white question, as if I am somehow obliged to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that a catastrophe will result. I do not believe this will improve marriage, and I do not think that marriage should be changed in ways that do not improve it.  If you are proposing to change the constitution then you must advance strong evidence of the benefit to marriage of this change, not me.

You claimed to be supporting 'my concern is to support normal situations where there isn't a problem'.

Here are example of 'normal situations' as I see it (feel free to add):

1. Married man & woman with children.
2. Single woman with children.
3. Single man with children.
4. Woman living with children and a man, not the father.
5. Man living with children and a woman, not the mother.
6. Grandparents living with grandchildren.
7. One grandparent living with children.

If voting against same-sex marriage 'supports' any of the above, how does voting for same-sex marriage undermine any of them?

Once again the use of negative language "undermine".
Marriage is a form of positive legal privilege to support something society should support, if you extend positive preferment too widely then it becomes meaningless.

My point is the positive benefits of parents bringing up their own children, but everyone here is calling on me to bad mouth ever other arrangement.

But since you insist, I think this positive privilege should occur because if you have 1) above then you still have 2) or 3) if one parent dies or the like, and you have two sets of grandparents to allow 6) or 7) if both parents pass away in a crash or something.  4) and 5) are good as both genders are represented, but a step-parent may not be quite as invested in the children as a real parent. For instance, if a relationship breaks up a real parent will generally (and should) keep contact with their children, a step parent who had been in children's lives for several years might not remain involved if a relationship breaks up, and this is also true for same sex relationships.