The same-sex marriage referendum debate

[topcuppla]

Religious belief is one.

Please be specific. I have dealt with the biblical arguments previously but if you have something new that has not previously been exploded then please present it

You asked for a non homophobic reason to vote No , a religious belief is such a reason.

[LCohen]

Religious belief is one.

Please be specific. I have dealt with the biblical arguments previously but if you have something new that has not previously been exploded then please present it

You asked for a non homophobic reason to vote No , a religious belief is such a reason.

Not really. You need to explain the religious belief. To date those have used this argement have said their religious belief is informed by scripture. If its in scripture its the word of god and must be obeyed. They then accept that they do not accept other things in the bible. Therefore they have made a choice to believe this particular bit of the bible. The decision to accept the anti-gay bits but reject other bits couldn't really be used as evidence of not being homophobic.

Therefore much more detail than "religious belief" is needed

[armaghniac]

I will be voting NO because I don't believe believe aberrant dispositions and behaviours should be normalised as it is not in the greater interests of society. I appreciate that homosexuals don't choose their sexual orientation and would not think any less of a man or woman because they are gay.

I don't understand how I can be labelled homophobic - I neither fear nor hate gay people.

To evaluate your argument, such as it is I would have to explore
1) Why you believe that gay marriage is not in the wider interest of society and what evidence you had to back this up
2) Why you believe homosexuality is not normal (it would have to something more valid than "most people are not gay therefore its not normal")

1) Why do you  believe that gay marriage is in the wider interest of society and what evidence you had to back this up
2) Why do you believe homosexuality is normal (it would have to something more valid than "the odd male dog bangs the odd other male dog")

Simple really
1) There is zero evidence that it will any harm. If presented the opportunity to treat people equal and it will do nor harm it is a very easy decision - Vote Yes.
2) Homosexuality occurs naturally in homo sapiens sapiens as it does in the wider animal kingdom. Its not even confined to mamals. Things naturally arising in nature are normal. Paedophilia is normal. Its is non-consenual and harmful and there we try to prohibit it. Consenting homosexual behaviour presents no problems that need regulated.

Exactly. Homosexual behaviour should not be regulated, it should not be prohibited, it should not be promoted.

[topcuppla]

Religious belief is one.

Please be specific. I have dealt with the biblical arguments previously but if you have something new that has not previously been exploded then please present it

You asked for a non homophobic reason to vote No , a religious belief is such a reason.

Not really. You need to explain the religious belief. To date those have used this argement have said their religious belief is informed by scripture. If its in scripture its the word of god and must be obeyed. They then accept that they do not accept other things in the bible. Therefore they have made a choice to believe this particular bit of the bible. The decision to accept the anti-gay bits but reject other bits couldn't really be used as evidence of not being homophobic.

Therefore much more detail than "religious belief" is needed

No there isn't, if people have a religious belief to vote No on same sex marriage, that is a spiritual reason for themselves, you need no other detail and people need to offer no other detail.  Religion is a highly personal thing for billions of people, are you in your wisdom classifying ANYONE from any world religion who would vote no on same sex marriage homophobic, as I say you are truly pathetic.  I am not religious but if God said the word, man wrote it, so invariable any religious's scripture can be hole picked, but you know that, you just want to berate and castigate anyone who doesn't pander to your views on gay marriage.

[Oraisteach]

Armaghniac, your last post gave me a chuckle, I have to admit.  I was thinking about the prospect of unregulated homosexual activity, perhaps a naked LBGT sports day at St. Oliver Plunkett's Park?.  And as for not promoting homosexuality, I can't imagine the success of a sign saying "Play G.A.Y., You'll Find It's the Best Way.'   But maybe you could promote the sports day itself. 'Come to Sports Day in Cross, Where We Put the 'Cross' in Crossmaglen.'

[Eamonnca1]

No there isn't, if people have a religious belief to vote No on same sex marriage, that is a spiritual reason for themselves, you need no other detail and people need to offer no other detail.  Religion is a highly personal thing for billions of people, are you in your wisdom classifying ANYONE from any world religion who would vote no on same sex marriage homophobic, as I say you are truly pathetic.  I am not religious but if God said the word, man wrote it, so invariable any religious's scripture can be hole picked, but you know that, you just want to berate and castigate anyone who doesn't pander to your views on gay marriage.

This would be more convincing if religious people were as outraged at mixed-material fabrics and gathering sticks on a Sunday as they are about homosexuality. Sorry, but this cherry-picking of scripture is not fooling me. Homophobia is homophobia, pure and simple. If the truth hurts then let get get out the ...

[armaghniac]

Armaghniac, your last post gave me a chuckle, I have to admit.  I was thinking about the prospect of unregulated homosexual activity, perhaps a naked LBGT sports day at St. Oliver Plunkett's Park?.  And as for not promoting homosexuality, I can't imagine the success of a sign saying "Play G.A.Y., You'll Find It's the Best Way.'   But maybe you could promote the sports day itself. 'Come to Sports Day in Cross, Where We Put the 'Cross' in Crossmaglen.'

Gay or not, if they are any good they will be expected to reproduce and contribute to the record breaking team of 2040 and their 75th Armagh title.

What do you mean it by "it should not be prohibited"?

As it says, that ay relationships should not be prohibited. The impression is sometimes given in this debate that people are prevented in some way from conducting same sex relationships and this isn't true, nor should it be.

[armaghniac]

If the referendum passes than the government can promote the state of marriage and can confer the benefits of that state on both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples - thus promoting social stability. And for those who have been in marriages that have broken down there are supports and legal recourse available.

The scale of government intervention is only warranted to protect children, it should not be overly involved in the conduct of adult sexual relationships.

These benefits are not available to single people or those who chose not to get married whilst in a relationship. So everyone does not get the same.

No, these people just get to pay for it.

[easytiger95]

If the referendum passes than the government can promote the state of marriage and can confer the benefits of that state on both heterosexual couples and homosexual couples - thus promoting social stability. And for those who have been in marriages that have broken down there are supports and legal recourse available.

The scale of government intervention is only warranted to protect children, it should not be overly involved in the conduct of adult sexual relationships.

These benefits are not available to single people or those who chose not to get married whilst in a relationship. So everyone does not get the same.

No, these people just get to pay for it.

No the scale of government intervention is warranted to promote a family as the most stable social unit to base our society on. Our constitution currently defines a family as a married heterosexual couple. The referendum may extend that to same sex couples. The benefits of basing our society on this unit includes and goes beyond the nurturing of children (as it must as not every marriage is capable of or chooses to procreate). A marriage commitment between people is widely considered to promote social cohesion, separate of the issue of children.

And "no these people just pay for it" indicates a staggering ignorance of the family law and taxation system. The entire edifice is designed to keep couples (whether they have children or not) together in the form of free mediation and counselling services. Married couples have responsibilities to each other that are not dissolved by a break up and must be resolved through mediation or judicial separation. The tax system confers benefits on married couples (whether they have children or not) which will always be unavailable to single people. So, no, they can't pay for it, unless you're talking in a general sense, where wealth makes things easier for people. Which it does. But is doesn't buy you the place a married couple holds in the constitution, which is different to, and not available to single people.

[armaghniac]

No the scale of government intervention is warranted to promote a family as the most stable social unit to base our society on. Our constitution currently defines a family as a married heterosexual couple. The referendum may extend that to same sex couples. The benefits of basing our society on this unit includes and goes beyond the nurturing of children (as it must as not every marriage is capable of or chooses to procreate). A marriage commitment between people is widely considered to promote social cohesion, separate of the issue of children.

The scale of support for marriage is justified by the existence of children resulting from the relationship. Civil partnership already confers any required state support for adult relationships.

The tax system confers benefits on married couples (whether they have children or not) which will always be unavailable to single people.

So the single people pay for it, as I said. What is the public policy reason why a single person incurring the expenses of a household on their own has to pay more tax to support a single sex couple sharing their household expenses?

[easytiger95]

No the scale of government intervention is warranted to promote a family as the most stable social unit to base our society on. Our constitution currently defines a family as a married heterosexual couple. The referendum may extend that to same sex couples. The benefits of basing our society on this unit includes and goes beyond the nurturing of children (as it must as not every marriage is capable of or chooses to procreate). A marriage commitment between people is widely considered to promote social cohesion, separate of the issue of children.

The scale of support for marriage is justified by the existence of children resulting from the relationship. Civil partnership already confers any required state support for adult relationships.

The tax system confers benefits on married couples (whether they have children or not) which will always be unavailable to single people.

So the single people pay for it, as I said. What is the public policy reason why a single person incurring the expenses of a household on their own has to pay more tax to support a single sex couple sharing their household expenses?

Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true. The scale of support for marriage is justified because as we a democracy, like most of the other Western countries, decided that marriage was the best arrangement to promote stability and social cohesion, whether children were involved or not. Look up the definition of a family in our constitution.

You're also selectively quoting - I also cited the family law system, which confers both rights and responsibilities on married partners which it does not to single people. These rights and responsibilities cannot be paid for.

As to your specific point on tax - as above, we have decided as a society that married families are the most stable unit to build our society upon ( not a point I am sold on, as my previous posts will attest, as i don't believe in ideal families - but as citizen i am required to live by our laws). As such, if the referendum goes through, same sex couples will have the same rights as hetero married couples and will accrue the same benefits. As there has not been a clamour to change our tax system to so that singles do not support hetero married couples, I can only assume that any objections brought up re same sex couples and tax is because of the sexuality of the couples involved.

Either marriage is stable, socially cohesive institution, with or without children, or it is not. If it is, and marriage is extended to same sex couples, then fairness dictates they should benefit for contributing to that social cohesion.

[armaghniac]

Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true. The scale of support for marriage is justified because as we a democracy, like most of the other Western countries, decided that marriage was the best arrangement to promote stability and social cohesion, whether children were involved or not. Look up the definition of a family in our constitution.

This is not true because I repeat it, it is true because that is the understanding of marriage in every society of the world.
And as for the constitution, when this was written there would have no need to spell out the association of marriage and children as the bizarre arguments you are advancing would not have been anticipated.

You're also selectively quoting - I also cited the family law system, which confers both rights and responsibilities on married partners which it does not to single people. These rights and responsibilities cannot be paid for.

Fair enough, civil partnership provides these things.

As to your specific point on tax - as above, we have decided as a society that married families are the most stable unit to build our society upon ( not a point I am sold on, as my previous posts will attest, as i don't believe in ideal families - but as citizen i am required to live by our laws). As such, if the referendum goes through, same sex couples will have the same rights as hetero married couples and will accrue the same benefits. As there has not been a clamour to change our tax system to so that singles do not support hetero married couples, I can only assume that any objections brought up re same sex couples and tax is because of the sexuality of the couples involved.

Indeed you don't believe in ideal families, or families at all, that much is obvious.
When families are referred to in the context of taxes, welfare payments, etc. there is an implicit association of children. As the majority of married couples do have children, then no clamour arises. The addition of combinations where zero percent of them can have children is breaking this association and can only lead to less generous treatment of marriage in the tax code in the future. If marriage has no particular status and is only associated with adults then in the interests of "equality" there is no reason for unmarried people to subsidise married ones.

Either marriage is stable, socially cohesive institution, with or without children, or it is not. If it is, and marriage is extended to same sex couples, then fairness dictates they should benefit for contributing to that social cohesion.

Same sex couples as a class do not contribute children being brought up by their parents and so should receive less benefit for less contribution.

[easytiger95]

This is not true because I repeat it, it is true because that is the understanding of marriage in every society of the world.
And as for the constitution, when this was written there would have no need to spell out the association of marriage and children as the bizarre arguments you are advancing would not have been anticipated.

That understanding may be in religions throughout the world, but as I pointed out earlier, that cannot hold true for civil law, and does not hold true in our constitution, because married people sometimes do not have children. If knowing the law and its implications is bizarre, then fine, in a logic free universe, I need a strait jacket.

Indeed you don't believe in ideal families, or families at all, that much is obvious.

You know nothing about my attitudes. My family is the most important thing in my life. But I don't think that gives me the right to judge or circumscribe how other people organise their families, through choice or situation.

When families are referred to in the context of taxes, welfare payments, etc. there is an implicit association of children. As the majority of married couples do have children, then no clamour arises. The addition of combinations where zero percent of them can have children is breaking this association and can only lead to less generous treatment of marriage in the tax code in the future. If marriage has no particular status and is only associated with adults then in the interests of "equality" there is no reason for unmarried people to subsidise married ones.

As soon as you get married, your tax status changes. If you have children, they can then increase the benefits that accrue, but there is a reason on all the forms that they ask "married or single?" first and then ask "if married, do you have any dependants?" Your argument all along has been that same sex couples erodes the status of marriage - but nothing in the civil law or taxation code changes. Not one benefit is taken away from heterosexual couples. The status of marriage remains above that of single people, as it always has. And the status of children, adoption and parents access to their child has already been dealt with by the Oireachtas. You have no argument.

Same sex couples as a class do not contribute children being brought up by their parents and so should receive less benefit for less contribution.

They can of course, either through adoption or fertility treatment, be parents to children, give them a stable, loving home and receive any tax benefits that accrue. Provided that firstly, they get married.

[LCohen]

I will be voting NO because I don't believe believe aberrant dispositions and behaviours should be normalised as it is not in the greater interests of society. I appreciate that homosexuals don't choose their sexual orientation and would not think any less of a man or woman because they are gay.

I don't understand how I can be labelled homophobic - I neither fear nor hate gay people.

To evaluate your argument, such as it is I would have to explore
1) Why you believe that gay marriage is not in the wider interest of society and what evidence you had to back this up
2) Why you believe homosexuality is not normal (it would have to something more valid than "most people are not gay therefore its not normal")

1) Why do you  believe that gay marriage is in the wider interest of society and what evidence you had to back this up
2) Why do you believe homosexuality is normal (it would have to something more valid than "the odd male dog bangs the odd other male dog")

Simple really
1) There is zero evidence that it will any harm. If presented the opportunity to treat people equal and it will do nor harm it is a very easy decision - Vote Yes.
2) Homosexuality occurs naturally in homo sapiens sapiens as it does in the wider animal kingdom. Its not even confined to mamals. Things naturally arising in nature are normal. Paedophilia is normal. Its is non-consenual and harmful and there we try to prohibit it. Consenting homosexual behaviour presents no problems that need regulated.

Exactly. Homosexual behaviour should not be regulated, it should not be prohibited, it should not be promoted.

Regulated in what way? Enforcement of performance standards? Money back or another go if not satisfied?

[LCohen]

Religious belief is one.

Please be specific. I have dealt with the biblical arguments previously but if you have something new that has not previously been exploded then please present it

You asked for a non homophobic reason to vote No , a religious belief is such a reason.

Not really. You need to explain the religious belief. To date those have used this argement have said their religious belief is informed by scripture. If its in scripture its the word of god and must be obeyed. They then accept that they do not accept other things in the bible. Therefore they have made a choice to believe this particular bit of the bible. The decision to accept the anti-gay bits but reject other bits couldn't really be used as evidence of not being homophobic.

Therefore much more detail than "religious belief" is needed

No there isn't, if people have a religious belief to vote No on same sex marriage, that is a spiritual reason for themselves, you need no other detail and people need to offer no other detail.  Religion is a highly personal thing for billions of people, are you in your wisdom classifying ANYONE from any world religion who would vote no on same sex marriage homophobic, as I say you are truly pathetic.  I am not religious but if God said the word, man wrote it, so invariable any religious's scripture can be hole picked, but you know that, you just want to berate and castigate anyone who doesn't pander to your views on gay marriage.

By all means correct me if I am misinterpreting your line of argument but it strikes me that you are contending if someone is against equality that they can simply say that it is their religious belief and, without further explanation of their specific grounds, happily continue to deny equality. That strikes as a wholly inadequate argument and has no place in a grown up society or in a single grown up mind.

Religion can be as personal as it likes but once someone quotes religion as their motivating factor they can be rightly asked to explain it.

If anyone from a religious faith points to an ancient text and says they are bound by it on one issue but not on another then they have made that decision (not god) and are not immune from being asked to explain it.