Gay Marriage (same-sex civil partnerships) ahoy!

Freelancer

The Corinthian wrote:

I simply used am easily demonstrable example because easily demonstrable examples work better at illustrating points..

But it's a false analogy. Tax evasion by another does hurt me. The evader is not contributing their share to society. Not only are they gaining the benefits in living in a contributory society (roads, protection, health care etc) but they are not paying their fair share towards the upkeep of these services, therefore forcing the rest of society to pay more to make up the shortfall.

But rysnott has already pointed this out. If you can give a demostrable example of a manner in which homosexual couples could cause harm, I'd be interested to hear it.

lazydaisy

Its usually the MOM who gets the kids. [Mom being a hideous americanism is your opinion and irrelevant to the topic and I'll keep using it just because you're being a snob about it. I guess youd prefer MAMMY or is MUMSY better?].

Gay couples having kids is already happening. And there are more ways than adoption - surrogacy, sperm donation, etc.

rsynnott

lazydaisy wrote:

Its usually the MOM who gets the kids. [Mom being a hideous americanism is your opinion and irrelevant to the topic and I'll keep using it just because you're being a snob about it. I guess youd prefer MAMMY or is MUMSY better?].

Gay couples having kids is already happening. And there are more ways than adoption - surrogacy, sperm donation, etc.

Yes, some gay couples will have children. This is not a big issue. Custody will presumably go to the parent who is considered most capable, and is most experienced in raising the children. For heterosexual couples this is usually the mother, thus the mother usually gets custody. There's nothing mysterious about this, and it should not be a reason to oppose gay civil union or marriage.

SexeeAussie

I think it's a good thing....we are just introducing legislation in my City(territory) regarding same sex relationships.....

http://chiefminister.act.gov.au/media.asp?media=927&id=927&section=24&title=Jon%20Stanhope,%20MLA

Love is something that you cannot quantify or control, if people love each other, they love each other. It is a good thing that they will be recognised as being a legally 'attached' couple. I am pleased :-)

The Corinthian

Freelancer wrote:

But it's a false analogy. Tax evasion by another does hurt me. The evader is not contributing their share to society. Not only are they gaining the benefits in living in a contributory society (roads, protection, health care etc) but they are not paying their fair share towards the upkeep of these services, therefore forcing the rest of society to pay more to make up the shortfall.

This does not explain why it was a false analogy.

But rysnott has already pointed this out.

Pointed what out? You’ve not actually pointed anything out.

If you can give a demonstrable example of a manner in which homosexual couples could cause harm, I'd be interested to hear it.

It was never my intention to give an example of a manner in which homosexual couples could cause harm. It was simply my intention to point out that harm can sometime not be immediate and direct by using an example that showed easily demonstrable harm that was not immediate and direct.

Freelancer

The Corinthian wrote:

This does not explain why it was a false analogy.

Because tax evasion does hurt me directly.

Pointed what out? You’ve not actually pointed anything out.

It was never my intention to give an example of a manner in which homosexual couples could cause harm. It was simply my intention to point out that harm can sometime not be immediate and direct by using an example that showed easily demonstrable harm that was not immediate and direct.[/QUOTE]

Hmmm A number of people havee pointed out tax evasion has a real and immediate effect on our lives. Suggesting that you should not be in favour of homosexual unions being legalised because of a potential imaginary harm, that you don't even know in what manner it could cause harm is like not leaving the house because you are afraid of being attacked by a monogol horde, unless you can show evidence that such a horde exists theres little point being worried about it.

The Corinthian

Freelancer wrote:

Because tax evasion does hurt me directly.

Tax evasion does not hurt you directly. If someone evades tax they are not taking money out of your bank account or wallet. However, because for the shortfall they generate, either services funded by tax revenue will suffer or your tax rate will be increased to compensate. This is an indirect effect - the effect is the result of the knock on effects of the original act, not the act itself.

Hmmm A number of people havee pointed out tax evasion has a real and immediate effect on our lives.

I made the point to begin with because it was evident that a number of people don’t know what an indirect effect is. Including you.

Suggesting that you should not be in favour of homosexual unions being legalised because of a potential imaginary harm, that you don't even know in what manner it could cause harm is like not leaving the house because you are afraid of being attacked by a monogol horde, unless you can show evidence that such a horde exists theres little point being worried about it.

Again, I’ve never suggested anything of the sort and my argument could be applied to any sociological discussion. People suggested that there was no direct harm and I suggested that they don’t ignore the possibility of indirect harm. End of story.

If there’s not, then good for you. But I would suggest you stop jumping to conclusions.

rsynnott

The Corinthian wrote:

Again, I’ve never suggested anything of the sort and my argument could be applied to any sociological discussion. People suggested that there was no direct harm and I suggested that they don’t ignore the possibility of indirect harm. End of story.

So, FUD, then? You can't suggest any specific possible indirect harm?

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

So, FUD, then? You can't suggest any specific possible indirect harm?

FUD? No - perhaps you should take the tin foil hat off now.

samb

The Corinthian wrote:

I’ll make an observation, if I may. A common argument being used here in favour of homosexual unions (be they civil or otherwise) is that it does not harm those not directly involved.

This may be the case, however it seems based upon the fact that people do not see a direct and immediate effect upon their lives. As an example, tax evasion could be viewed in the same light. It does not affect people in a direct and immediate manner, however if enough people evade their taxes for long enough, then the effect will eventually be felt.

This may be the case with homosexual unions, or it may not. However arguing that it causes no harm simply because you’re not directly and immediately effected is ultimately irrelevant to whether you will be harmed or not.

Anyone with half a brain can see why tax evasion is wrong, so the analogy is rubbish. Nobody has yet came up with any significant harm Gay marriage could cause, direct or indirect. Anyway, I can't find any posts below, that concentrated solely on the lack of direct adverese effects.

The purpose of this thread was to tease out why so many people have a problem with it. This has not yet happened at all, hopefully because those opposed are older and less computer literate

murphaph

samb wrote:

...hopefully because those opposed are older and less computer literate

...or younger and just less literate!

The Corinthian

samb wrote:

Anyone with half a brain can see why tax evasion is wrong, so the analogy is rubbish.

Analogy with what? Are you suggesting I was creating an analogy with homosexuality or with indirect effect or harm? If you picked the former you’re not paying attention. And without resorting to finger puppets I really don’t know how better to explain the latter to you, TBH.

Of course anyone with half a brain can see why tax evasion is wrong - that’s the point of picking a simple analogy as it makes a good example. Which, just in case you have the memory of a goldfish, was an example of indirect effect or harm. Not homosexuality.

If you prefer I could have picked a complex example which is more open to debate?

Nobody has yet came up with any significant harm Gay marriage could cause, direct or indirect.

Give the boy a cigar, he got something right.

Anyway, I can't find any posts below, that concentrated solely on the lack of direct adverese effects.

The following concentrated on the rather simplistic “if it doesn’t harm/affect me, it can’t be bad” argument - none suggested anything other than direct effect or harm:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50512254&postcount=2
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50514024&postcount=6
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=50514030&postcount=7

The purpose of this thread was to tease out why so many people have a problem with it. This has not yet happened at all, hopefully because those opposed are older and less computer literate

I suspect that it has more to do with being flamed. I have throughout this thread simply pointed out that people had been a little simplistic. I made no judgement myself, either way. For my troubles I’ve had one induhvidual after another convinced that I was in some way debating against homosexual unions, when in reality they don’t appear to be able to understand what I actually did say.

I blame either it’s too much MTV or pollution from Sellafield.

samb

The following concentrated on the rather simplistic “if it doesn’t harm/affect me, it can’t be bad” argument - none suggested anything other than direct effect or harm
fair enough, I hadn't seen them.

Your analogy is not good because the effects of tax evasion are fairly direct, less cash for exchequer. I suppose it depends on your definition of direct. On a scale of one-to-ten (ten being very direct), I would put tax evasion being direct, 6 maybe.

Please don't be so patronising, it did seem like you were trying to imply that gay marriage has indirect harmfull effects.

The Corinthian

samb wrote:

Your analogy is not good because the effects of tax evasion are fairly direct, less cash for exchequer. I suppose it depends on your definition of direct. On a scale of one-to-ten (ten being very direct), I would put tax evasion being direct, 6 maybe.

Obvious is not the same as direct. As you said yourself, anyone with half a brain can see why tax evasion is wrong - however this does not make the harm it does direct. Indeed it is the knock on effects of the loss in government revenues that causes the harm - decrease in services, increase in taxation to compensate - and not the evasion itself. No one is robbing you directly. This is one of the reasons that tax evasion has often been seen as victimless crime in Ireland.

I could have used a more obtuse example - how bombing poppy fields results in higher violent crime in Western cities, or how the introduction of simple contraceptives will lead to an increase in both unwanted pregnancies and STI’s (both of which are debatable - but don’t bother engaging me on them now), but given the vitriol that even a simple, obvious example has engendered, it would have been a bad idea, to say the least.

Please don't be so patronising, it did seem like you were trying to imply that gay marriage has indirect harmfull effects.

I can see how someone could have interpreted that, but only if they did not tolerate the slightest dissention. And if I am patronising, well - you don’t jump to conclusions and I won’t be patronising.

Nevyn

Cronus333 wrote:

we protect 'the family'

But what is family is not clearly defined in the consititution nor are the genders
of who may make up a married couple. It mentioned them being fit for marriage but does not define what that is,
one would assume that the catholic standard was applied but it is not stated in the consitituation and as we are ment to be
a republic with a seperation of church and state assumptions of catholic and
christian norms can not be accepted and actual legal state definations are needed.

lazydaisy wrote:

It often has to do with your gender - who gets the house, who raises the kids, who pays the child maintenance. Who is the mom and who is the dad.

Family law in this country needs to be reformed for all parents regaurdless of
thier gender and sexual preferences, custody should be jointly awarded or
awarded in the best intrest of the child and it can not be assumed that is by matter of default to be the child's mother.
But heavens above tis happens and we have childrens advocates looking out for the needs of children in this country

rsynnott

To The Corinthian - So, your talk of non-obvious consequences is nothing to do with gay marriage? You might want to consider going back on topic, then.

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

To The Corinthian - So, your talk of non-obvious consequences is nothing to do with gay marriage? You might want to consider going back on topic, then.

It was on topic. You just didn't understand how. But that's not my problem.

rsynnott

The Corinthian wrote:

It was on topic. You just didn't understand how. But that's not my problem.

Has it or has it not got anything to do with gay marriages, the topic on hand. If it has, it is an obvious attempt at FUD; if it hasn't, it is clearly off-topic.

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

Has it or has it not got anything to do with gay marriages, the topic on hand. If it has, it is an obvious attempt at FUD; if it hasn't, it is clearly off-topic.

People were debating a topic that, TBH, I don't have particularly strong opinions on either way. However, call me pedantic, but I found that people were being a little simplistic and superficial in their approach to the debate. If people are going to suggest a pretty major sociological change, I think it quite reasonable that they be asked to look closely rather than go with an initial reaction. It also makes for an interesting discussion, which is more to the point.

Now from your own, from what I can see rather paranoid, perspective this was an attempt to create Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Of course, FUD only really comes into play if you’re too stupid to work out things for yourself - that is to say, if by placing another layer of questioning the audience will decide it’s too complex to work out and you’re better off erring on the side of caution.

Now you can take from that what you will. As I’ve already pointed out, it is not my problem. But it was a reasonable addendum to the debate and not meant to mislead, but expand it.

samb

The Corinthian wrote:

People were debating a topic that, TBH, I don't have particularly strong opinions on either way. However, call me pedantic, but I found that people were being a little simplistic and superficial in their approach to the debate. If people are going to suggest a pretty major sociological change, I think it quite reasonable that they be asked to look closely rather than go with an initial reaction. It also makes for an interesting discussion, which is more to the point.

Your analogy was relevant but not good. tax evasion to me is fairly direct, and I find it hard to believe people really thought it was victimless. Anyway, we'll agree to disagree about how good it was and move on.

Why would gay marriage or civil unions be or cause a ''pretty major sociological change''? I think it would simply facitilitate and acknowledge a sociological reality and incourage equality.

The Corinthian

samb wrote:

Your analogy was relevant but not good. tax evasion to me is fairly direct, and I find it hard to believe people really thought it was victimless. Anyway, we'll agree to disagree about how good it was and move on.

I’ve pretty logically and methodically (and repeatedly) pointed out why it is by definition an indirect effect. So feel free to disagree, but I’d note that you’ve only been able to counter this by simply disagreeing without any further substance to your rebuttal.

I do find it difficult to believe that you would be surprised that anyone would consider it to be a victimless crime. It’s not uncommon to hear social welfare fraud justified in the same manner, or the use of illegal narcotics, or downloading pirated movies or music. If you cannot immediately perceive a victim to a crime or you can dehumanize the victim (an institution such as a corporation or government would qualify) it’s easy to do. Please don’t tell me you’ve never come across that, or if you do, please tell me you don’t get out much.

Why would gay marriage or civil unions be or cause a ''pretty major sociological change''? I think it would simply facitilitate and acknowledge a sociological reality and incourage equality.

It’s a pretty large sociological change as it changes how we define a marriage or civil union from the narrower definition of male and female. It’s pretty significant, and I’m surprised you don’t see that.

So it’s a bit of a no brainier that it’s going to have influences on Society that are probably not even going to be immediately felt. So looking at it from a simplistic well-intended ‘I’m all right Jack’ perspective is a little bit like a post-colonial country confiscating all the land from the colonialists and giving it to the local population in one sweep and then wondering why people start dieing of starvation.

They use the “encouraging equality” line out in Zimbabwe too, I hear.

samb

the line between direct and indirect is not always so clear. you have not gone into any detail on how it is so indirect. As I said,less cash for exchequer, that to me is fairly direct.

It’s a pretty large sociological change as it changes how we define a marriage or civil union from the narrower definition of male and female. It’s pretty significant, and I’m surprised you don’t see that.

So it’s a bit of a no brainier that it’s going to have influences on Society that are probably not even going to be immediately felt.

I think that gay marriage will be the result of a pretty large sociological change, rather than the cause of one. I agree it may have some impact, but the extent of this impact is very debatable (and as I see it will not be large).
Two men being married may seem like a significant change in terms of our idea of marriage but in time when it is considered normal, I don't think that society will have changed much as a result (in terms of relationships etc). My children will not grow up in a hugely different society (as a result of this anyway), only the concept of marriage will have changed.

The Corinthian

samb wrote:

you have not gone into any detail on how it is so indirect. As I said,less cash for exchequer, that to me is fairly direct.

It’s a pretty straightforward explanation. Here let me repeat it again:

The Corinthian wrote:

If someone evades tax they are not taking money out of your bank account or wallet. However, because for the shortfall they generate, either services funded by tax revenue will suffer or your tax rate will be increased to compensate. This is an indirect effect - the effect is the result of the knock on effects of the original act, not the act itself.

I think that gay marriage will be the result of a pretty large sociological change, rather than the cause of one.

Firstly I would not disagree with it being the result of probably numerous sociological changes. However, suggesting that it would not in it’s turn cause or contribute to further change is a bit of a jump by you.

I agree it may have some impact, but the extent of this impact is very debatable (and as I see it will not be large).

It depends. A safe bet is that it will eventually lead to adoption by homosexual couples. Is this a bad thing? Perhaps not, but then again it’s also debatable that it is a good thing either. Additionally, by the same principle why should three people not get married? How about other relationship types?

Two men being married may seem like a significant change in terms of our idea of marriage but in time when it is considered normal, I don't think that society will have changed much as a result (in terms of relationships etc).

Why not? The introduction of ‘no fault divorce’ has generally been followed in a marked increase in broken marriages in Western Society over the last century, after all.

My children will not grow up in a hugely different society (as a result of this anyway), only the concept of marriage will have changed.

But marriage is only a concept at the end of the day, and if that concept is changes then so does the societal unit it represents. Will that concept become a freer and open one? Possibly, if so would the societal unit it represents become less stable? Probably.

Of course, I’m largely playing devils advocate in this post. But suggesting that Society will not really change all that much in such a blasé manner is a tad simplistic.

mountainyman

All Marriage is gay or at any rate incredibly camp. It is a ridiculous and outdated institution.

The only reason for it is if you love someone who isn't from the EU. Then you have to get married,

I don't see why gays shouldn't be allowed this.

MM

rsynnott

I would argue that it isn't really a major sociological change. A few decades ago, interfaith marriage, interracial marriage and so forth were unthinkable, and in many places illegal. These days we have them, and the sky hasn't come crashing down. Why should gay marriage be any different?

The Corinthian

mountainyman wrote:

All Marriage is gay or at any rate incredibly camp. It is a ridiculous and outdated institution.

Actually marriage is a pretty important institution sociologically as it a reinforcement of a monogamous relationship. Ever hear the complaint “he / she just doesn’t really go out all that much anymore since they got hitched”? People in stable monogamous relationships behave quite differently to people who are single. And people who have children (and stable monogamous relationships tend to encourage that, after all) will behave differently again.

Families tend to have different consumption patterns - they spend less as they cohabitate than they would as separate entities, for example. They take fewer social and economic chances than a single person would - family comes first, as the expression goes. Seemingly families make for better (more docile) citizens and poorer consumers.

So the influence of a, say, 10% drop in rates of marriage on a Society, its economy and even population should not be taken likely.

The Corinthian

rsynnott wrote:

A few decades ago, interfaith marriage, interracial marriage and so forth were unthinkable, and in many places illegal.

In Western Society at least, that is actually untrue. Where was interfaith marriage illegal a few decades ago?

Nevyn

It wasn't illegal but it wasn't the done thing, as were many personal choices in this country.

The Corinthian

Thaedydal wrote:

It was illegal but it wasn't the done thing, as were many personal choices in this country.

Certainly in many countries it was frowned upon – I never queried that. However I don’t think interfaith unions were illegal anywhere in the West in the last few decades and interracial unions were illegal in very few places. Additionally, consenting sexual relationships of either type were not illegal, AFAIK, anywhere in the West.