How will you vote in the Marriage Equality referendum? Mod Note Post 1

eviltwin

Riverireland wrote: »

Can you clarify what a bi sexuals marriage would entail then. My understanding is that a bi sexual is attracted to both men and women? Surely that would involve a lot of marriages and divorces or numerous extra marital affairs unless they were allowed to marry one of each? Thanks.

A bisexual is attracted to both sexes. There are plenty of married bisexuals out there. Like anyone they are usually faithful to one partner.

floggg

Riverireland wrote: »

Can you clarify what a bi sexuals marriage would entail then. My understanding is that a bi sexual is attracted to both men and women? Surely that would involve a lot of marriages and divorces or numerous extra marital affairs unless they were allowed to marry one of each? Thanks.

Are you for real? I hope not.

Though not exclusive to bisexuals, bisexuals have developed a novel way of dealing with this problem, which scientists are calling "self control." Self control enables them to resist acting on all sexual attractions if they wish and to honour the terms of their committed monogamous relationships.

Self control has also been reported by various heterosexual and homosexual people in committed relationships, and more astonishingly had been credited by non-rapists with enabling them to resist the urge that rape any attractive person that crosses their path.

As obviously the concept of self control seems to be somewhat alien to you, I would suggest staying away from attractive people until you learn to practise it.

Baggy Trousers

77% Yes is healthy but I still think it will be very tight in May.
Boards would be frequented by younger, more progressive and open minded folks. Don't let apathy lose this vote.

humanji

the_monkey wrote: »

Morning Adolf

Herb Powell wrote: »

I'll voting yes because I'm not an absolute cunnt.

MOD: Lads, give that nonsense a rest. There's more than enough vitriol to come as we get closer to the referendum, so we don't need to go overboard just yet.

RobertKK

eviltwin wrote: »

A bisexual is attracted to both sexes. There are plenty of married bisexuals out there. Like anyone they are usually faithful to one partner.

They are made conform to one partner in marriage due to the law, we have never seen bisexuals given a choice to marry two people: one of either sex.

eviltwin

RobertKK wrote: »

They are made conform to one partner in marriage due to the law, we have never seen bisexuals given a choice to marry two people: one of either sex.

Do you think bisexuals want to be married to multiple people?

Shrap

RobertKK wrote: »

They are made conform to one partner in marriage due to the law, we have never seen bisexuals given a choice to marry two people: one of either sex.

That would be bisexual polygamists you're thinking of there. Not bisexual monogamists.

Most people (of any gender or sexual preference) are in monogamous relationships because that is what they are comfortable with. An extremely tiny minority of people are comfortable being in a polygamist relationship.

Riverireland

Riverireland wrote: »

Hat would the situation be for bi sexuals? Would they not need to marry both a man and a woman? Thanks.

No more than heterosexuals who find themselves attracted to more than one opposite sex member at the same time. Whatever your sexuality - there is likely many more than one person in the world who would be attractive to you - however the vast majority of us pick one person and stick to them.

There is no reason to expect this to be any different with bisexuals than it is with heterosexuals.

RobertKK wrote: »

They are made conform to one partner in marriage due to the law, we have never seen bisexuals given a choice to marry two people: one of either sex.

And being in such a relationship myself - I can tell you we have nought sought to be offered such a thing either. We do not feel we are being made to conform to law. We simply are not interested in seeking the option of marriage.

floggg

RobertKK wrote: »

They are made conform to one partner in marriage due to the law, we have never seen bisexuals given a choice to marry two people: one of either sex.

It's amazing how the one time people seen to show concern for bisexuals is when they are trying to derail a debate on something which many bisexuals actually want introduced.

RobertKK

[Deleted User] wrote: »

No more than heterosexuals who find themselves attracted to more than one opposite sex member at the same time. Whatever your sexuality - there is likely many more than one person in the world who would be attractive to you - however the vast majority of us pick one person and stick to them.

There is no reason to expect this to be any different with bisexuals than it is with heterosexuals.

Divorce was brought in as a concept because some can't stick to one.

Shrap

RobertKK wrote: »

Divorce was brought in as a concept because some can't stick to one.

They can stick to one at a time. We're pretty much all serial monogamists, really.

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

Divorce was brought in as a concept because some can't stick to one.

Sounds like something of a historical revisionism to me. Divorce exists for a multiple set of reasons - which have nothing to do with infidelity or multiple partners. Some people simply do not want to be in that relationship any more - and infidelity has little to do with it. Even if infidelity were eradicated by magic tomorrow - there would still be a multitude of motivations for divorce.

Shrap

Deleted User wrote: »

Even if infidelity were eradicated by magic tomorrow - there would still be a multitude of motivations for divorce.

Totally correct. My divorce was nothing to do with infidelity. And the right to divorce did not lead to the demise of my marriage.

RobertKK

floggg wrote: »

It's amazing how the one time people seen to show concern for bisexuals is when they are trying to derail a debate on something which many bisexuals actually want introduced.

Well if people want to put yes with the word: equality, then why do yes people want to stay silent on this and instead say it doesn't go far enough as it doesn't give marriage equality for all?

It makes associating yes with equality a lie.

Shrap

Sigh. Next derailing attempt, now his bisexual derail was blown out of the water.

DeJa VooDoo

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

1. I seen on another thread on this site how the homosexual posters ganged up on another poster, the end result being that she closed her account.

Not what happened at all - someone throwing the toys outs of the pram or taking their ball and going home is not the same as that person being ganged up on.

And even if your historical revisionism were actually true - that's a ridiculous reason to choose how to vote on any issue. One should intellectually vote on the issues at hand - not of the characters of the people espousing either side.

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

2. I will not vote for anything this government proposes, Enda's due another wallop...

Again an intellectually lazy and ridiculous reason to vote on any issue - it seems when you vote the actual issue you are voting on bears little relevance to your decisions.

DeJa VooDoo wrote: »

3. I believe that the ideal family unit is a married hetrosexual couple and their children.

So single parents and their kids are not a family? Unmarried couples with children are not a family? Even though I have two kids and two more planned - I am not a family because I have two partners instead of one?

Perhaps the referendum is not the issue here - but your restrictive and overly pedantic definition of "family".

I would love to see you say the above however - on stage - in a room full of single and unmarried parents. If you ever get to do this - please do not forget to ensure I am invited to the time and the place. I would not miss it for the world.

Daith

RobertKK wrote: »

It makes associating yes with equality a lie.

It is equality. A homosexual union is seen as equal to a heterosexual union. No union can have more than two people. That's equal.

Voting no and saying you're not voting to inequality is the lie.

RobertKK

Deleted User wrote: »

No more than heterosexuals who find themselves attracted to more than one opposite sex member at the same time. Whatever your sexuality - there is likely many more than one person in the world who would be attractive to you - however the vast majority of us pick one person and stick to them.

There is no reason to expect this to be any different with bisexuals than it is with heterosexuals.



And being in such a relationship myself - I can tell you we have nought sought to be offered such a thing either. We do not feel we are being made to conform to law. We simply are not interested in seeking the option of marriage.

You say 'we' you can only speak for yourself, not everyone, unless you are only speaking for yourself and your partner.

Anyway, you are saying a minority who want more than one partner in their marriage, shouldn't be catered for.
Does that equal marriage equality?

Daith

RobertKK wrote: »

Anyway, you are saying a minority who want more than one partner in their marriage, shouldn't be catered for.
Does that equal marriage equality?

It does if nobody has the right to marry more than one partner.

Delirium

RobertKK wrote: »

You say 'we' you can only speak for yourself, not everyone, unless you are only speaking for yourself and your partner.

Anyway, you are saying a minority who want more than one partner in their marriage, shouldn't be catered for.
Does that equal marriage equality?

The referendum doesn't cover polygamous marriages. If you wish a referendum on it, campaign for it.

RobertKK

Daith wrote: »

It is equality. A homosexual union is seen as equal to a heterosexual union. No union can have more than two people. That's equal.

Voting no and saying you're not voting to inequality is the lie.

No union can have more than two people in their marriage, for the same reason no marriage can currently have two people of the same sex.
The law says so, so you are going to argue, we should change one but not the other and that makes it marriage equality for all?

Daith

RobertKK wrote: »

No union can have more than two people in their marriage, for the same reason no marriage can currently have two people of the same sex.
The law says so, so you are going to argue, we should change one but not the other and that makes it marriage equality for all?

A hetrosexual union can marry and not have more than one two people
A homosexual union can not marry and not have more than two people.

Nobody has the right to marry more than one person.

What changes to make both unions equal?

RobertKK

SW wrote: »

The referendum doesn't cover polygamous marriages. If you wish a referendum on it, campaign for it.

We will be having a by election here, so I will ask the politicians who are unfortunate enough to come to my door, their views on the referendum and why the yes side lies by using the term marriage equality when potential polygamists are not allowed marry more than one person, for the same reason two people of the same sex cannot marry.

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

You say 'we' you can only speak for yourself, not everyone, unless you are only speaking for yourself and your partner.

I am well aware of how to use the word we - and of how I was using it in the above post. I require no clarification from you on either point - especially the latter.

RobertKK wrote: »

Anyway, you are saying a minority who want more than one partner in their marriage, shouldn't be catered for.

Can you quote where I said any such thing please? Or where anything in any of my posts thus far have used the word - or discussed the concept of "equality"?

Think you are using what I said (or more to the point - what I never said) as your soap box from which to play your record.

RobertKK

Daith wrote: »

A hetrosexual union can marry and not have more than one two people
A homosexual union can not marry and not have more than two people.

Nobody has the right to marry more than one person.

What changes to make both unions equal?

Why shouldn't marriage be redefined to allow more than one spouse?

Daith

RobertKK wrote: »

Why shouldn't marriage be redefined to allow more than one spouse?

Can you answer my question. What changes to make a heterosexual union and a homosexual union equal? I'll make it easier for you

A hetrosexual union can marry and not have more than one two people
A homosexual union can not marry and not have more than two people.
Nobody has the right to marry more than one person.

What changes to make both unions equal?

RobertKK wrote: »

Why shouldn't marriage be redefined to allow more than one spouse?

There is no definition of marriage in our constitution.

RobertKK

Deleted User wrote: »

I am well aware of how to use the word we - and of how I was using it in the above post. I require not clarification from you on either point - especially the latter.



Can you quote where I said any such thing please? Or where anything in any of my posts thus far have used the word - or discussed the concept of "equality"?

Think you are using what I said (or more to the point - what I never said) as your soap box from which to play your record.

You can leave yourself open to misinterpretation if you choose to. It is fine for you to be well aware, the rest of us have to interpret it, and we can't read your mind as in what context you are posting it.

RobertKK

RobertKK wrote: »

You can leave yourself open to misinterpretation if you choose to.

You putting words in other peoples mouths that they never said - is not the same thing as that at all.

RobertKK wrote: »

we can't read your mind as in what context you are posting it.

Read the words I posted - and do not add your own to them when I never said them - and you will work out just fine.

OldNotWIse

I'll be voting yes.

The Catholic church has no business preaching to us about what's good for children.

Shrap

RobertKK wrote: »

No union can have more than two people in their marriage, for the same reason no marriage can currently have two people of the same sex.

RobertKK wrote: »

the yes side lies by using the term marriage equality when potential polygamists are not allowed marry more than one person, for the same reason two people of the same sex cannot marry.

This is like that radio show The Unbelievable Truth where a contestant talks on a topic for 2 minutes and tries to slip lies past the other contestants.

This is your one, and I'll pull you up on it. What is the "same reason" that you mention?

Hyzepher

All this talk of Marriage and how's it's all about the children.

At the moment any old scumbag can have a child, inside or outside marriage, and there is nothing anyone can do.

Marriage may be seen as the holy grail of child protection but it has no guarantees.

And what has it to do with Gay marriage anyway.

For the most part gay couples will not have children in their families. For those who do then they are subject to the adoption, fostering etc rules that every couple would have to go through. A far more stringent and controlled process than simply having two scumbag wasters go at it for 2 mins to produce a child that may or may not have a loving environment.

A child's well being cannot be dictated on whether they are in a heterosexual married environment or not. It is dictated by the love and support they receive from the people around them - married, related, gay, straight or whatever.

Delirium

RobertKK wrote: »

We will be having a by election here, so I will ask the politicians who are unfortunate enough to come to my door, their views on the referendum and why the yes side lies by using the term marriage equality when potential polygamists are not allowed marry more than one person, for the same reason two people of the same sex cannot marry.

The yes side are campaigning for marriage equality for same-sex couples, as per the wording of the proposed amendment in the referendum that will be happening.

Polygamy isn't part of the wording/what we'll be voting on. The only way they'd be dishonest regarding the referendum, would be if polygamy was also part of the vote. It isn't so your claim of dishonesty makes no sense.

Daith

SW wrote: »

Polygamy isn't part of the wording/what we'll be voting on. The only way they'd be dishonest regarding the referendum, would be if polygamy was also part of the vote. It isn't so your claim of dishonesty makes no sense.

To be honest it actually strengthens the idea of marriage between two people as it actually specifies "two"!

RobertKK

Daith wrote: »

Can you answer my question. What changes to make a heterosexual union and a homosexual union equal? I'll make it easier for you

A hetrosexual union can marry and not have more than one two people
A homosexual union can not marry and not have more than two people.
Nobody has the right to marry more than one person.

What changes to make both unions equal?



There is no definition of marriage in our constitution.

I don't think marriage equality exists anyway (for the record), even in heterosexual marriages.
In heterosexual marriage, if the right age and fertile, the couple can have a biological child.
If too old, unable to have children in their marriage.
If infertile, unable to have children.
In Homosexual marriage, the possibility that exists in heterosexual marriage of a biological child by both in the marriage doesn't exist.

So you can argue about marriage equality as from the very basic of two people of whatever sex marrying.
There is not equal opportunities within the marriage. If we are going to redefine marriage, why were politicians so scared of polygamy to the point they continued the restriction?
Not progressive enough?

floggg

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not what happened at all - someone throwing the toys outs of the pram or taking their ball and going home is not the same as that person being ganged up on.

And even if your historical revisionism were actually true - that's a ridiculous reason to choose how to vote on any issue. One should intellectually vote on the issues at hand - not of the characters of the people espousing either side.



Again an intellectually lazy and ridiculous reason to vote on any issue - it seems when you vote the actual issue you are voting on bears little relevance to your decisions.



So single parents and their kids are not a family? Unmarried couples with children are not a family? Even though I have two kids and two more planned - I am not a family because I have two partners instead of one?

Perhaps the referendum is not the issue here - but your restrictive and overly pedantic definition of "family".

I would love to see you say the above however - on stage - in a room full of single and unmarried parents. If you ever get to do this - please do not forget to ensure I am invited to the time and the place. I would not miss it for the world.

In fairness, i would agree that certain family arrangements are preferable for children than others.

That doesn't mean that other family arrangements are necessarily bad for children or harmful, or that we shouldn't support them.

For example, while there are many great single parents out there doing a wonderful job of raising their kids, that doesn't mean it's ideal. The fact is, raising kids is hard and requires a lot of work and sacrifices, but there is only so much one parent can do or hats they can wear.

Research does show that children will tend to do better in stable two parent homes than in single parent homes (I don't think three parent homes have been studied in depth) or indeed unstable one parent homes.

So I don't think there is anything wrong with the state recognising the benefits of stable two parent homes and encouraging it where possible. That doesn't mean it shouldn't also recognise and support other family arrangements though.

The problem is that lots of people only want to recgonise the benefit of one version of the stable two parent home - the one headed by a heterosexual married couple.

In reality though, neither the gender or the marital status of the parents are important in terms of child development - though marital status is hugely important in affording proper legal protections to children and ensuring they have adequate rights vis-a-via both parents, and providing for security for thee family in the event of death or serious illness of family members.

We have learned in recent years that unmarried heterosexual or homosexual couples are just as capable of providing a loving and stable home for kids.

Any arguments therefore which seeks to exclude same sex couples from marriage based on child raising capability are deeply flawed, disingenuous and without substance or merit.

Delirium

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't think marriage equality exists anyway (for the record), even in heterosexual marriages.
In heterosexual marriage, if the right age and fertile, the couple can have a biological child.
If too old, unable to have children in their marriage.
If infertile, unable to have children.
In Homosexual marriage, the possibility that exists in heterosexual marriage of a biological child by both in the marriage doesn't exist.

*headdesk*

It's about allowing same-sex couples avail of civil marriage. In the examples you gave above, none of the heterosexual couples are barred from marriage so they're not arguments against allowing same-sex couples marrying.

So you can argue about marriage equality as from the very basic of two people of whatever sex marrying.
There is not equal opportunities within the marriage. If we are going to redefine marriage, why were politicians so scared of polygamy to the point they continued the restriction?
Not progressive enough?

Lack of public demand/support to allow polygamy.

Riverireland

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Not what happened at all - someone throwing the toys outs of the pram or taking their ball and going home is not the same as that person being ganged up on.

And even if your historical revisionism were actually true - that's a ridiculous reason to choose how to vote on any issue. One should intellectually vote on the issues at hand - not of the characters of the people espousing either side.



Again an intellectually lazy and ridiculous reason to vote on any issue - it seems when you vote the actual issue you are voting on bears little relevance to your decisions.



So single parents and their kids are not a family? Unmarried couples with children are not a family? Even though I have two kids and two more planned - I am not a family because I have two partners instead of one?

Perhaps the referendum is not the issue here - but your restrictive and overly pedantic definition of "family".

I would love to see you say the above however - on stage - in a room full of single and unmarried parents. If you ever get to do this - please do not forget to ensure I am invited to the time and the place. I would not miss it for the world.

If you have 2 partners instead of 1 do you not want to marry both of them?

Just in case anyone takes that as "derailing" let me clarify that I personally think marriage is over rated as an institution. But, in the interest of equality, if it is going to be changed then why not include multiple partner marriages for bi sexuals and people of minority religions etc? I'd rather not see another costly referendum in a few years time when we still have a huge unemployment, homeless, healthcare problem to deal with. Why not just cover off everything now.

Daith

RobertKK wrote: »

I don't think marriage equality exists anyway (for the record), even in heterosexual marriages.
In heterosexual marriage, if the right age and fertile, the couple can have a biological child.
If too old, unable to have children in their marriage.
If infertile, unable to have children.
In Homosexual marriage, the possibility that exists in heterosexual marriage of a biological child by both in the marriage doesn't exist.

Yes but having a child is still not a requirement to get married.

Why are you redefining marriage to mean a man and a woman having child?

Again, you give out that we are calling it equality then you say equality doesn't exist.

bodice ripper

As a bisexual polygamist (chance would be a fine thing...), I do not endorse RobertKK

Hyzepher

Riverireland wrote: »

If you have 2 partners instead of 1 do you not want to marry both of them?

Just in case anyone takes that as "derailing" let me clarify that I personally think marriage is over rated as an institution. But, in the interest of equality, if it is going to be changed then why not include multiple partner marriages for bi sexuals and people of minority religions etc? I'd rather not see another costly referendum in a few years time when we still have a huge unemployment, homeless, healthcare problem to deal with. Why not just cover off everything now.

who says bisexuals have two partners at the same time? I'd say a proportion of them do - about the same amount at heterosexuals.

floggg

Daith wrote: »

Can you answer my question. What changes to make a heterosexual union and a homosexual union equal? I'll make it easier for you

A hetrosexual union can marry and not have more than one two people
A homosexual union can not marry and not have more than two people.
Nobody has the right to marry more than one person.

What changes to make both unions equal?



There is no definition of marriage in our constitution.

Don't go down the rabbit hole.

If he thinks we should allow polygamous marriage let him start a new thread and debate the pros and cons.

We already know the wording of the referendum and it's not going to cover polygamy. So let's debate the question we are being asked, and we'll park anything else until there is actually a demand for it and an opportunity for us to consider it.

Daith

Riverireland wrote: »

I'd rather not see another costly referendum in a few years time when we still have a huge unemployment, homeless, healthcare problem to deal with. Why not just cover off everything now.

How would that work? If a man married two women, are the two women married to each other? However that's not allowed because two women can only get civil partner-shipped.

Therefore you would need to allow marriage between people of the same sex first.

Everything else depends on that.

floggg

floggg wrote: »

In fairness, i would agree that certain family arrangements are preferable for children than others.

It has never been an argument I have seen done very successfully. Or at least those who attempt to - tend to make good arguments worth exploring - but not ones that support the core premise.

At best what can be done is show that statistically certain configurations are more successful than others - but that does not mean that those configurations are themselves therefore better or worse than the others.

The obvious one is single parenting. Clearly single parents have on average a greater challenge on time and financial resources than any other configuration. But that is not an attribute of being single parents. We have single parents with more of both than some married couples. It comes down to the nature of the work they do for one example and many other factors.

So one can not simply make this an attribute of single parenting and therefore claim that single parenting is "worse" than couples parenting. That is a leap from the statistics - even when we acknowledge that on average single parents are less successful in being able to offer these things - and if we normalise for income and free time - there is little else to suggest single parenting is better or worse than a couple.

Similar errors are made comparing other configurations to each other too. At the end of the day to support the argument that one configuration is better or worse than another the correct way to do so would be to list the things children actually require in their rearing - and then make some argument as to why one configuration is by definition precluded from offering one of those things successfully - or at all.

And I simply have never seen this done.

Put another way - I see this word "ideal" thrown around - and incorrectly. The correct way to use it - the actual "ideal" - is that certain things that a child requires be provided - and I have yet to see a single argument that suggests anything on that list is precluded a single parent - a heterosexual couple - a homosexual couple - or a configuration like my own.

Riverireland wrote: »

If you have 2 partners instead of 1 do you not want to marry both of them?

We have no interest in marriage at all as it happens - so that makes the answer a "no" from the outset.

Riverireland wrote: »

But, in the interest of equality, if it is going to be changed then why not include multiple partner marriages for bi sexuals

There appears to be two uses of "equality" going around the thread. There is the "equality" you and robert appear to mean where anyone at all should have access to the marriage contract in any configuration.

The other meaning of "equality" which the majority of the "yes" camp appear to be using however is that we are leaving marriage as it is - a two person contract - and simply practising equality as to who can access it. There appears to be little interest - if any at all - on any level to change the definition of marriage from being between two people. The change people wish for is to reduce the restrictions on who those two people can be.

I myself do not frame my position on the issue in terms of "equality" at all - despite having that word shoved dishonestly in my mouth by someone who refuses now to remove it. For me it is not about equality - but about evolving the concept of marriage to meet the demands of the society in which it sits - rather than allowing "marriage" to languish in the past and so steadily out of step with modernity.

In THAT like the "equality for multiple partners" argument is just white noise to me - because there is no demand for that at this time. So there is no motivation to evolve the concept of marriage to meet that demand or requirement.

And I am certainly not moved in any way by the "Why not just open it up to everyone and everything now so as to not have to do so in the future and incur more cost" because actually the cost of redefining the social and legal structures of current society to account for multiple partner marriages is likely MUCH larger than any referendum on the matter would be - and incuring that expense merely for the sake of it - to meet a demand that is simply not there - would be ludicrous.

If and when people in relationships like myself start to demand it - and to do so in numbers that demonstrate a definite concern and requirement for our society - then I would by all means enter into the discussion on the merits and demerits of making the change. But right now I have no interest in it - and the few people I have met in Ireland the UK in similar relationships to my own have either no interest in marriage anyway - or they do but they have accepted to take it on the chin that their relationship choice precludes them from marriage and they are happy to go forward in that light.

Until that time however - it is a definite derail from the issue at hand.

Daith

Deleted User wrote: »

Until that time however - it is a definite derail from the issue at hand.

Agreed and it's not something you're actually voting on. The wording of the referendum is very clear here.

Rochelle

I'll make up my mind on the day based on which side has annoyed me less.

Already, they're both annoying the sh1t out of me with the pontificating, preaching, one-upmanship and generally being complete tossers.

If they both continue as bad as each other and I can't pick one as having annoyed me less, i won't bother voting.

bodice ripper

Rochelle wrote: »

I'll make up my mind on the day based on which side has annoyed me less.

Already, they're both annoying the sh1t out of me with the pontificating, preaching, one-upmanship and generally being complete tossers.

If they both continue as bad as each other and I can't pick one as having annoyed me less, i won't bother voting.

please don't vote ever, if this is an indication of your level of analysis.

Riverireland

Daith wrote: »

How would that work? If a man married two women, are the two women married to each other? However that's not allowed because two women can only get civil partner-shipped.

Therefore you would need to allow marriage between people of the same sex first.

Everything else depends on that.

If "everything else depends on that". Why not tackle the lot of it now. I get the impression that as a community gay people seem to have missed the point that straight people are marrying less and less. Gay marriage means little or nothing to straight people which is why so many are happy enough to vote yes to it. My point is if we're going to change the constitution, let's change all aspects of how marriage is covered to accommodate everyone's desires instead of just gays. Doesn't seem fair to leave out bi sexuals and include lesbians if you know what I mean. Truth is I really don't want to do this twice!

Shrap

Rochelle wrote: »

If they both continue as bad as each other and I can't pick one as having annoyed me less, i won't bother voting.

I'll second your decision not to bother, if you don't plan on basing your vote on your opinion of the subject of the referendum.

Delirium

Rochelle wrote: »

I'll make up my mind on the day based on which side has annoyed me less.

Already, they're both annoying the sh1t out of me with the pontificating, preaching, one-upmanship and generally being complete tossers.

If they both continue as bad as each other and I can't pick one as having annoyed me less, i won't bother voting.

grand. I'll bring some sweets to your voting station for you to vote yes :rolleyes:

floggg

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It has never been an argument I have seen done very successfully. Or at least those who attempt to - tend to make good arguments worth exploring - but not ones that support the core premise.

At best what can be done is show that statistically certain configurations are more successful than others - but that does not mean that those configurations are themselves therefore better or worse than the others.

The obvious one is single parenting. Clearly single parents have on average a greater challenge on time and financial resources than any other configuration. But that is not an attribute of being single parents. We have single parents with more of both than some married couples. It comes down to the nature of the work they do for one example and many other factors.

So one can not simply make this an attribute of single parenting and therefore claim that single parenting is "worse" than couples parenting. That is a leap from the statistics - even when we acknowledge that on average single parents are less successful in being able to offer these things - and if we normalise for income and free time - there is little else to suggest single parenting is better or worse than a couple.

Similar errors are made comparing other configurations to each other too. At the end of the day to support the argument that one configuration is better or worse than another the correct way to do so would be to list the things children actually require in their rearing - and then make some argument as to why one configuration is by definition precluded from offering one of those things successfully - or at all.

And I simply have never seen this done.

Put another way - I see this word "ideal" thrown around - and incorrectly. The correct way to use it - the actual "ideal" - is that certain things that a child requires be provided - and I have yet to see a single argument that suggests anything on that list is precluded a single parent - a heterosexual couple - a homosexual couple - or a configuration like my own.

First, I'm excluding family arrangements such as your own from my comments below as I'm not aware of any study on them, or how they operate in practice. I imagine though that provided they are stable and there is a healthy division of parental responsibility and labour it wouldn't be too much different drom a stable two parent home.

I certainly wasn't trying to argue that two parent families are necessarily or automatically better than any other type of family - only that they tend to be better for the child than unstable or single parent homes.

Of course there are many single parents who are amazing at parenting, and their kids do better than many two parent homes. But there is no denying its tougher for single parents and that kids will tend to do better in stable two parent homes.

And again, that doesn't mean two parent homes are good homes - many of them will be terrible. And an unstable two parent home is also a poor environment to raise kids.

I don't think there is anything wrong with recognising one family model tends to produce the best results (again, emphasising the word tends) and supporting and encouraging that model where possible - as long as we also recognise and support other family models as well.