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

Wildlife Actor

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Remarks by Iona members have further alienated me from their cause. On Morning Ireland a few days ago, Breda O'Brien compared same-sex marriage to a mother marrying her daughter. This reminds me of the rhetoric of the Christian Right in the US Deep South.

OP, don't fall into the trap here. Iona institute are both right and wrong in what they say.

The logical argument in favour of gay marriage (a compelling one: I am voting yes) is that if two men or two women, both consenting adults, want to join their legal personality by getting married, it is their business. It does not cause me or anybody else harm (offending religious or traditional sensibilities is not harm). Therefore I have no moral right to interfere in their personal autonomy, even if my sensibilities are offended.

So Iona institute are right because the very same argument justifies allowing mothers and daughters to marry one another.

But both Iona institute (in suggesting that this justifies voting against gay marriage) and those (possibly including OP) who are appalled by the comparison (in thinking treating the point as scare-mongering) are wrong: if two consenting adult gay men can marry, then why should society have the right to deny any other two consenting adults the right to that legal construct.

Those who are appalled by the notion of a mother and daughter getting married (or three-way marriages for that matter) ought to remember that society in general was appalled by homosexuality (not to mention gay marriage) until very recently. The notion of human rights trumping societal (or religious) sensitivity is very new in practice. Some day we may look back at today's society, where people in incestuous or polygamous relationships are considered abnormal and abhorrent, as barbaric.

efb

Breda, Brenda and Ronan in a wig

Shrap

conorh91 wrote: »

Marriage equality is a misnomer because what is actually being sought is greater rights than are available to other types of conjugal or committed relationships of a family nature, such as certain unmarried couples in heterosexual and homosexual relationships.

I think you're misunderstanding that the equal right to marry regardless of gender is what is being sought. I have no idea what you're banging on about in that last sentence.

Try and come up with a good enough reason to say "no, gay people should not be allowed to marry" and people might actually take note.....or not, as the case may be. All other topics are irrelevant.

eviltwin

Love nor Money wrote: »

OP, don't fall into the trap here. Iona institute are both right and wrong in what they say.

The logical argument in favour of gay marriage (a compelling one: I am voting yes) is that if two men or two women, both consenting adults, want to join their legal personality by getting married, it is their business. It does not cause me or anybody else harm (offending religious or traditional sensibilities is not harm). Therefore I have no moral right to interfere in their personal autonomy, even if my sensibilities are offended.

So Iona institute are right because the very same argument justifies allowing mothers and daughters to marry one another.

But both Iona institute (in suggesting that this justifies voting against gay marriage) and those (possibly including OP) who are appalled by the comparison (in thinking treating the point as scare-mongering) are wrong: if two consenting adult gay men can marry, then why should society have the right to deny any other two consenting adults the right to that legal construct.

Those who are appalled by the notion of a mother and daughter getting married (or three-way marriages for that matter) ought to remember that society in general was appalled by homosexuality (not to mention gay marriage) until very recently. The notion of human rights trumping societal (or religious) sensitivity is very new in practice. Some day we may look back at today's society, where people in incestuous or polygamous relationships are considered abnormal and abhorrent, as barbaric.

How many parent/child combos are out there campaigning to be allowed marry? Let them fight their own battle. This is solely about same sex marriage.

Shrap

Love nor Money wrote: »

The notion of human rights trumping societal (or religious) sensitivity is very new in practice. .

What a huge pile of horse droppings. Human rights have always been and will continue to be decided by society. Where do you think they came from otherwise, eh? Carved in stone and handed down from the clouds by a supernatural being?

conorh91

Shrap wrote: »

Try and come up with a good enough reason to say "no, gay people should not be allowed to marry"

Why would I say that? I've pointed out multiple times that I have no problem with the extension of the right to marry per se. I'm just not stupid enough to believe that extending marriage rights to only one more category of conjugal relationship, or taxing a married couple less than a couple who cannot afford to marry, or are disqualified from marrying, amounts to "equality".

And since the thread title refers to a "marriage equality" referendum, I don't think it's irrelevant at all, but you're under no obligation to reply or point-out opinions you feel are irrelevant.

floggg

conorh91 wrote: »

Why would I say that? I've pointed out multiple times that I have no problem with the extension of the right to marry per se. I'm just not stupid enough to believe that extending marriage rights to only one more category of conjugal relationship, or taxing a married couple less than a couple who cannot afford to marry, or are disqualified from marrying, amounts to "equality".

And since the thread title refers to a "marriage equality" referendum, I don't think it's irrelevant at all, but you're under no obligation to reply or point-out opinions you feel are irrelevant.

It costs €200 to get married in Ireland. There is nobody who can't afford to marry.

Ave Sodalis

conorh91 wrote: »

Why would I say that? I've pointed out multiple times that I have no problem with the extension of the right to marry per se. I'm just not stupid enough to believe that extending marriage rights to only one more category of conjugal relationship, or taxing a married couple less than a couple who cannot afford to marry, or are disqualified from marrying, amounts to "equality".

And since the thread title refers to a "marriage equality" referendum, I don't think it's irrelevant at all, but you're under no obligation to reply or point-out opinions you feel are irrelevant.

Actually, what you're discussing (I think) and what we're discussing seems to be two different things. We're discussing equality in terms of same sex. You seem to be discussing equality in terms of marriage vs single people. You can apply that logic to straight people. Why are you bringing it up here?

Shrap

conorh91 wrote: »

Why would I say that? I've pointed out multiple times that I have no problem with the extension of the right to marry per se. I'm just not stupid enough to believe that taxing a married couple less than a couple who cannot afford to marry, or are disqualified from marrying, amounts to "equality".

And since the thread title refers to a "marriage equality" referendum, I don't think it's irrelevant at all, but you're under no obligation to reply or point-out opinions you feel are irrelevant.

Oh right....you're banging your own drum. I get it now. I was confused because you're not discussing the issue at hand. I actually happen to agree with you, now I'm clear you're not talking about the right of people to marry regardless of gender.

Perhaps confusing people is leading to derailing the thread, so I for one will stop discussing your issue and stick to the main one.

Wildlife Actor

eviltwin wrote: »

How many parent/child combos are out there campaigning to be allowed marry? Let them fight their own battle. This is solely about same sex marriage.

So Conorh91 is right. Some are more equal than others. Lucky you weren't gay in the 1950s then.

Wildlife Actor

Shrap wrote: »

What a huge pile of horse droppings. Human rights have always been and will continue to be decided by society. Where do you think they came from otherwise, eh? Carved in stone and handed down from the clouds by a supernatural being?

You are saying that it was correct to criminalise homosexuality until 1993 because that's what society wanted. Is that what you mean?

Ave Sodalis

Love nor Money wrote: »

So Conorh91 is right. Some are more equal than others. Lucky you weren't gay in the 1950s then.

At the minute, there is. However, the fight of other couples who can't get married doesn't lie with SSM. Why would it? If they want equality, go fight for it, just like there was a fight for SSM. When and if they do, we'll talk about it then. However, this is about SSM and SSM alone. Any other type of marriage is irrelevant.

eviltwin

Love nor Money wrote: »

So Conorh91 is right. Some are more equal than others. Lucky you weren't gay in the 1950s then.

The only reason we've reached a point where we are being able to vote on this at all is due to years of work and campaigns by the gay community. Same as what happened with rights for women, single mothers, other races etc. Rights aren't just handed to you if you are in a minority group. You have to fight for them. All we are being asked to vote on is SSM. Not parent and child marriage or sibling marriage or multiple spouses or inter species marriage. If such couples exist and want their right to marry the onus is on them to present their case. To the best of my knowledge none have done so. Their arguments have to be specific to them. This referendum is only about same sex marriage.

Shrap

Love nor Money wrote: »

You are saying that it was correct to criminalise homosexuality until 1993 because that's what society wanted. Is that what you mean?

You are incorrect, please try again.

If you have never been given a vote on an issue then you can't say what society wants. If you are given a vote only every 20 years then you can't tell how society has moved on in the meantime. If there is enough demand for rights to be given where a serious injustice is being done to people by their lack of rights, often the government will realise that they too are there on the basis of our vote and eventually we get to vote on the societal change that there is such a demand for.

Fairly sure they teach this in school. Did you attend school here?

conorh91

floggg wrote: »

It costs €200 to get married in Ireland. There is nobody who can't afford to marry.

I'm referring to affordability in the context of divorce. There are plenty of people who cannot afford a divorce and consequently cannot afford to remarry.

sup_dude wrote: »

Actually, what you're discussing (I think) and what we're discussing seems to be two different things. We're discussing equality in terms of same sex.

Then the correct term is same-sex marriage.

Marriage Equality is one of these Mom & Pop & Apple Pie terms. Everyone thinks marriage is just neat, and ditto equality. But that's not what this is about. This is about bringing one category of people 'up from the back of the bus' and leaving the rest of the outcasts segregated.

Wildlife Actor

sup_dude wrote: »

At the minute, there is. However, the fight of other couples who can't get married doesn't lie with SSM. Why would it? If they want equality, go fight for it, just like there was a fight for SSM. When and if they do, we'll talk about it then. However, this is about SSM and SSM alone. Any other type of marriage is irrelevant.

I think you misunderstand me as siding with the no campaign. On the contrary, I am voting yes and hoping for invitations to a lot of weddings on Irish soil. However, I refuse to accept the flawed logic that this is "battle" is "fought" solely for one group. If it was solely to be contested on grounds of self-interest, why should a straight person vote at all. It's not their problem. Straight people should vote yes because it's not morally right to interfere with the autonomy of consenting adults, not vote their mates into a club cause they're cool now.

Ave Sodalis

conorh91 wrote: »

Then the correct term is same-sex marriage.

Marriage Equality is one of these Mom & Pop & Apple Pie terms. Everyone thinks marriage is just neat, and ditto equality. But that's not what this is about. This is about bringing one category of people 'up from the back of the bus' and leaving the rest of the outcasts segregated.

It's a branch of marriage equality, no?

Love nor Money wrote: »

I think you misunderstand me as siding with the no campaign. On the contrary, I am voting yes and hoping for invitations to a lot of weddings on Irish soil. However, I refuse to accept the flawed logic that this is "battle" is "fought" solely for one group. If it was solely to be contested on grounds of self-interest, why should a straight person vote at all. It's not their problem. Straight people should vote yes because it's not morally right to interfere with the autonomy of consenting adults, not vote their mates into a club cause they're cool now.

I can honestly say that I didn't misunderstand you as siding for no, I'm pointing out that this referendum is about gay marriage, not incest marriage or anything else. Just gay marriage.
It's not flawed logic. It's been extremely difficult to get the referendum to referendum. Why would anyone bite off more than they can chew by including everything? The same logic you've come up with can be applied to inter-racial marriage. Why didn't they fight for gay marriage at the same time? Because it wasn't relevant. I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to the last line.

Wildlife Actor

Shrap wrote: »

You are incorrect, please try again.

If you have never been given a vote on an issue then you can't say what society wants. If you are given a vote only every 20 years then you can't tell how society has moved on in the meantime. If there is enough demand for rights to be given where a serious injustice is being done to people by their lack of rights, often the government will realise that they too are there on the basis of our vote and eventually we get to vote on the societal change that there is such a demand for.

Fairly sure they teach this in school. Did you attend school here?

You shouldn't feel the need to be offensive.

Make yourself clear (and please, humour me by answering): do you think a mother and (adult) daughter should be allowed to marry?

For the record, I do. I find the whole idea somewhat uncomfortable, but that's my problem, not that of the two adults involved.

conorh91

sup_dude wrote: »

It's a branch of marriage equality, no?

What does 'marriage equality' mean?

It's like 'equal favoritism', it's a contradiction in itself. Marriage is about enhanced rights. How can you have enhanced rights if you are equal?

eviltwin

Love nor Money wrote: »

You shouldn't feel the need to be offensive.

Make yourself clear (and please, humour me by answering): do you think a mother and (adult) daughter should be allowed to marry?

For the record, I do. I find the whole idea somewhat uncomfortable, but that's my problem, not that of the two adults involved.

What has that got to do with it? Are you suggesting that because marriage won't be available to every conceivable type of relationship that it's a valid enough reason to continue to deny marriage to same sex couples?

reprise

floggg wrote: »

I neither suggested or inferred anything of the sort. And I can see little basis for you jumping to that conclusion.

Your quote verbatim:

While firstly LGBT couples can and do have children, so any child related purposes of marriage is equally applicable to LGBT couples.

Maybe you can better explain what you mean.

floggg wrote: »

Do people believe that marriage equality would give lgbt people the right to snatch children away from their parents or something? That certainly seems to be the case given some of the arguments we've seen.

Hyperbole aside, no.

floggg wrote: »

I think it is worth noting as well as that heterosexual parents are completely free to marry people other than their child's other parent at the minute, so if an LGBT person with a child from a previous heterosexual relationship subsequently marries their partner, then it would be no different a situation to those heterosexual couples.

You are contradicting yourself.

floggg wrote: »

That doesn't change the analysis however. Children or the ability to conceive has never been the purpose of marriage in the Irish State.

Just because I tax and insure my car, it doesn't mean I HAVE to drive it and your attempt to downplay the role of family in marriage is absurd.

floggg wrote: »

You really couldn't, and it would be absurd to try.

Two brothers do not (or at leat should not) enter into a life long commitment and sexual and romantic union with one another, and their relationship is in no way comparable to the relationship between a couple, gay or straight.

As we are trying to divine the original purpose of marriage, the "should not" element of your response looks almost like a Freudian slip.

floggg wrote: »

I can only assume you don't have siblings, because I could never even begin to describe my relationship with my brother as being anything akin to my relationship with my boyfriend or any form of marriage.

So failure to provide for the marriage of brothers was seen as obviously pointless, but there was a pointed jab at same sex couples? I'm not buying that.

Ave Sodalis

conorh91 wrote: »

What does 'marriage equality' mean?

It's like 'equal favoritism', it's a contradiction in itself. Marriage is about enhanced rights. How can you have enhanced rights if you are equal?

You're equating the wrong things.

Marriage equality = equality in marriage. That's really all there is to it. Gay people having the same right to marriage as straight people. Not more right, not less. Equal.

Shrap

Love nor Money wrote: »

I think you misunderstand me as siding with the no campaign. On the contrary, I am voting yes and hoping for invitations to a lot of weddings on Irish soil. However, I refuse to accept the flawed logic that this is "battle" is "fought" solely for one group. If it was solely to be contested on grounds of self-interest, why should a straight person vote at all. It's not their problem. Straight people should vote yes because it's not morally right to interfere with the autonomy of consenting adults, not vote their mates into a club cause they're cool now.

What a silly thing to say! I won't be voting on the basis of what is cool, I will be voting on the basis of what is NORMAL. And I hope it will be as normal for my children to be gay as it is to be straight - if either of them are (one may be, the other shows every sign of being a raging hetero) and maybe my son turns round to me in 15 years time and says Mum, I asked Jim to marry me. I would like to be able to say congratulations without feeling like I'm in a country of knuckle-dragging folk from the 17th century.

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

Your quote verbatim:

While firstly LGBT couples can and do have children, so any child related purposes of marriage is equally applicable to LGBT couples.

Maybe you can better explain what you mean.

Actually, I think you can better explain. I too have no idea where you got your statement from either

Just because I tax and insure my car, it doesn't mean I HAVE to drive it.

The point of taxing and insuring your car is so you can drive it. The point of marriage is not so you can have children.

Shrap

Love nor Money wrote: »

Make yourself clear (and please, humour me by answering): do you think a mother and (adult) daughter should be allowed to marry?

I shall make myself very clear, not just to humour you, but in the hope of getting through to you.

If there is a massive societal demand for mother/daughter marriage, then I'm sure we shall eventually get to vote on it. However, seeing as mother/daughter relationships are NOT A THING AT ALL (unless you have some evidence to the contrary?), it is clearly a moot point.

floggg

reprise wrote: »

Your quote verbatim:

While firstly LGBT couples can and do have children, so any child related purposes of marriage is equally applicable to LGBT couples.

Maybe you can better explain what you mean.



Hyperbole aside, no.



You are contradicting yourself.



Just because I tax and insure my car, it doesn't mean I HAVE to drive it and your attempt to downplay the role of family in marriage is absurd.



As we are trying to divine the original purpose of marriage, the "should not" element of your response looks almost like a Freudian slip.



So failure to provide for the marriage of brothers was seen as obviously pointless, but there was a pointed jab at same sex couples? I'm not buying that.

Honestly, I really have no idea what you are trying to say with much of that, or what reasoning you are attempting to apply.

Im particularly confused about the Freudian slip comment. Are you suggesting I want to marry my brother or something?

I have no idea why you are attempting to interpret my words in the particular ways you are, so please do explain.

reprise

sup_dude wrote: »

Actually, I think you can better explain. I too have no idea where you got your statement from either

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94000482&postcount=351

sup_dude wrote: »

The point of taxing and insuring your car is so you can drive it. The point of marriage is not so you can have children.

My analogy works. Yet, you reckon children were an after thought?

Wildlife Actor

sup_dude wrote: »

I can honestly say that I didn't misunderstand you as siding for no, I'm pointing out that this referendum is about gay marriage, not incest marriage or anything else. Just gay marriage.
It's not flawed logic. It's been extremely difficult to get the referendum to referendum. Why would anyone bite off more than they can chew by including everything? The same logic you've come up with can be applied to inter-racial marriage. Why didn't they fight for gay marriage at the same time? Because it wasn't relevant. I have no idea what you're talking about with regard to the last line.

I don't recall the old inter racial marriage referendum.....but in the parallel universe where it happened, I'm sure that when Breda O'Brien said "well, sure there'll be them gays marrying next" I didn't scuttle off like a coward and say it's not relevant.

Strategically, I suppose you're perfectly right: you'd scare the grannies if they thought that voting for gay marriage meant they'd be be getting an invitation to a wedding between their son, their grandson and their niece.

Wildlife Actor

eviltwin wrote: »

What has that got to do with it? Are you suggesting that because marriage won't be available to every conceivable type of relationship that it's a valid enough reason to continue to deny marriage to same sex couples?

NO! How many times do I have to say I'm voting yes!

Thanks for not answering my question.

conorh91

sup_dude wrote: »

Gay people having the same right to marriage as straight people. Not more right, not less. Equal.

Sure, but that's not marriage equality.

Defending the use of the term marriage equality in this way is a bit like claiming there was racial equality in the USA in the early 20th century, because Jim Crow laws did not apply to Asians.

You'd accept that would be a spectacularly foolish and inappropriate use of the term "racial equality", yes?

And that's aside from the fact that marriage equality is a contradiction in itself.

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=94000482&postcount=351



My analogy works. Yet, you reckon children were an after thought?

I've read it and still don't get where you're coming from.

How? An after thought to what? Marriage? Are you saying that children cannot be born outside of marriage and that marriage's sole purpose is to produce children? Because you're getting dangerously close to couples who can't have child, couples who don't want children, children from unmarried parents, and single parent territory there. And I don't know why you are. Whether this referendum goes through or not, a gay couple can still adopt so they clearly aren't just getting married for children, same as many straight couples.

Ave Sodalis

conorh91 wrote: »

Sure, but that's not marriage equality.

Defending the use of the term marriage equality in this way is a bit like claiming there was racial equality in the USA in the early 20th century, because Jim Crow laws did not apply to Asians.

You'd accept that would be a spectacularly foolish and inappropriate use of the term "racial equality", yes?

And that's aside from the fact that marriage equality is a contradiction in itself.

Not when you're drawing analogies that don't exist.

eviltwin

Love nor Money wrote: »

NO! How many times do I have to say I'm voting yes!

Thanks for not answering my question.

What question? Do you mean should a mother and daughter be allowed marry? Yeah why not? Incest doesn't offend me. But what's this got to do with SSM

Ave Sodalis

Love nor Money wrote: »

I don't recall the old inter racial marriage referendum.....but in the parallel universe where it happened, I'm sure that when Breda O'Brien said "well, sure there'll be them gays marrying next" I didn't scuttle off like a coward and say it's not relevant.

Strategically, I suppose you're perfectly right: you'd scare the grannies if they thought that voting for gay marriage meant they'd be be getting an invitation to a wedding between their son, their grandson and their niece.

No, there wasn't but inter racial marriage was not allow due to racism culture. When they were fighting for their rights, shouldn't they have included gay marriage in with in since they were also a minority? What about women's rights?
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, quite simply, other types of marriages are not relevant.

reprise

floggg wrote: »

Honestly, I really have no idea what you are trying to say with much of that, or what reasoning you are attempting to apply.

Im particularly confused about the Freudian slip comment. Are you suggesting I want to marry my brother or something?

I have no idea why you are attempting to interpret my words in the particular ways you are, so please do explain.

I can condense. I am of the belief that marriage, by design, was simply not intended for same sex couples as it was focused and based on biological parentage and children within a defined set of parameters.

If you wish to change those parameters, you must be prepared to defend your reasons. Trying to make out that changing the parameters can redefine marriage and alter the original intent is simply disingenuous. Hence my question asking about the marriage of brothers.

AlanS181824

Yes Yes Yes!

Doesn't affect me as such but everyone deserves the right to be happy!

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

I can condense. I am of the belief that marriage, by design, was simply not intended for same sex couples as it was focused and based on biological parentage and children within a defined set of parameters.

If you wish to change those parameters, you must be prepared to defend your reasons. Trying to make out that the parameters can redefine marriage is disingenuous. Hence my question asking about the marriage of brothers.

But that is not accounting for couples who cannot have children, couples who don't want children, children born to unmarried parents and single parents. You don't need a marriage to have a child, so why is that what marriage is about? You're entitled to your opinion but you're going to have to explain the gaps in it because I don't understand it.

reprise

sup_dude wrote: »

I've read it and still don't get where you're coming from.

How? An after thought to what? Marriage? Are you saying that children cannot be born outside of marriage and that marriage's sole purpose is to produce children? Because you're getting dangerously close to couples who can't have child, couples who don't want children, children from unmarried parents, and single parent territory there. And I don't know why you are. Whether this referendum goes through or not, a gay couple can still adopt so they clearly aren't just getting married for children, same as many straight couples.

And again, marriage has a primary focus on providing the best possible environment for the children that it may produce.

Just so we are clear - that's the children that it may produce.

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

And again, marriage has a primary focus on providing the best possible environment for the children that it may produce.

Just so we are clear - that's the children that it may produce.

You're still ignoring children born outside of marriage to unmarried and single parents.

Shrap

reprise wrote: »

I can condense. I am of the belief that marriage, by design, was simply not intended for same sex couples as it was focused and based on biological parentage and children within a defined set of parameters.

If you wish to change those parameters, you must be prepared to defend your reasons. Trying to make out that the parameters can redefine marriage is disingenuous. Hence my question asking about the marriage of brothers.

You're wrong. It was based on land and inheritance rights. Not biological parentage at all. The parameters have changed many times since daughters were basically swapped for land, and the reason we change the parameters so much is because they have proved to be unfair to people who gained rights in the meantime. Such as the right of a woman not to be sold off for land. That kind of thing.

Venus In Furs

conorh91 wrote: »

Sure, but that's not marriage equality.

Defending the use of the term marriage equality in this way is a bit like claiming there was racial equality in the USA in the early 20th century, because Jim Crow laws did not apply to Asians.

You'd accept that would be a spectacularly foolish and inappropriate use of the term "racial equality", yes?

It's marriage equality in context. Is that not enough? In the Deep South, racial segregation was between whites and blacks - that's why only that context was used to define racial equality.

eviltwin

reprise wrote: »

And again, marriage has a primary focus on providing the best possible environment for the children that it may produce.

Just so we are clear - that's the children that it may produce.

Do you think it's appropriate that society places a higher value on children born in a traditional marriage over all other circumstances because that's a horrible way to view children.

reprise

sup_dude wrote: »

You're still ignoring children born outside of marriage to unmarried and single parents.

So?

Marriage isn't compulsory.

Ave Sodalis

reprise wrote: »

So?

Marriage isn't compulsory.

No, but if the sole purpose of marriage is to set up for the best possible environment for children, are you saying that children of unmarried and single parents are in lesser environments? Are you saying people who cannot have children shouldn't bother getting married as it would be pointless?

This is still irrelevant and, by your account, just furthers the argument for SSM anyway as gay couple will be able to adopt, married or not.

reprise

eviltwin wrote: »

Do you think it's appropriate that society places a higher value on children born in a traditional marriage over all other circumstances because that's a horrible way to view children.

That's a misrepresentation. I believe that society and the state encourage marriage as the best possible environment for the children first and the parents, second.

It doesn't always work out that way but the aspiration is sincere.

eviltwin

reprise wrote: »

That's a misrepresentation. I believe that society and the state encourage marriage as the best possible environment for the children first and the parents, second.

It doesn't always work out that way but the aspiration is sincere.

Do you think I am any better a parent to the child I had in marriage vs the one I had before marriage? I fail to see how a 15 minute ceremony has changed the outcome for my subsequent children. Marriage doesn't make you a good parent. Your parenting skills are what makes you a good parent.

conorh91

Venus In Furs wrote: »

In the Deep South, racial segregation was between whites and blacks

No it wasn't, see the 'segregated prom' phenomenon. The southern states had a deep-rooted system of racial segregation between all races, with blacks and hispanics being the main victims. The only difference with hispanics is that it was never formalised.

But if someone cited the inapplicability of Jim Crow laws to the hispanics, implying in any way that this amounted to racial equality, they would be laughed out of the room. It would be totally grotesque. The statement would probably become a symbol of how bonkers and short-sighted the whole regime was.

Now I am not opposed to gay people seeking equal treatment. Nor do I deny the rights of individual groups to pursue their individual interests without regard to others' needs. But pursuing enhanced rights for oneself at others' cost, and dressing it up as "equality" is just plain misleading.

Ave Sodalis

conorh91 wrote: »

But pursuing enhanced rights for oneself at others' cost, and dressing it up as "equality" is just plain misleading.

At the cost of whos rights, exactly?

conorh91

sup_dude wrote: »

At the cost of whos rights, exactly?

Unmarried individuals in conjugal relationships who cannot marry for reasons of affordability or law. They are effectively burdened with higher taxes than married couples. Is that equality? Can it ever be described as such?

Ave Sodalis

conorh91 wrote: »

Unmarried individuals in conjugal relationships who cannot marry for reasons of affordability or law. They are effectively burdened with higher taxes than married couples. Is that equality? Can it ever be described as such?

How is that in any way related to this discussion? Do you honestly think people want to get married only because of taxes?!

You're the one who wanted definitions. This is marriage equality, not tax equality