Marriage equality referendum - "rights" to kids etc.

[Leper]

Excellent post.
I know one same sex couple who are in a committed long term relationship.
I don't know them well but they are intelligent, warm and charming women and a pleasure to be around. I wish I knew them better. Maybe that's a factor in why I feel strongly about this issue, maybe because I feel it is an affront and fundamentally unjust that their loving and committed relationship is somehow less in the eyes of the state than other, far less successful relationships between heterosexual couples.

Purple is right and to the point. Anybody who has difficulty in recognising homosexual marriage/partnership could do themselves a favour by befriending such a couple or attending information meetings on such issues. They will see that friendship/love/companionship is no different to that of hetrosexual couples.

There appears to be a fear among many that the world will stop spinning on its axis when we have homosexual marriages or that the aisles of churches will turn into love-ins or something.

 

[Sol28]

They will see that friendship/love/companionship is no different to that of hetrosexual couples.

They will also see that relationship break-downs are just as difficult - and that not all relationships are healthy and happy. Exactly the same as within heterosexual relationships.

The marriage equality campaign is focusing on Leper's point - this is not a theoretical discussion - this is a personal point for many of us. As you get to know the individuals - you will see that we are no different - no better, no worse - than any other person.

 

[michaelm]

There appears to be a fear among many that the world will stop spinning on its axis when we have homosexual marriages or that the aisles of churches will turn into love-ins or something.

There is no fear, it is viewed as somewhere between a spurious waste of time a money and unnecessary social engineering, and nothing to do with churches. If/when it is passed it will likely prove no more or less a calamity than it will a panacea.

 

[Latrade]

Because it has been viewed, rightly methinks, as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of society which provides social cohesion, and, as the best model for the upbringing of children. The tax policy of Individualisation has weakened this status and redefining marriage will weaken it further. Ultimately every ad hoc arrangement may be afforded special status, and when all are special then none will be.

What will it weaken? A definition? I'm sorry that it's been proven that upbring a child's development and future isn't affected by what kind of relationship they grow up in a long as they are loved, secure and supported. Genuinely sorry, as think of all the children institutionalized that could have been in a living family earlier.

But that fact does nothing to stop me being the best dad I can or me and my partner being the best parents we can be. It doesn't stop heterosexual couples getting married and being great parents, or adopting, or not having kids at all if they want. Nothing is changed and nothing will affect you or anyone else opposed. Just means more happy families and maybe more happy kids. Is the such a bad thing from changing one line in the Constitution?

As to other relationships and how feel they may get recognition. Here's a simple thing to do and won't take any time if you have those concerns; have a look to Canada or the UK. Same-sex marriage and yet the Cousin lobby group isn't exactly lining up to have their relationship recognised. Heterosexual couples are still getting married, or not, having kids, or not, adopting, or not, having a legally recognized next or kin, leaving property and loving each other or not. The only thing that has changed is sane sec couples can do all that too.

 

[Purple]

I think you'll find they're legal for the Lannisters.

Speaking of which, it's back on!

 

[Leper]

Hey Guys! I'm at a loss here. Forgive my lack of such knowledge. Who or what are the Lannisters? Sounds like some rare disease to me!

 

[Purple]

Hey Guys! I'm at a loss here. Forgive my lack of such knowledge. Who or what are the Lannisters? Sounds like some rare disease to me!

Game of Thrones reference.

 

[michaelm]

What will it weaken?

If one is of the opinion that parentage and gender are irrelevant and that the 'traditional' family based on marriage is of no relative benefit to children over other ad hoc arrangements and therefore it is not in the interest of society to promote such then it will weaken nothing. Those with the 'love is all you need' outlook will vote Yes in droves, those who, like me, view marriage as gendered and primarily about children will vote No.

Speaking of which, it's (GoT) back on!

Downloaders with scant regard for copyright will already have the first four episodes .

 

[Purple]

If one is of the opinion that parentage and gender are irrelevant and that the 'traditional' family based on marriage is of no relative benefit to children over other ad hoc arrangements and therefore it is not in the interest of society to promote such then it will weaken nothing. Those with the 'love is all you need' outlook will vote Yes in droves, those who, like me, view marriage as gendered and primarily about children will vote No.

I think it's very unfair and disparaging to refer to committed, loving and stable same sex relationships as "ad hoc arrangements".

 

[michaelm]

Not intended to be disparaging, not wanting to get hung up on semantics, perhaps I should have used non-traditional, mea culpa.

 

[Latrade]

If one is of the opinion that parentage and gender are irrelevant and that the 'traditional' family based on marriage is of no relative benefit to children over other ad hoc arrangements and therefore it is not in the interest of society to promote such then it will weaken nothing. Those with the 'love is all you need' outlook will vote Yes in droves, those who, like me, view marriage as gendered and primarily about children will vote No.

Relevance is based upon how their importance is measured. At the moment it is measured on opinion or view and I'm not convinced that a view of what is better should maintain a system that discriminates against a group of people for no other reason than their sexuality. It should be good news that children can be raised in a family environment irrespective of their parent's gender, not the basis to vote no and maintain discrimination.

A family based on marriage is important. As is a stable and secure relationship as is stable and secure household, income, dedicating time and attention to children, etc. So no, it isn't "love is all you need" that's a very glib statement, it is simply that the belief that a traditional marriage is a better model for a family cannot be proven, in fact has been disproven. Whatever cognitive dissonance occurs from there within those who hold that opinion is for them and their conscience, but I would hope that this is measured against whether it is reasonable to deny another human being equal rights on the basis of a false assumption and belief no matter how uncomfortable it might be?

 

[michaelm]

A family based on marriage is important. As is a stable and secure relationship as is stable and secure household, income, dedicating time and attention to children, etc.

We agree on something.

the belief that a traditional marriage is a better model for a family cannot be proven, in fact has been disproven. Whatever cognitive dissonance occurs from there within those who hold that opinion is for them and their conscience

There is no onus on proponents of traditional marriage to prove anything. Nothing has been disproved. The best one can say is that studies suggest that being raised by a same-sex couple does not result in any significant relative disadvantage. The scope and subjectivity of such studies attract little scrutiny. A man can no more mother a child than a woman can be a father figure, studies notwithstanding. I have no cognitive dissonance on the matter and my conscience is clear. What you may not appreciate is that No voters don't view this as an equality issue despite it being branded as such.

 

[Purple]

A man can no more mother a child than a woman can be a father figure, studies notwithstanding.

What do you mean by mothering?
I'll be spending Friday evening baking with my daughters. I'm the parent who brings them to the hair dresser and to date I'm the parent who has talked to my older daughter about make-up. Their mother does none of the above.

 

[Latrade]

The scope and subjectivity of such studies attract little scrutiny. A man can no more mother a child than a woman can be a father figure, studies notwithstanding. I have no cognitive dissonance on the matter and my conscience is clear. What you may not appreciate is that No voters don't view this as an equality issue despite it being branded as such.

Actually they attract a lot of scrutiny, predominantly because there is a tendancy for some right-wing commentators, press or insitutions to cherry pick the data. For example the Mail in the UK has used the studies to show that children fair poorly in single-parent families (largely to bash benefits and welfare arrangements), but the report shows that children from single parent families in less deprived areas do just fine. Trust me, these studies have been picked over by all sides in the debate.

Whether you view it as an equality issue or not is irrelevant. I'm actually loathed to be so blunt in what is a reasonable discussion, but I think I have to be because denying equal rights to one group of people based soley on their sexuality is nothing but an equality issue. I appreciate No voters may wish to believe it isn't about equality or prejudice, but it is. If they can't accept that same-sex families can be just as rich and stable as "traditional" then they are denying a fact. If they can't accept that there is nothing to support the belief that "traditional" marriage is better than same-sex, then they are denying a fact. To do so and not also accept that this is a form of prejudice and denial of equality is a matter of their conscience, but it is still and will always be about singling out a group of people and denying them the same rights as you.

 

[michaelm]

Whether you view it as an equality issue or not is irrelevant. I'm actually loathed to be so blunt in what is a reasonable discussion, but I think I have to be because denying equal rights to one group of people based soley on their sexuality is nothing but an equality issue.

It's relevant to me. If I believed it was an equality issue I'd vote Yes. You may be loath to accept it but my No vote has nothing to do with sexuality but rather based on viewing marriage as gendered. Your Yes will cancel my No and happily for the Yes side they should easily carry the day and everyone can then go back to being uninterested.

 

[Leper]

The conversations here are going around and around talking about the same squares in different circles. Speaking as a rational hetrosexual you don't have to be a genius to know that this referendum means much more to homosexual people than hetrosexual people. What does it matter to any hetrosexual person if homosexual people can marry each other? Let's call a spade a spade here what difference does it make to the hetrosexual community that homosexuals can marry each other?

 

[Purple]

Let's call a spade a spade here what difference does it make to the hetrosexual community that homosexuals can marry each other?

That's the nub of it. I'm not suddenly going to change sexual preference because homosexual people have the same recognition under the law for their relationships as heterosexual people... and if I did what harm? here's the thing; there's nothing wrong with being gay.

 

[Gerry Canning]

Have followed all the threads .
.

There is no doubt the Gay Community feel hard done by not having Marriage and are very emotive.
There is little doubt that Heterosexual Community are not overly emotive on this referendum.

So we end up voting on variable emotions ?, never a good idea.
Homosexuals are Homosexual and Heterosexuals are Heterosexual, so why have sameness? I just do not get the equality argument.

I fear that from now on until polling day , the (convinced) (cheerleaders) from either side will spout spurious candyfloss arguments or plain hateful reasons to follow them.
We could end up with a YES vote that has soured the airways.
We could end up with a NO vote that has soured the airways.
Either result will not help anyone.

Does it not boil down to a simple premise as follows.

If I believe Marriage is a Gender based institution , I vote NO.
If I want Marriage to be a non Gender based institution , I vote YES.

 

[Latrade]

Have followed all the threads .
.

There is no doubt the Gay Community feel hard done by not having Marriage and are very emotive.
There is little doubt that Heterosexual Community are not overly emotive on this referendum.

I would question several of the points here.

"feel hard done by" is a tad condescending. The Gay community are being actively discriminated against by the state as identified by the Supreme Court. Remember, it is illegal for them to marry. Illegal. Banned. Not just an inconvience, but an official state policy that bans them enjoying the same marital and state recognised status as heterosexual couples. It isn't feeling hard done by when there is a clear policy of treating one group of people as different to all other citizens.

So we end up voting on variable emotions ?, never a good idea.
Homosexuals are Homosexual and Heterosexuals are Heterosexual, so why have sameness? I just do not get the equality argument.

How about homosexuals are human beings capable of sustaining a lasting relationship suitable for the ongoing support and care for a family (or not if they chose), heterosexuals are are human beings capable of sustaining a lasting relationship suitable for the ongoing support and care for a family (or not if they chose) so why the difference? It's that simple.

If I believe Marriage is a Gender based institution , I vote NO.
If I want Marriage to be a non Gender based institution , I vote YES.

Vote based on whatever criteria you wish, but you can't avoid the fact that it is a vote on equality and the denial of equal status to a group of fellow citizens.

The repetition of the line regarding gender being a basis for marriage is fine, that can be down to belief and to be honest it can only be down to a belief because it cannot be supported through any evidential basis. Nobody is denying anyone their beliefs (it is only criminal to make public beliefs that can give rise to hatred and harm of individuals), but that doesn't overide the simple fact that this is an equality issue and whether you wish to continue to deny a group of people equal status or not.

 

[Gerry Canning]

I would question several of the points here.

"feel hard done by" is a tad condescending. The Gay community are being actively discriminated against by the state as identified by the Supreme Court. Remember, it is illegal for them to marry. Illegal. Banned. Not just an inconvience, but an official state policy that bans them enjoying the same marital and state recognised status as heterosexual couples. It isn't feeling hard done by when there is a clear policy of treating one group of people as different to all other citizens.



How about homosexuals are human beings capable of sustaining a lasting relationship suitable for the ongoing support and care for a family (or not if they chose), heterosexuals are are human beings capable of sustaining a lasting relationship suitable for the ongoing support and care for a family (or not if they chose) so why the difference? It's that simple.



Vote based on whatever criteria you wish, but you can't avoid the fact that it is a vote on equality and the denial of equal status to a group of fellow citizens.

The repetition of the line regarding gender being a basis for marriage is fine, that can be down to belief and to be honest it can only be down to a belief because it cannot be supported through any evidential basis. Nobody is denying anyone their beliefs (it is only criminal to make public beliefs that can give rise to hatred and harm of individuals), but that doesn't overide the simple fact that this is an equality issue and whether you wish to continue to deny a group of people equal status or not.