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.
They will see that friendship/love/companionship is no different to that of hetrosexual couples.
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.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.
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.
Speaking of which, it's back on!I think you'll find they're legal for the Lannisters.
Game of Thrones reference.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!
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.What will it weaken?
Downloaders with scant regard for copyright will already have the first four episodesSpeaking of which, it's (GoT) back on!
I think it's very unfair and disparaging to refer to committed, loving and stable same sex relationships as "ad hoc arrangements".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.
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.
We agree on something.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.
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.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
What do you mean by mothering?A man can no more mother a child than a woman can be a father figure, studies notwithstanding.
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.
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.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.
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.Let's call a spade a spade here what difference does it make to the hetrosexual community that homosexuals can marry each other?
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?