(And I was thinking of California because I’ve been discussing it on other forums recently with people and got the two jurisdictions confused in terms of the substance of the law)

Would you like to address the rest of my argument yet?

You still have provided zero reasons as to why gay marriages should not be recognised. I’m really trying to engage in a constructive debate here but you haven’t actually provided an argument for your side at all.

Also, your use of the term ‘abnormal’ is really quite strange. Being less than 10% of the population automatically makes a person abnormal? Did you know that less than 10% of the Irish population have red hair. That makes people with red hair abnormal according to your definition. Should we have separate institutions for them as well?

I can see that it is impossible to have a conversation with you that is based primarily or wholly on logic – because you refuse to engage with someone on the basis of interactive and dynamic logical argument. You have your own pre-conceived answers for everything which you select as vaguely appropriate to the situation. I see no point in attempting to discuss this issue with you any further.

Men and women are normal. Irish and French people are normal. Straight people are normal. Gays are not. It is that way. We are very different. We get treated different. We get special protections. But we are not the same. I am not saying we are superior or inferior, but biologically we are abnormal. We less then 1 in 10 of the population. That makes us abnormal scientifically. Gay marriage won’t change that.

@Brian, Civil Partnerships in Ireland will be for gays only. The cohabitation scheme will apply to all. You may want to get your facts right.

There is a difference between Marriage and a Gay Marriage. One is the marriage of a man and a women. The other is a perversion of this.

The definition of discrimination is treating things differently. You see it as justified discrimination, which is fine in theory, except that you have provided no argument as to why it is justified. Some kinds of discrimination are of course justified. We discriminate, for example, against people with convictions for child abuse in denying them access to certain kinds of jobs, and rightly so.

If you do not want to get married, that’s one thing. But not wanting others to get married is something quite different. And while it is ‘up to the state’ as to how it recognises a relationship, this is true only in the legal sense. The state has the power to recognise relationships as equal before the law, or to discriminate. Where principles of justice come in is in guiding that power, determining under what circumstances discrimination (treating people differently) is justified and when it is not. My contention is that it’s not justified here, you obviously disagree because you feel there is a fundamental difference between a gay marriage and a heterosexual one, but you have not shown why this is so, beyond simply stating that you feel it to be so.

(And I should also point out that civil partnerships are hardly something for ‘us to call our own’ ((even if that was a good idea)), given that they are also open to heterosexuals.)

@Stephane – Very well said!

To apply that same logic to other circumstances is equally fallacious. For instance, men and women are different – they are not the same. By your logic, men are abnormal and women are normal (as there are more women on the planet than men). Therefore, women ought to be entitled to superior rights to men. Similarly, the Irish are different to the French. There are fewer Irish people than there are French people, therefore Irish people are not normal, whereas the French are normal. Thus, the French receive different rights to the Irish.

You really need to start thinking, old boy, I find it tremendously useful in avoid stuffing your foot into your mouth.

You may what to look at yourself Stephane, as you will soon find, your not normal. We dont fit in with the majority. Its a perfectly healthy way of seeing yourself. Its not being stuck in the 1950′s. I love being different. Its means I am me.

Why should we all be normal? That would mean their would be less diversity, less creativity and less challenges for all.

Marriage seeks to blur this, and I dont want that and I dont think it should happen.

We are different and should be treated as such. Marriage is not the answer, Civil Unions/Partnerships are. Something that we can call our own. Create our own meanings with and celebrate our difference.

And i guessed from your first comment you were gay.

As for not changing the system, I’m sure even you can think of examples from history where systems needed changing. Up until the 1910s, for instance, women were not allowed to vote. Up until the 1960s in America, black and white people could not marry together. Until the 1980s, people of different skin-colours in South Africa could not live in the same regions as one another. But why mess with the system, when it ostensibly works?

If you think gay marriage will get rid of homophobia, then you are quite naive. Homosexuality is not normal. Marriage for all changes something that has been around for a long time, why mess with a structure that works?

Homosexuals, and Im speaking as one, are different. We are made different. We should be cherishing that, not trying to pretend we are the same, when we are not.

plain and simple