Polygamy

[Milltown Row2]

Could think of nothing worse!!! can you imagine? Feck sure the wife never gets on with the mistresses as it is she'll hardly want them as my other wives

[illdecide]

Yes but if you fall out with one of your wives then you could give the other one a qer good seeing too and make sure the other wife hears you doing it (infact the more I think about she'll probably be glad your not pumping her anyway)

[Esmarelda]

To what end? Marriages as permitted by the state are a useful off-the-shelf contract which clarifies things like inheritance rights and guardianship of children. What are the social benefits of codifying polygamous contracts?

The general argument put forward by and on behalf of homosexual couples ahead of the referendum is that they should have their love acknowledged by the state in the same ways as heterosexual couples do.

With that in mind, why shouldn't three consenting adults be afforded the same rights?

This is not my view by the way but it is something that bothers me slightly about the Yes campaign.

[andoireabu]

Theres a show on TLC called My 5 Wives. A dude in Utah has 5 wives and 25 children and counting! mental stuff though I think only one of them is officially his wife

[J70]

To what end? Marriages as permitted by the state are a useful off-the-shelf contract which clarifies things like inheritance rights and guardianship of children. What are the social benefits of codifying polygamous contracts?

The general argument put forward by and on behalf of homosexual couples ahead of the referendum is that they should have their love acknowledged by the state in the same ways as heterosexual couples do.

With that in mind, why shouldn't three consenting adults be afforded the same rights?

This is not my view by the way but it is something that bothers me slightly about the Yes campaign.

Why does it bother you?

What has polygamy got to do with the gay marriage campaign?

[deiseach]

To what end? Marriages as permitted by the state are a useful off-the-shelf contract which clarifies things like inheritance rights and guardianship of children. What are the social benefits of codifying polygamous contracts?

The general argument put forward by and on behalf of homosexual couples ahead of the referendum is that they should have their love acknowledged by the state in the same ways as heterosexual couples do.

With that in mind, why shouldn't three consenting adults be afforded the same rights?

This is not my view by the way but it is something that bothers me slightly about the Yes campaign.

The campaign is not about gay couple having "their love acknowledged by the state in the same ways as heterosexual couples do". People will use that rhetoric as shorthand, but you don't need the permission of the state in the guise of marriage to love someone. It's about allowing gay people access to the same rights which flow from the opportunity to get married.

[Esmarelda]

What bothers me (and I said slightly) is that a group of people feel that they're being discriminated against because they can't do what another group can do.

There are many examples of this in society and I don't see it as necessarily being a question of equality.

I brought the referendum into this thread in reply to desieach's point that marriage is used to clarify legal issues; my point being that those looking to be able to marry generally aren't doing so for this reason.

Perhaps I shouldn't have muddied the waters but I thought it was inevitable that this thread would cross with the other one at some stage.

I see deiseach has replied before I did. On the debates I've listened to the absolutely most frequent argument is that it's not about children, it's about equality and having our love recognised by the state. I wish I was hearing something else but that's frustratingly what I'm hearing.

[AZOffaly]

Apologies for this, and I really should be ashamed of myself, but what rights do gay couples not have today, since the civil partnership laws were passed? I remember the discussions then about inheritance, tax, social welfare etc etc.

What extra rights will this referendum give gay couples, that are currently denied them?

[deiseach]

The Yes campaign are going to completely oversell it. Issues like this encourage highfalutin' language, just as the No campaign will have (more than) its fair share of people chundering on about wife-swapping sodomites. Ultimately the Yes argument is about allowing people access to the same rights as other adults.

[rosnarun]

I have always said with the introduction of divorce , Real marraige  was abolished anyway , If a bond that could not be Broken can now be boken  that fundementally changes it
so why not polygamy
i can see people marrying their pets in 10 years time

But would you not start with a bit of  biagamy

[deiseach]

There's a link here showing differences between marriage and civil partnerships.

[The Iceman]

Thanks for the link. I don't see why this text taken directly from the document can't apply to Polygamy. Surely "couples" are not the only people capable of love:

Loving, committed relationships between two consenting adults should be treated equally, regardless of gender or sexual orientation.  Same sex couples should be allowed to share the same responsibilities, obligations and respect that marriage provides.

It makes no sense to exclude loving couples already doing the work of marriage in their daily lives – supporting one another, raising families, etc – from the legal structure intended to reinforce that dedication, those meanings, and – at its heart – commitment and love.

What about a brother and sister? Consenting adults, fell in love? What do we do here? Or a grandfather and grand daughter? In the rest of the animal kingdom it is encouraged and normal practice to  "line breed". Anyone who has any knowledge of show dogs or horses will tell you it is common practice to ensure and lock in certain genetic traits.  It's legal for first cousins to marry. Why not siblings? Or one generation removed? Like the rest of the animals? Why are humans any different?

[AZOffaly]

Thanks deiseach. It appears as if the only possible contentious area is the adoption of children. Everything else has to be a no brainer surely, given the Civil Partnership act, which I'd say most people thought gave those rights about disposal of family houses, taxes etc.

It probably will boil down to how people feel about gay couples adopting children (even though 1 gay person can adopt a child!) and how they feel about the concept of 'marriage'. And Civil Marriage at that, as this is nothing to do with Church marriage.

[Esmarelda]

Apologies to Eamonnca1 for effectively hijacking this thread.

Can someone now tell me what the current legal position is regarding gay couples adopting or acquiring a child through surrogacy?

[deiseach]

As I said, the Yes campaign are going to oversell it with talk of love and commitment and whatnot. State marriage is a contract. Allowing gay couples to use this contract doesn't mean we have to allow polygamous contracts. One of the benefits of marriage as a contract is that if one of the couple dies without having made a will, all their property goes to surviving spouse. No fuss, no muss. Polygamous marriages would not have this benefit, so why would we as a society want to facilitate it? And we do not allow family members to marry because of the increased chances of genetic conditions caused by inbreeding. Allowing gay couples to marry does not change this impediment.