Polygamy

[deiseach]

I would say through all of this that if people genuinely believe that heterosexual marriage as a concept is something worth defending, by all means vote No. Seeing the likes of Newt Gingrich pontificating about it knocked any thoughts of that on the head for me!

[The Iceman]

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?

What would they not have? So because it's not just a simple hand it over to the spouse response, it's divide into 2 or 3 or 4 or whatever the case may be we deny them their rights?

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.

chances is the word here... what if they were both sterile. no chances of any children. or too old to have kids. 50s or 60s. Is it ok then? If not why not?

[deiseach]

You are mashing together concepts of 'rights' here. As things stand, no one can engage in a polygamous or incestuous marriage, and I have outlined the reasons why I think that is a good idea to maintain that prohibition. No one's rights are being infringed because the opportunity is being denied to everybody, just as we deny people who are 17 years and 364 days old the opportunity to buy alcohol while allowing those who are a day older to do so. If you would like to outline why you are so approving of polygamy or incest or bestiality or necrophilia or whatever, knock yourself out.

[The Iceman]

You are mashing together concepts of 'rights' here. As things stand, no one can engage in a polygamous or incestuous marriage, and I have outlined the reasons why I think that is a good idea to maintain that prohibition. No one's rights are being infringed because the opportunity is being denied to everybody, just as we deny people who are 17 years and 364 days old the opportunity to buy alcohol while allowing those who are a day older to do so. If you would like to outline why you are so approving of polygamy or incest or bestiality or necrophilia or whatever, knock yourself out.

I'm waving the equal rights for  all flag.
Not just those we deem worthy. Not just the cause of today. All.
Isn't that what equal rights is about?

I didn't talk about animals. Nothing to do with the conversation.
I talked about two or more in the case of polygamy, consenting adults, already together who want the same legal and civil rights traditional, heterosexual couples have today. Why not?

[DickyRock]

Two mother in laws. ARE YOU MAD?

Marry sisters. One problem solved

[Esmarelda]

You are mashing together concepts of 'rights' here. As things stand, no one can engage in a polygamous or incestuous marriage, and I have outlined the reasons why I think that is a good idea to maintain that prohibition. No one's rights are being infringed because the opportunity is being denied to everybody, just as we deny people who are 17 years and 364 days old the opportunity to buy alcohol while allowing those who are a day older to do so. If you would like to outline why you are so approving of polygamy or incest or bestiality or necrophilia or whatever, knock yourself out.

I'm waving the equal rights for  all flag.
Not just those we deem worthy. Not just the cause of today. All.
Isn't that what equal rights is about?

I didn't talk about animals. Nothing to do with the conversation.
I talked about two or more in the case of polygamy, consenting adults, already together who want the same legal and civil rights traditional, heterosexual couples have today. Why not?

I imagine the argument here would be that if there was enough support for any or all of these subgroups then the current Yes side would be happy to support the passing of this referendum. As it stands, there currently is no campaign.

Any one help me out on my adoption/surrogacy rules? This is as good as I've heard anywhere.

[deiseach]

I'm waving the equal rights for  all flag.
Not just those we deem worthy. Not just the cause of today. All.
Isn't that what equal rights is about?

I didn't talk about animals. Nothing to do with the conversation.
I talked about two or more in the case of polygamy, consenting adults, already together who want the same legal and civil rights traditional, heterosexual couples have today. Why not?

I have already explained why I think we should not permit polygamous and incestuous marriages. No ones rights are being infringed because no one is being denied an opportunity that is available to other people. If you wish to persist with the facade that you are waving the banner for equal rights for all, I presume you will start campaigning for children to be able to smoke, drink, vote and get laid. That is your new-found position, right?

[AZOffaly]

You are mashing together concepts of 'rights' here. As things stand, no one can engage in a polygamous or incestuous marriage, and I have outlined the reasons why I think that is a good idea to maintain that prohibition. No one's rights are being infringed because the opportunity is being denied to everybody, just as we deny people who are 17 years and 364 days old the opportunity to buy alcohol while allowing those who are a day older to do so. If you would like to outline why you are so approving of polygamy or incest or bestiality or necrophilia or whatever, knock yourself out.

I'm waving the equal rights for  all flag.
Not just those we deem worthy. Not just the cause of today. All.
Isn't that what equal rights is about?

I didn't talk about animals. Nothing to do with the conversation.
I talked about two or more in the case of polygamy, consenting adults, already together who want the same legal and civil rights traditional, heterosexual couples have today. Why not?

I imagine the argument here would be that if there was enough support for any or all of these subgroups then the current Yes side would be happy to support the passing of this referendum. As it stands, there currently is no campaign.

Any one help me out on my adoption/surrogacy rules? This is as good as I've heard anywhere.

My understanding is that a married couple can apply to adopt a child.
A single gay person (or straight person) can apply to adopt a child.
A lesbian person can get IVF from a surrogate and conceive a biological child.

However, in the event that the biological parent dies, or that the gay 'single' person dies, there is no automatic right that the child would be allowed, or legally entitled, to stay with the remaining partner in the civil partnership.

Marriage automatically gives the surviving partner the right (and duty) of care for the child, regardless of whether the child is biological or adopted.

[deiseach]

I imagine the argument here would be that if there was enough support for any or all of these subgroups then the current Yes side would be happy to support the passing of this referendum. As it stands, there currently is no campaign.

No, that isn't the position of the Yes campaign. This business of saying that if you are in favour of gay marriage then you must be in favour of having no laws at all is quite silly.

[The Iceman]

I'm waving the equal rights for  all flag.
Not just those we deem worthy. Not just the cause of today. All.
Isn't that what equal rights is about?

I didn't talk about animals. Nothing to do with the conversation.
I talked about two or more in the case of polygamy, consenting adults, already together who want the same legal and civil rights traditional, heterosexual couples have today. Why not?

I have already explained why I think we should not permit polygamous and incestuous marriages. No ones rights are being infringed because no one is being denied an opportunity that is available to other people. If you wish to persist with the facade that you are waving the banner for equal rights for all, I presume you will start campaigning for children to be able to smoke, drink, vote and get laid. That is your new-found position, right?

You haven't explained anything really. Simple arguments that the YES vote for gay marriage would wave away.

When the YES vote passes - if we are about equal rights - and not just a trendy agenda - then surely we have to consider and be open to other consenting adults wishing to marry? For rights, for love, for whatever reason they give us. As a state, surely we have to consider them? Surely any new laws passed should not be homosexual specific, we're all just people regardless of gender or sexual orientation right? So surely we would use "human" language rather than "homosexual" to allow consenting adults to marry in Ireland?

If you can't agree with that from an equal rights perspective then I call bull shit on any yes vote for equality for homosexuals. It should be equality for all.

[deiseach]

I speculated at the start of the same-sex marriage that the Yes campaign was going to overreach itself in its efforts to get the referendum passed. If this is the quality of the arguments that are going to be used by the No campaign then the Yes campaign need not worry.

[AZOffaly]

To borrow a metaphor (completely without irony) from Cricket, the Yes side just need to play a straight bat here and it will pass. If you distill it down into granting better legal protection in the area of children adopted by gay couples, and legal rights being brought equal to those of straight marriages, then I find it hard to see how it could lose.

It does not threaten the religious institution of marriage, nor does it threaten the civil institution as far as I can see. It simply closes the gaps that were left open by the Civil Partnership Act, and that's fine by me.

[The Iceman]

I speculated at the start of the same-sex marriage that the Yes campaign was going to overreach itself in its efforts to get the referendum passed. If this is the quality of the arguments that are going to be used by the No campaign then the Yes campaign need not worry.

And yet you have no solid arguments that don't infringe on equal rights. It's an all or nothing argument surely?
I'm not part of the NO campaign by the way. I live in a state where it is completely legal. It will pass in Ireland too. I'm simply asking/challenging you to think what's next? What cause will your children champion? Equal rights for all? Or just some? I don't think the "some" position is sustainable for long.....

[deiseach]

You haven't explained anything really. Simple arguments that the YES vote for gay marriage would wave away.

When the YES vote passes - if we are about equal rights - and not just a trendy agenda - then surely we have to consider and be open to other consenting adults wishing to marry? For rights, for love, for whatever reason they give us. As a state, surely we have to consider them? Surely any new laws passed should not be homosexual specific, we're all just people regardless of gender or sexual orientation right? So surely we would use "human" language rather than "homosexual" to allow consenting adults to marry in Ireland?

If you can't agree with that from an equal rights perspective then I call bull shit on any yes vote for equality for homosexuals. It should be equality for all.

What this amounts to is a litany that if you believe in a change in the limits, you must logically believe in no limits. It's the same kind of arguments that were used by those arguing against miscegenation.

[deiseach]

And yet you have no solid arguments that don't infringe on equal rights. It's an all or nothing argument surely?

See above.