I say legalize it.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 26, 2015, 12:30:21 AM
I say legalize it.
If your wife wants a second husband are you ok with that?
Nope. But if another trio mutually agreed that they wanted a MWM combo then who am I to stop them?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 26, 2015, 12:41:27 AM
Nope. But if another trio mutually agreed that they wanted a MWM combo then who am I to stop them?
Let's say you have two wives and one wants a divorce. Does she get a third of everything or half?
Quote from: muppet on February 26, 2015, 12:52:20 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 26, 2015, 12:41:27 AM
Nope. But if another trio mutually agreed that they wanted a MWM combo then who am I to stop them?
Let's say you have two wives and one wants a divorce. Does she get a third of everything or half?
Those are just trivial details to be ironed out.
The issue is why consenting adults should or should not be allowed to marry more than one person.
Personally, I haven't given it much thought either way.
Quote from: muppet on February 26, 2015, 12:52:20 AM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 26, 2015, 12:41:27 AM
Nope. But if another trio mutually agreed that they wanted a MWM combo then who am I to stop them?
Let's say you have two wives and one wants a divorce. Does she get a third of everything or half?
A third.
Can all three stay in Hotel Fearon?
Equal rights for all!!! good on ye Eamonn! LBGT Polygamist marriages! Make me a sign someone there quick!
:P
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 02:09:33 AM
Equal rights for all!!! good on ye Eamonn! LBGT Polygamist marriages! Make me a sign someone there quick!
:P
Throw in a few illegal immigrants/"asylum seekers" into the mix....passports for all....
I can't fathom it.
I can't think of one husband who says, you know what I need- another wife as well as this one.
Madness.
for that matter I also can't think of one wife who says, you know what I need- more husbands.
You should have a look around Oakland and Berkeley. Plenty of three-way couples living together there.
Two mother in laws. ARE YOU MAD?
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?
Double the nagging!!!! One is bad enough :o
Bisexuals might want to marry a man and a woman.
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 ;)
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)
Quote from: deiseach on February 26, 2015, 07:23:12 AM
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.
Theres a show on TLC called My 5 Wives. A dude in Utah has 5 wives and 25 children and counting! :o mental stuff though I think only one of them is officially his wife
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 26, 2015, 02:24:41 PM
Quote from: deiseach on February 26, 2015, 07:23:12 AM
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?
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 26, 2015, 02:24:41 PM
Quote from: deiseach on February 26, 2015, 07:23:12 AM
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
There's a link here (http://www.marriagequality.ie/getinformed/marriage/faqs.html) showing differences between marriage and civil partnerships.
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:
QuoteLoving, 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?
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.
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?
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.
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!
Quote from: deiseach on February 26, 2015, 03:56:48 PM
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?
Quote from: deiseach on February 26, 2015, 03:56:48 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: deiseach on February 26, 2015, 04:12:27 PM
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?
Quote from: JUst retired on February 26, 2015, 06:50:50 AM
Two mother in laws. ARE YOU MAD?
Marry sisters. One problem solved
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 04:16:09 PM
Quote from: deiseach on February 26, 2015, 04:12:27 PM
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.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 04:16:09 PM
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?
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 26, 2015, 04:24:15 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 04:16:09 PM
Quote from: deiseach on February 26, 2015, 04:12:27 PM
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.
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 26, 2015, 04:24:15 PM
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.
Quote from: deiseach on February 26, 2015, 04:26:38 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 04:16:09 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: deiseach on February 26, 2015, 04:35:03 PM
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.....
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 04:34:19 PM
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.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 04:40:37 PM
And yet you have no solid arguments that don't infringe on equal rights. It's an all or nothing argument surely?
See above.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 04:40:37 PM
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.....
If my children decide to permit polygamy, that's their business. I won't be arguing that permitting polygamy means you have to permit everything, which is why I brought bestiality and necrophilia into the conversation earlier.
Quote from: deiseach on February 26, 2015, 04:44:00 PM
I won't be arguing that permitting polygamy means you have to permit everything, which is why I brought bestiality and necrophilia into the conversation earlier.
The present gay marriage lobby is based on "people want it, so give it to them", and on this basis you cannot argue against polygamy. Bestiality and necrophilia are not exactly between consenting adults, so not relevant to the present discussion I imagine.
The 'gay lobby' is to give them the same rights as a hetero married couple. Not more rights 'just because they want them'.
Polygamy, by it's nature, is not the same as a bipartite relationship with the rights associated. There are obviously far more complicated matters to be worked through, such as inheritance, children etc. There's no guarantee that the wives would all stay together as a family if the husband died (as he inevitably would with all that headache :) )
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 26, 2015, 04:30:59 PM
Quote from: Esmarelda on February 26, 2015, 04:24:15 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 04:16:09 PM
Quote from: deiseach on February 26, 2015, 04:12:27 PM
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.
Thanks AZ.
I'm not sure this has anything to do with the referendum, and definitely nothing to do with polygamy, but a point was made recently about the identity crises experienced by children born from sperm donors.
What I understood it to mean was that such a child would never know their father but additionally, they could have hundreds of half-siblings spread around the world who they would have no knowledge of.
More worryingly was the point that two of these half-siblings may encounter each other and then incest is an increased possibility. Surely this is a current issue? Would this become more of an issue if gay marriage is allowed?
Quote from: armaghniac on February 26, 2015, 04:49:06 PM
The present gay marriage lobby is based on "people want it, so give it to them", and on this basis you cannot argue against polygamy. Bestiality and necrophilia are not exactly between consenting adults, so not relevant to the present discussion I imagine.
No, it isn't. The argument is that is if two heterosexual adults are allowed marry, two homosexual adults should be allowed marry. Now, if people on the No campaign want to argue that marriage is an important institution for the maintenance of social cohesion and permitting it among homosexuals picks at the fabric of that institution, fine. I don't agree, but I wouldn't scoff at someone who honestly held that point of view (while scoffing heartily at the likes of the aforementioned Newt Gingrich). But the idea being proposed here that if you allow gay people marry then you have to logically allow all forms of marriage contract is simply wrong.
We're going around in circles here. I'm leaving it at that.
But sure sperm donors are used by straight couples, or single women who want a baby, far more than by lesbian couples I'd imagine. I don't think concerns about where the sperm ends up, or concerns about the child's knowledge about their donor father, should be any different than it is for hetero customers.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 26, 2015, 04:57:25 PM
But sure sperm donors are used by straight couples, or single women who want a baby, far more than by lesbian couples I'd imagine. I don't think concerns about where the sperm ends up, or concerns about the child's knowledge about their donor father, should be any different than it is for hetero customers.
You're right, which is why I mentioned it as a general point in the first instance.
I'm just thinking out loud about whether it would be an increased issue if gay people are allowed to marry.
Is it not a bit shocking that it isn't an issue currently? I can't think how it can be realistically protected against.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 26, 2015, 04:52:13 PM
The 'gay lobby' is to give them the same rights as a hetero married couple. Not more rights 'just because they want them'.
They already have the same rights, they can marry, they want marriage reorganised their way.
QuotePolygamy, by it's nature, is not the same as a bipartite relationship with the rights associated. There are obviously far more complicated matters to be worked through, such as inheritance, children etc.
As was pointed out in the other thread, same sex couples are going to acquire children by various mechanisms, and some people though that was good thing! This poses questions of inheritance just as complex as polygamy.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 26, 2015, 04:52:13 PM
The 'gay lobby' is to give them the same rights as a hetero married couple. Not more rights 'just because they want them'.
Polygamy, by it's nature, is not the same as a bipartite relationship with the rights associated. There are obviously far more complicated matters to be worked through, such as inheritance, children etc. There's no guarantee that the wives would all stay together as a family if the husband died (as he inevitably would with all that headache :) )
What about brother and sister? Or grandfather and grand-daughter as in other animal breeding programs. Two consenting adults. Fall in love by no fault of their own.
Why not?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 04:40:37 PM
Quote from: deiseach on February 26, 2015, 04:35:03 PM
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.....
Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 05:07:28 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 26, 2015, 04:52:13 PM
The 'gay lobby' is to give them the same rights as a hetero married couple. Not more rights 'just because they want them'.
Polygamy, by it's nature, is not the same as a bipartite relationship with the rights associated. There are obviously far more complicated matters to be worked through, such as inheritance, children etc. There's no guarantee that the wives would all stay together as a family if the husband died (as he inevitably would with all that headache :) )
What about brother and sister? Or grandfather and grand-daughter as in other animal breeding programs. Two consenting adults. Fall in love by no fault of their own.
Why not?
or brother and brother or grandmother and granddaughter, when and if the referendum is passed it will then be a level paying field and those who wish to campaign for the legalization of incestuous relationships and do so without having to address the issue of same sex incestuous relationships being treated differently then male - female ones.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 26, 2015, 05:03:49 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 26, 2015, 04:52:13 PM
The 'gay lobby' is to give them the same rights as a hetero married couple. Not more rights 'just because they want them'.
They already have the same rights, they can marry, they want marriage reorganised their way.
QuotePolygamy, by it's nature, is not the same as a bipartite relationship with the rights associated. There are obviously far more complicated matters to be worked through, such as inheritance, children etc.
As was pointed out in the other thread, same sex couples are going to acquire children by various mechanisms, and some people though that was good thing! This poses questions of inheritance just as complex as polygamy.
They don't have the same rights, they can't 'marry'. And the rights are different. Take a look at the link deiseach posted.
And as for your second point, those issues regarding inheritance, children would absolutely be address by this marriage equality bill. You seem to be labouring under the impression that this bill gives gay couples MORE rights than straight married couples.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 26, 2015, 05:20:18 PM
They don't have the same rights, they can't 'marry'. And the rights are different. Take a look at the link deiseach posted.
That wasn't my point. Gay people can marry at present, they just don't wish to as they want a same sex relationship. The design of marriage doesn't suit them, but this is true for people who wish to marry several people, there is no difference in their situation.
Quote from: AZOffaly
And as for your second point, those issues regarding inheritance, children would absolutely be address by this marriage equality bill. You seem to be labouring under the impression that this bill gives gay couples MORE rights than straight married couples.
Notwithstanding a certain number of unusual situations, most children have a straightforward relationship with their married parents at present. Zero % of children in SSM will have this straightforward relationship. If anything, polygamy would raise fewer issues.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 26, 2015, 05:36:02 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 26, 2015, 05:20:18 PM
They don't have the same rights, they can't 'marry'. And the rights are different. Take a look at the link deiseach posted.
That wasn't my point. Gay people can marry at present, they just don't wish to as they want a same sex relationship. The design of marriage doesn't suit them, but this is true for people who wish to marry several people, there is no difference in their situation.
Quote from: AZOffaly
And as for your second point, those issues regarding inheritance, children would absolutely be address by this marriage equality bill. You seem to be labouring under the impression that this bill gives gay couples MORE rights than straight married couples.
Notwithstanding a certain number of unusual situations, most children have a straightforward relationship with their married parents at present. Zero % of children in SSM will have this straightforward relationship. If anything, polygamy would raise fewer issues.
So what you are saying is that gay people should shut up and marry a member of the opposite sex if they want to get married so badly?
I see :)
Lookit, I understand your opposition to it, but dressing it up as if a vote for gay marriage equality means we should allow anyone to get married to anyone or anything they like is a pretty big reach.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 05:07:28 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 26, 2015, 04:52:13 PM
The 'gay lobby' is to give them the same rights as a hetero married couple. Not more rights 'just because they want them'.
Polygamy, by it's nature, is not the same as a bipartite relationship with the rights associated. There are obviously far more complicated matters to be worked through, such as inheritance, children etc. There's no guarantee that the wives would all stay together as a family if the husband died (as he inevitably would with all that headache :) )
What about brother and sister? Or grandfather and grand-daughter as in other animal breeding programs. Two consenting adults. Fall in love by no fault of their own.
Why not?
Does this not happen in certain parts of Armagh anyway?
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 26, 2015, 05:38:26 PM
So what you are saying is that gay people should shut up and marry a member of the opposite sex if they want to get married so badly?
Either get married or don't. But if you don't, then stop trying to undermine marriage so that you can get in.
Quote from: AZOffalyI see :)
If you see, you haven't admitted it.
Quote from: AZOffalyLookit, I understand your opposition to it, but dressing it up as if a vote for gay marriage equality means we should allow anyone to get married to anyone or anything they like is a pretty big reach.
If you believe that marriage is all about consenting adults doing what makes them happy, and that others have no legitimate interest in it, a contention made about the current referendum, then you cannot object to polygamy etc.
So this is the tactic then? Make it so that a vote for gay marriage equality, is actually a vote for polygamy and who knows what else. Fair enough. It's a fairly desperate argument though.
At least I can see that Eamonn might not be on the wind up, because he lives in California, and that does funny things to a man :) But I can't believe yourself or Iceman would be in favour of polygamy, so therefore you are using gay marriage as the old 'thin end of the wedge' argument.
It is actually an interesting topic, who defines morality or social niceties? But it's not really relevant to this referendum which is basically asking us do we want to confer equal rights on a gay couple, as on their equivalent straight couple. It's as straight forward, and complex, as that.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 03:40:19 PM
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:
QuoteLoving, 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?
You've never heard of inbreeding?
Animals generally don't mate with siblings or parents, unless human breeders facilitate it. Dispersal exists for a reason.
Quote from: J70 on February 26, 2015, 06:09:40 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 03:40:19 PM
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:
QuoteLoving, 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?
You've never heard of inbreeding?
Animals generally don't mate with siblings or parents, unless human breeders facilitate it. Dispersal exists for a reason.
Who's talking about mating? It's just consentual sex for pleasure and love - no babies need come in to the question.
and yes I know what inbreeding is I'm a country boy and I've known of grandfathers to grand-daughters being breed in the dog and horse worlds to lock in genetic traits - it's common practice.
@AZ I'm just trying to see where equality ends, where it starts, who falls into the category today, tomorrow..... that type of thinking. My whole position is I don't believe the human rights or equality argument. If it was genuine then I think people would be more open to polygamy or siblings marrying. A lot of the arguments for gay marriage can be made just as validly for polygamy and incestuous marriage.
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 26, 2015, 06:07:46 PM
So this is the tactic then? Make it so that a vote for gay marriage equality, is actually a vote for polygamy and who knows what else. Fair enough. It's a fairly desperate argument though.
It is logical argument.
It is bit sad though that those who profess "equality", are then quite happy to continue to deny those who love more than one person their human rights.
And while incest isn't that popular in Armagh, in Germany it is a "fundamental right".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11119062/Incest-a-fundamental-right-German-committee-says.html
But sure all is well, as long as they love each other.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 06:14:34 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 26, 2015, 06:09:40 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 03:40:19 PM
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:
QuoteLoving, 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?
You've never heard of inbreeding?
Animals generally don't mate with siblings or parents, unless human breeders facilitate it. Dispersal exists for a reason.
Who's talking about mating? It's just consentual sex for pleasure and love - no babies need come in to the question.
and yes I know what inbreeding is I'm a country boy and I've known of grandfathers to grand-daughters being breed in the dog and horse worlds to lock in genetic traits - it's common practice.
@AZ I'm just trying to see where equality ends, where it starts, who falls into the category today, tomorrow..... that type of thinking. My whole position is I don't believe the human rights or equality argument. If it was genuine then I think people would be more open to polygamy or siblings marrying. A lot of the arguments for gay marriage can be made just as validly for polygamy and incestuous marriage.
Well surely, if you're going to persist down this road in your argument, the sibling partners or whatever might have accidents or maybe even deliberately conceive children, just like the rest of us. Are you going to allow them to be together but only under a breeding prohibition? Throw a wee bit of forced sterilization into it and reintroduce eugenics? Legalize abortion?
Slippery slope arguments are so stupid and desperate.
I'm not sure I would have an issue with polygamy. I'd have to look at the arguments, but, purely between consenting adults, and without having given it much thought, I don't see the harm.
Incest - outside of child abuse, how common is it? Is there a demand out there to be allowed to marry your sister? The procreation issue is obviously extremely troubling.
Quote from: J70 on February 26, 2015, 06:33:04 PM
I'm not sure I would have an issue with polygamy. I'd have to look at the arguments, but, purely between consenting adults, and without having given it much thought, I don't see the harm.
Incest - outside of child abuse, how common is it? Is there a demand out there to be allowed to marry your sister? The procreation issue is obviously extremely troubling.
I know sets of first cousins who are married - I think thats quite common. I don't know about siblings. what % of the population would need it before it became legal? 1%? Or less than the gay population?
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 06:35:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 26, 2015, 06:33:04 PM
I'm not sure I would have an issue with polygamy. I'd have to look at the arguments, but, purely between consenting adults, and without having given it much thought, I don't see the harm.
Incest - outside of child abuse, how common is it? Is there a demand out there to be allowed to marry your sister? The procreation issue is obviously extremely troubling.
I know sets of first cousins who are married - I think thats quite common. I don't know about siblings. what % of the population would need it before it became legal? 1%? Or less than the gay population?
Really what does it matter? surely as long as you are happy, they are happy who gives a fcuk? why bust your balls over something that really in the big grand scheme of things won't make a difference to you or your family? unless your kids grow up being 'gay' and want to marry their partners or even marry each other...
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 26, 2015, 06:43:28 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 06:35:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 26, 2015, 06:33:04 PM
I'm not sure I would have an issue with polygamy. I'd have to look at the arguments, but, purely between consenting adults, and without having given it much thought, I don't see the harm.
Incest - outside of child abuse, how common is it? Is there a demand out there to be allowed to marry your sister? The procreation issue is obviously extremely troubling.
I know sets of first cousins who are married - I think thats quite common. I don't know about siblings. what % of the population would need it before it became legal? 1%? Or less than the gay population?
Really what does it matter? surely as long as you are happy, they are happy who gives a fcuk? why bust your balls over something that really in the big grand scheme of things won't make a difference to you or your family? unless your kids grow up being 'gay' and want to marry their partners or even marry each other...
I don't know. Why did you take the time to post in the thread?
I think it's important to discuss who we are today and where we are headed as society. It's good to challenge our thinking, our beliefs our morals our ethics our views.
Shake it all up and see where it settles....
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 06:46:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on February 26, 2015, 06:43:28 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 06:35:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 26, 2015, 06:33:04 PM
I'm not sure I would have an issue with polygamy. I'd have to look at the arguments, but, purely between consenting adults, and without having given it much thought, I don't see the harm.
Incest - outside of child abuse, how common is it? Is there a demand out there to be allowed to marry your sister? The procreation issue is obviously extremely troubling.
I know sets of first cousins who are married - I think thats quite common. I don't know about siblings. what % of the population would need it before it became legal? 1%? Or less than the gay population?
Really what does it matter? surely as long as you are happy, they are happy who gives a fcuk? why bust your balls over something that really in the big grand scheme of things won't make a difference to you or your family? unless your kids grow up being 'gay' and want to marry their partners or even marry each other...
I don't know. Why did you take the time to post in the thread?
I think it's important to discuss who we are today and where we are headed as society. It's good to challenge our thinking, our beliefs our morals our ethics our views.
Shake it all up and see where it settles....
If you don't know who you are today, you'll never know, as a society it's always changing, that's the way it's always been, had you been born in the 20's you'd have been against women voting, always people against change
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 06:35:56 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 26, 2015, 06:33:04 PM
I'm not sure I would have an issue with polygamy. I'd have to look at the arguments, but, purely between consenting adults, and without having given it much thought, I don't see the harm.
Incest - outside of child abuse, how common is it? Is there a demand out there to be allowed to marry your sister? The procreation issue is obviously extremely troubling.
I know sets of first cousins who are married - I think thats quite common. I don't know about siblings. what % of the population would need it before it became legal? 1%? Or less than the gay population?
I was asking if there was a demand for it.
First cousin marriage has been routine through most of history. There is big difference between having the same parents and sharing one of four grandparents.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 05:07:28 PM
Quote from: AZOffaly on February 26, 2015, 04:52:13 PM
The 'gay lobby' is to give them the same rights as a hetero married couple. Not more rights 'just because they want them'.
Polygamy, by it's nature, is not the same as a bipartite relationship with the rights associated. There are obviously far more complicated matters to be worked through, such as inheritance, children etc. There's no guarantee that the wives would all stay together as a family if the husband died (as he inevitably would with all that headache :) )
What about brother and sister? Or grandfather and grand-daughter as in other animal breeding programs. Two consenting adults. Fall in love by no fault of their own.
Why not?
Once
again, equality is not about giving people what they want, it's about not discriminating against people on the basis of things they can't change, such as race, gender, sexuality, disability...
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 26, 2015, 07:12:46 PM
Once again, equality is not about giving people what they want, it's about not discriminating against people on the basis of things they can't change, such as race, gender, sexuality, disability...
OK then, let's not discriminate against blind people becoming pilots.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 26, 2015, 07:16:16 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 26, 2015, 07:12:46 PM
Once again, equality is not about giving people what they want, it's about not discriminating against people on the basis of things they can't change, such as race, gender, sexuality, disability...
OK then, let's not discriminate against blind people becoming pilots.
So where is the liability and safety and plain job performance issue in granting gay people the right to marry?
Quote from: armaghniac on February 26, 2015, 07:16:16 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 26, 2015, 07:12:46 PM
Once again, equality is not about giving people what they want, it's about not discriminating against people on the basis of things they can't change, such as race, gender, sexuality, disability...
OK then, let's not discriminate against blind people becoming pilots.
There's a legal term known as objective justification - i.e. if there is a genuine justification for discrimination, for example, when someone physically can't do the job, it's not unlawful.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 06:14:34 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 26, 2015, 06:09:40 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 03:40:19 PM
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:
QuoteLoving, 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?
You've never heard of inbreeding?
Animals generally don't mate with siblings or parents, unless human breeders facilitate it. Dispersal exists for a reason.
Who's talking about mating? It's just consentual sex for pleasure and love - no babies need come in to the question.
and yes I know what inbreeding is I'm a country boy and I've known of grandfathers to grand-daughters being breed in the dog and horse worlds to lock in genetic traits - it's common practice.
@AZ I'm just trying to see where equality ends, where it starts, who falls into the category today, tomorrow..... that type of thinking. My whole position is I don't believe the human rights or equality argument. If it was genuine then I think people would be more open to polygamy or siblings marrying. A lot of the arguments for gay marriage can be made just as validly for polygamy and incestuous marriage.
I'm sure there were people raising similar concerns when the ban on inter-racial marriage was being challenged in the US.
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 26, 2015, 07:38:04 PM
I'm sure there were people raising similar concerns when the ban on inter-racial marriage was being challenged in the US.
Perhaps there were, but an inter-racial marriage ban was simple prejudice, here we are talking about a redefinition of marriage.
Discussion of inter-racial marriage is a complete attempt at diversion.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 26, 2015, 07:53:31 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 26, 2015, 07:38:04 PM
I'm sure there were people raising similar concerns when the ban on inter-racial marriage was being challenged in the US.
Perhaps there were, but an inter-racial marriage ban was simple prejudice, here we are talking about a redefinition of marriage.
Discussion of inter-racial marriage is a complete attempt at diversion.
The lifting on the prohibition on interracial marriage was also a "redefinition". After all, a white person couldn't legally marry a black person, just like a person can't legally marry someone of the same sex. Marriage is a legal contract between two people - changing the law on which pairings are allowed to enter into the contract is a redefinition.
Quote from: J70 on February 26, 2015, 07:59:09 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 26, 2015, 07:53:31 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 26, 2015, 07:38:04 PM
I'm sure there were people raising similar concerns when the ban on inter-racial marriage was being challenged in the US.
Perhaps there were, but an inter-racial marriage ban was simple prejudice, here we are talking about a redefinition of marriage.
Discussion of inter-racial marriage is a complete attempt at diversion.
The lifting on the prohibition on interracial marriage was also a "redefinition". After all, a white person couldn't legally marry a black person, just like a person can't legally marry someone of the same sex. Marriage is a legal contract between two people - changing the law on which pairings are allowed to enter into the contract is a redefinition.
It was not a redefinition of marriage, nobody doubted that a man and woman of different race were as capable of marriage as anyone else. It was an alteration in the set of people able to enter to marriage to remove a discrimination. It has no relevance to the present situation, other than to disrupt debate.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 26, 2015, 08:03:42 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 26, 2015, 07:59:09 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 26, 2015, 07:53:31 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 26, 2015, 07:38:04 PM
I'm sure there were people raising similar concerns when the ban on inter-racial marriage was being challenged in the US.
Perhaps there were, but an inter-racial marriage ban was simple prejudice, here we are talking about a redefinition of marriage.
Discussion of inter-racial marriage is a complete attempt at diversion.
The lifting on the prohibition on interracial marriage was also a "redefinition". After all, a white person couldn't legally marry a black person, just like a person can't legally marry someone of the same sex. Marriage is a legal contract between two people - changing the law on which pairings are allowed to enter into the contract is a redefinition.
It was not a redefinition of marriage, nobody doubted that a man and woman of different race were as capable of marriage as anyone else. It was an alteration in the set of people able to enter to marriage to remove a discrimination. It has no relevance to the present situation, other than to disrupt debate.
What does "capable of marriage" mean? Is that in any legal definition?
And I can see why you find the comparison to interracial marriage inconvenient. Doesn't make it irrelevant, however. Its laughable that anyone would deny that prejudice is an issue in this debate.
Some Mormon sub cults do polygamy but it would be very hard to get Irish women to adjust to the practice. Plus it's expensive.
And a complete non sequitur concerning gay marriage.
Quote from: seafoid on February 26, 2015, 09:35:09 PM
Some Mormon sub cults do polygamy but it would be very hard to get Irish women to adjust to the practice. Plus it's expensive.
And a complete non sequitur concerning gay marriage.
It's not about gay marriage, Its about equal marriage rights for consenting adults.....lets not confuse the two.
Quote from: The Iceman on February 26, 2015, 09:36:14 PM
Quote from: seafoid on February 26, 2015, 09:35:09 PM
Some Mormon sub cults do polygamy but it would be very hard to get Irish women to adjust to the practice. Plus it's expensive.
And a complete non sequitur concerning gay marriage.
It's not about gay marriage, Its about equal marriage rights for consenting adults.....lets not confuse the two.
Polygamy is never going to catch on amongst breeders, Iceman. Forget it
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/nov/21/religion.gender
We all live in the same house. We have a bunk-bed double on the bottom and single on the top. Husband, first wife and the "ON" wife sleep on the bottom and the other two "OFF" wives sleep above. We find this very intimate as we all are sleeping in the same bed though on different levels and we can still feel and hear what is happening when sex happens in our bed.
Relationships between us sisterwives are in the main quite good as our first wife Hanna is the main force in our household and will settle most of the disputes between the other wives herself without our husband being involved. There are jealousies - this is inevitable between any group of women living closely together. Our husband does his best to be fair to all of us but we all have our own opinion of what is fair, don't we.
Sex, now that is the big one. In our household we have one week (but only on six days we can have sex with him) sleeping with our husband and three weeks off. Our first wife has the Saturdays with our husband in addition to her week so she gets four extra days with him in each cycle. That's why she sleeps on the lower bunk every night with the "ON" wife. In reality we have sex in an average week about two to three times in the six days we can have sex with our husband. Though it's not totally satisfying (two or three times a month) for us we do find that having a week with our husband is the better method then the one-night method used by others.
Quote from: J70 on February 26, 2015, 08:23:15 PM
What does "capable of marriage" mean? Is that in any legal definition?
You know what it means.
Quote from: J70
And I can see why you find the comparison to interracial marriage inconvenient. Doesn't make it irrelevant, however. Its laughable that anyone would deny that prejudice is an issue in this debate.
I find the comparison ridiculous. It is clearly irrelevant and the use of something irrelevant in this discussion degrades those who use it.
Quote from: J70Its laughable that anyone would deny that prejudice is an issue in this debate.
Who denied this?
It isn't difficult, despite the filibuster tactics to try and make something irrelevant somehow relevant. The prohibition on mixed race marriage as something that occurred in some places at some times, it was a temporary distortion. The object of the prohibition on mixed race marriage was to prohibit relations between people of different races, it wasn't concerned with the definition of marriage. The present debate is concerned with the definition of marriage and does not involve any prohibition on the relationships concerned, only on the name given to that relationship.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 26, 2015, 08:03:42 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 26, 2015, 07:59:09 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 26, 2015, 07:53:31 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 26, 2015, 07:38:04 PM
I'm sure there were people raising similar concerns when the ban on inter-racial marriage was being challenged in the US.
Perhaps there were, but an inter-racial marriage ban was simple prejudice, here we are talking about a redefinition of marriage.
Discussion of inter-racial marriage is a complete attempt at diversion.
The lifting on the prohibition on interracial marriage was also a "redefinition". After all, a white person couldn't legally marry a black person, just like a person can't legally marry someone of the same sex. Marriage is a legal contract between two people - changing the law on which pairings are allowed to enter into the contract is a redefinition.
It was not a redefinition of marriage, nobody doubted that a man and woman of different race were as capable of marriage as anyone else. It was an alteration in the set of people able to enter to marriage to remove a discrimination. It has no relevance to the present situation, other than to disrupt debate.
Lets not disrupt the debate??? Have you read some of your previous posts?.... Blind pilots hmmm
Quote from: armaghniac on February 26, 2015, 07:53:31 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on February 26, 2015, 07:38:04 PM
I'm sure there were people raising similar concerns when the ban on inter-racial marriage was being challenged in the US.
Perhaps there were, but an inter-racial marriage ban was simple prejudice, here we are talking about a redefinition of marriage.
Discussion of inter-racial marriage is a complete attempt at diversion.
No, it's just inconvenient and uncomfortable for you.
I've changed my mind. It'd be too hard for them to remember whose turn it is to wash the dishes. Easier if you stick to two.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 26, 2015, 10:24:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 26, 2015, 08:23:15 PM
What does "capable of marriage" mean? Is that in any legal definition?
You know what it means.
Well given that same-sex marriage is already practice in other countries, we can assume that same-sex couples are "capable of marriage", no?
Quote from: armaghniac on February 26, 2015, 10:24:22 PM
Quote from: J70 on February 26, 2015, 08:23:15 PM
What does "capable of marriage" mean? Is that in any legal definition?
You know what it means.
I know what I think it means, and it doesn't preclude gay people. Apparently your definition differs, hence my question.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 26, 2015, 10:24:22 PM
Quote from: J70
And I can see why you find the comparison to interracial marriage inconvenient. Doesn't make it irrelevant, however. Its laughable that anyone would deny that prejudice is an issue in this debate.
I find the comparison ridiculous. It is clearly irrelevant and the use of something irrelevant in this discussion degrades those who use it.
Quote from: J70Its laughable that anyone would deny that prejudice is an issue in this debate.
Who denied this?
It isn't difficult, despite the filibuster tactics to try and make something irrelevant somehow relevant. The prohibition on mixed race marriage as something that occurred in some places at some times, it was a temporary distortion. The object of the prohibition on mixed race marriage was to prohibit relations between people of different races, it wasn't concerned with the definition of marriage. The present debate is concerned with the definition of marriage and does not involve any prohibition on the relationships concerned, only on the name given to that relationship.
First, your acknowledgement that prejudice may well be an issue is one reason why the prohibition on gays getting married is comparable to that on interracial marriage. The interracial prohibition, and resistance to gay marriage are based on one thing, and one thing only: prejudice.
Because, if prejudice isn't a factor, why would anyone give a bollocks about gay people getting married? Seriously! The motivation is exactly the same in both cases.
Secondly, any law that prevents ANY pairing from entering into marriage is very obviously defining "marriage". If you're not legally entitled to marry a person of another race, then any relationship you have with that person, even if you got legally married in another jurisdiction, cannot be considered a marriage under the law.
If you're talking about marriage as defined by the catholic church or whatever, fine, just say so. It doesn't have any relevance to this debate however.
And given that you've spent the last two weeks trying to make the case that gay couples should NOT be entitled to the fiscal and other benefits of marriage, how can you argue now that its merely about a label?
Quote from: J70 on February 27, 2015, 01:20:14 AM
First, your acknowledgement that prejudice may well be an issue is one reason why the prohibition on gays getting married is comparable to that on interracial marriage. The interracial prohibition, and resistance to gay marriage are based on one thing, and one thing only: prejudice.
Because, if prejudice isn't a factor, why would anyone give a bollocks about gay people getting married? Seriously! The motivation is exactly the same in both cases.
Marriage isn't broken, there is no need to change it and it is an important thing and shouldn't be fiddled with lightly.
QuoteSecondly, any law that prevents ANY pairing from entering into marriage is very obviously defining "marriage". If you're not legally entitled to marry a person of another race, then any relationship you have with that person, even if you got legally married in another jurisdiction, cannot be considered a marriage under the law.
This is only playing with words. Prohibiting mixed race marriage had no relevance to the present debate.
QuoteIf you're talking about marriage as defined by the catholic church or whatever, fine, just say so. It doesn't have any relevance to this debate however.
This has nothing particularly to do with the Catholic church, marriage isn't that different in different societies and religions.
QuoteAnd given that you've spent the last two weeks trying to make the case that gay couples should NOT be entitled to the fiscal and other benefits of marriage, how can you argue now that its merely about a label?
It is a label which describes a package of legal rights and obligations. My reference to it being a label was a reference to the fact that it is no way affects the conduct of the relationship itself, despite all the hype that people being together and so on. Prohibitions on mixed race marriages included people "living as man and wife" and so were intended to preclude the relationship, but then I'm sure that you know this very well.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 27, 2015, 01:39:22 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 27, 2015, 01:20:14 AM
First, your acknowledgement that prejudice may well be an issue is one reason why the prohibition on gays getting married is comparable to that on interracial marriage. The interracial prohibition, and resistance to gay marriage are based on one thing, and one thing only: prejudice.
Because, if prejudice isn't a factor, why would anyone give a bollocks about gay people getting married? Seriously! The motivation is exactly the same in both cases.
Marriage isn't broken, there is no need to change it and it is an important thing and shouldn't be fiddled with lightly.
Who is fiddling with it? We're extending the rights to another group of people. Those already entitled to it will not be affected in the slightest. Nothing is going to change for heterosexual marriage.
Unless you're finally going to explain how permitting gay marriage is going to "undermine" heterosexual marriage?
Quote from: armaghniac on February 27, 2015, 01:39:22 AM
QuoteSecondly, any law that prevents ANY pairing from entering into marriage is very obviously defining "marriage". If you're not legally entitled to marry a person of another race, then any relationship you have with that person, even if you got legally married in another jurisdiction, cannot be considered a marriage under the law.
This is only playing with words. Prohibiting mixed race marriage had no relevance to the present debate.
Playing with words? You're the one going about changing the definition. I'm merely pointing out that it has been changed in the past, with no ill effect, once prejudice had been faced down. Just like it will this time.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 27, 2015, 01:39:22 AM
QuoteIf you're talking about marriage as defined by the catholic church or whatever, fine, just say so. It doesn't have any relevance to this debate however.
This has nothing particularly to do with the Catholic church, marriage isn't that different in different societies and religions.
Apart from those that currently and historically practiced various forms of polygamy
Quote from: armaghniac on February 27, 2015, 01:39:22 AM
QuoteAnd given that you've spent the last two weeks trying to make the case that gay couples should NOT be entitled to the fiscal and other benefits of marriage, how can you argue now that its merely about a label?
It is a label which describes a package of legal rights and obligations. My reference to it being a label was a reference to the fact that it is no way affects the conduct of the relationship itself, despite all the hype that people being together and so on. Prohibitions on mixed race marriages included people "living as man and wife" and so were intended to preclude the relationship, but then I'm sure that you know this very well.
Well then its not "just" a label then, is it? And the whole point is that the gay couples will also be entitled to the extra privileges that heterosexual married people are.
On the second issue, my point stands. Opposition to gay marriage is motivated by prejudice. Whether or not society has left the opponents behind in the progress made in gay rights so far doesn't change that. Marriage is just another line in the sand for them. Prejudice is prejudice, whether it is against another race or against gay people.
BTW, why do you care whether or not gay couples get tax benefits?
On the benefits issue, in the US, same-sex couples now receive the same protections as heterosexual couples under the Family and Medical Leave Act when caring for a spouse with a serious illness. Basically means they can take unpaid leave to look after their loved ones, but keep their job, just like other couples.
Just one very important reason that allowing same-sex couples to actually marry matters.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 27, 2015, 01:39:22 AM
Quote from: J70 on February 27, 2015, 01:20:14 AM
First, your acknowledgement that prejudice may well be an issue is one reason why the prohibition on gays getting married is comparable to that on interracial marriage. The interracial prohibition, and resistance to gay marriage are based on one thing, and one thing only: prejudice.
Because, if prejudice isn't a factor, why would anyone give a bollocks about gay people getting married? Seriously! The motivation is exactly the same in both cases.
Marriage isn't broken, there is no need to change it and it is an important thing and shouldn't be fiddled with lightly.
Smalltown boy was released in 1984.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xuz94ZIPfJk
Life for gay people in Ireland and the UK has changed enormously since then, for the better.
They should be allowed to get married and share the benefits afforded to the rest of society
Q: What is the music at a polygamous wedding?
A: I do, I do, I do.
Quote from: armaghniac on February 27, 2015, 05:37:06 PM
Q: What is the music at a polygamous wedding?
A: I do, I do, I do.
Excellent. Take the rest of the week off!
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on February 27, 2015, 06:50:03 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on February 27, 2015, 05:37:06 PM
Q: What is the music at a polygamous wedding?
A: I do, I do, I do.
Excellent. Take the rest of the week off!
It being Saturday, I think I will.
Not sure if this is the best place to put this link but it might make a few heads explode.
http://skeleton-love.diply.com/auntyacid/kissing-skeletons-love-has-no-labels/101140
If you'd found three girls doing that then it'd be the right thread. That's your assignment. Away you go.