Polygamy

[Maguire01]

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.

[Maguire01]

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?

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.

[armaghniac]

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.

[J70]

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.

[armaghniac]

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.

[J70]

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.

[seafoid]

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.

[The Iceman]

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.

[seafoid]

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.

[armaghniac]

What does "capable of marriage" mean? Is that in any legal definition?

You know what it means.

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.

Its 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.

[Milltown Row2]

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

[Maguire01]

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.

[Eamonnca1]

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.

[Maguire01]

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?

[J70]

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.

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.

Its 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?