Polygamy

[deiseach]

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.

[armaghniac]

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.

[AZOffaly]

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 )

[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.

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?

[deiseach]

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.

[AZOffaly]

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.

[Esmarelda]

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.

[armaghniac]

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.

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.

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.

[The Iceman]

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?

[gallsman]

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.

[guy crouchback]

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.

[AZOffaly]

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.

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.

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.

[armaghniac]

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. 

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.

[AZOffaly]

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. 

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.

[Milltown Row2]

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?