Polygamy

[armaghniac]

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.

I see

If you see, you haven't admitted it.

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.

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.

[AZOffaly]

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.

[J70]

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.

[The Iceman]

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

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

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

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

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.

[armaghniac]

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.

[J70]

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.

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.

[J70]

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.

[The Iceman]

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?

[Milltown Row2]

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...

[The Iceman]

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....

[Milltown Row2]

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

[J70]

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.

[Maguire01]

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...

[armaghniac]

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.

[J70]

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?