Any advocates for full marriage equality?

Cavehill Red

The gay marriage discussion is a hot topic on boards as in society currently. But while it's generally presented as an issue of equality, I've recently been introduced to the idea that actually it's an issue of access.

In other words, gay marriage is about permitting same sex couples to access the institution of marriage, not about introducing full marriage equality. How so? Well, because some people are still left out.

Before going any further, I want to say I did think about the correct forum for this, and I didn't think the LGBT, Humanities, Personal Issues or any other forum really encompassed this topic. So, while I know what AH can be like, nevertheless there is a wide cross-section of opinion here and it's just possible that we can get a sane discussion going.

So, full marriage equality is, apparently, the right of people to marry as many others as they like, no matter who they are, so long as everyone is a consenting adult. This 'marriage' mentioned on this activist blog features two women and one man, who also happen to be blood mother, son and daughter.

That's going to trigger an incest taboo for many people, I suspect, but is there actually a legitimate, logical argument against polygamous marriages or consanguineous marriages, if everyone involved are consenting adults who aren't being coerced?

Would anyone here be in support of full marriage equality?

(For the record, it's a few bridges too far for me.)

admiralofthefleet

i couldnt give a fiddlers fart as long as they served Irish chicken at the reception

OutlawPete

I am completely and utterly opposed to gay marriage.

Kathleen Watkins is a lovely woman and he should be damn happy to have her.

orourkeda

pippa middletons arse

smokedeels

orourkeda wrote: »

pippa middletons arse

Good point!

I want to legally marry her arse while remaining unattached to the rest of her.

Where's my parade?

starbelgrade

Gays and lesbians should be allowed the same rights as everyone else, including marriage. There's no logical reason against this.

But I draw the line at mothers, sons & daughters marrying each other. That's just pure fucking wrong.

Cavehill Red

starbelgrade wrote: »

Gays and lesbians should be allowed the same rights as everyone else, including marriage. There's no logical reason against this.

But I draw the line at mothers, sons & daughters marrying each other. That's just pure fucking wrong.

I agree. But is there a logical argument against it? There's a small risk of genetic conditions if they had kids, of course. But other than that? Like infertile couples they could simply not have kids, or else just adopt.

The activist blog has a list of what it calls discredited arguments, and says that your (and my) disgust is no different from disgust towards gay marriage only a generation ago - that it's just an 'ick' factor, not based on any logic.

For me, the ick wins out, though.

Kojak

starbelgrade wrote: »

But I draw the line at mothers, sons & daughters marrying each other. That's just pure fucking wrong.

But then what would Jeremy Kyle or Jerry Springer have to shout about? Surely inbreeding is their greatest ally.

Kanoe

I can't do any more gay threads, I'm all gayed out.

admiralofthefleet

Kanoe wrote: »

I can't do any more gay threads, I'm all gayed out.

coo eee

mackg

Some choice exerpts from that blog.

What he didn’t know was that Linda and I had talked about it, and we both wanted to make a move. We’d been flirting with him, really. But we agreed that it would be more likely to happen between us. He was more likely to go with it with his biological sister than his mother.

Matthew: There are no whips or anything like that. There is no fetish. Just a lot of loving, good sex.

I took them out separately to have some time alone with them. It really felt like I was on a date, but with someone I’d known for a long time. The talks on the date just reinforced my thoughts that there was something I still had to find out. When I got back here with Melissa, we danced to a slow love song. I was holding this beautiful woman and, well, I was getting aroused. One thing led to another.

That's just the funny bits, they sound fairly sincere to be fair but a mother a son and a daughter?I don't think that could ever sit right with me.

im invisible

*Googles consanguineous*

admiralofthefleet

im invisible wrote: »

*Googles consanguineous*

no google cleaveland steamer

mackg

also 5 comments on that blog and not one 1 pics or gtfo, whoever reads that needs to get their shit together.

Chuck Stone

How about if we get rid of marriage altogether so gobsheens can be prevented from turning it into a battle ground.

Oranage2

I think every gay couple that gets married should as a wedding present be given a baby!

im invisible

Chuck Stone wrote: »

How about if we get rid of marriage altogether so gobsheens can be prevented from turning it into a battle ground.

how about a fairground?

mackg

Oranage2 wrote: »

I think every gay couple that gets married should as a wedding present be given a baby!

But where do we get the babies?

Chuck Stone

im invisible wrote: »

how about a fairground?

Yeah sfuckin mad shit.

Chuck Stone

mackg wrote: »

But where do we get the babies?

We steal the 1st born from every Jewish couple.

Cavehill Red

im invisible wrote: »

how about a fairground?

It's over 20, so it's adult. But is it consenting?

wonderfulname

I draw the line at incestuous relationships, mainly because I would most certainly contest someone's ability to consent to marrying their own parent, surely this arises from conditioning or impairment and not any free and concious decision on their part, legalising and validating incest surely leaves dependants open to abuse.

Polygamy, IMO, is fine in a truly equal society, which we don't exactly have yet, right now it makes sense to limit the freedoms of people who just have too much love in order to limit the damage of overtly patriarchal sub-cultures and religions.

Cavehill Red

I suppose that's a half a vote in favour of full marriage equality. The ick factor of incest does seem to be a powerful response though.

The problem I'd have with incest is more the possible psychological stuff. Parent/child would be unhealthy, possible conditioning, balance of power, etc. Somewhat similar for brother/sister. If they had been estranged all their lives and only met as adult and then wanted something, I'd have less of a problem.

Polygamy etc, go nuts.

Cavehill Red

In the cases cited on that blog, most of the consanguineous relationships seem to have happened among adult relatives who did not know each other previously (cases of adoption, etc.)

They also talk a lot about genetic sexual attraction, which I don't know much about at all, except insofar that I don't find any of my blood relatives attractive, but apparently this exists and does cause people to fall in love with people they are closely related to.

Coeurdepirate

I don't really see why gay marriage is acting as a synonym for incest in this thread?
As a ghey, I am 100% in favour of same-sex civil marriage being legalised, I am also 100% against incest/polygamy, because of disabilities that children can have out of incestuous sex (also, it's just weird.), and because polygamy encourages male dominance imo, and it's quite de-valuing to women.

jackie1974

Advocating incest would be wrong in every way, we are just getting the issue of familial abuse out in the open and dealing with it as a society. At what age would it become ok to start dating your child ? The age of consent ? If you did feel the want to date your own child how did you see them all along, not in a healthy maternal/paternal way that is for sure.

Polygamy doesn't bother me in the least if all parties are consenting adults and any children brought up in the marraige are healthy, happy and open minded about what kind of relationships they want in their future.

Coeurdepirate

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

As a ghey, I am 100% in favour of same-sex civil marriage being legalised, I am also 100% against incest/polygamy, because of disabilities that children can have out of incestuous sex (also, it's just weird.), and because polygamy encourages male dominance imo, and it's quite de-valuing to women.

God forbid women be allowed to make their own decisions on who to marry

4leto

If 2 people are committed to each other then why not let them marry, yes I am for complete marriage equality. Its not for me, but if others want it, let them.

Dravokivich

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

I don't really see why gay marriage is acting as a synonym for incest in this thread?
As a ghey, I am 100% in favour of same-sex civil marriage being legalised, I am also 100% against incest/polygamy, because of disabilities that children can have out of incestuous sex (also, it's just weird.), and because polygamy encourages male dominance imo, and it's quite de-valuing to women.

Yeah, because a woman couldn't possibly want more than 1 husband...

old hippy

I'm all for gay marriage.

AhSureTisGrand

This thread raises the question of why government should be involved in marriage. I think we should leave the definition of marriage to the individual(s). You can marry your horse but I don't have to recognise this. Two (or more) gays can marry each other but the proto-Orthodox Church of True Mormonism in the Name of Allah Most High doesn't have to recognise this. The only time government gets involved is if the married people have a contract that needs enforcing

It's not as if marriage is even an important public service which not everyone can afford

Chips Lovell

The whole polygamy/incest/etc counter-argument is a nonsense.

When women got the vote, there was never any talk about it being extended to horses or dogs or anything like that.

pajunior

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

This thread raises the question of why government should be involved in marriage. I think we should leave the definition of marriage to the individual(s). You can marry your horse but I don't have to recognise this. Two (or more) gays can marry each other but the proto-Orthodox Church of True Mormonism in the Name of Allah Most High doesn't have to recognise this. The only time government gets involved is if the married people have a contract that needs enforcing

That is a very interesting idea. We would have to re-work our tax and legal system a fair bit but it really could work.

biko

Can a Muslim gay woman have 4 wives?
Anyway I'm all for it, particularly if they're all hot.

AhSureTisGrand

pajunior wrote: »

That is a very interesting idea. We would have to re-work our tax and legal system a fair bit but it really could work.

Yes the tax and legal systems would take quite a bit of work. Also I suspect the proto-Orthodox Church of True Mormonism in the Name of Allah Most High might object to losing their special privileges

4leto

biko wrote: »

Can a Muslim gay woman have 4 wives?
Anyway I'm all for it, particularly if they're all hot.

No a muslin can't be gay, nor can a Christian for that matter. Depends where you are in the Islamic world, some places allow a man to take many wives, some don't.

Also In Afghanistan you can also take a guy as well as your wife and its very socially accepted.

Vladimir Kurtains

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

The whole polygamy/incest/etc counter-argument is a nonsense.

When women got the vote, there was never any talk about it being extended to horses or dogs or anything like that.

I would agree but I would have thought this was an entirely different topic altogether to gay marriage, rather than using it as a deflection ;s

pragmatic1

Gay marrigae=Absolutely.
Polygamy=Wouldnt be for me but dont see the big deal either.
Incest=Hell naw. Thats going into the realms of familial abuse.

Coeurdepirate

bluewolf wrote: »

God forbid women be allowed to make their own decisions on who to marry

Dravokivich wrote: »

Yeah, because a woman couldn't possibly want more than 1 husband...

Does that actually happen though? I am quite ignorant on the topic of polygamy, but I always thought that it only really happened in developing countries where in a lot of cases men are deemed superior to women. Please though, if I am wrong then enlighten me!

PrincessLola

Sorry but there's a reason incest is taboo. Its sick and the children are far less likely to be born healthy.

As for polygamy, it promotes instability in the society as usually only the wealthiest men have all the wives. (One woman with many husbands is far less common).

pragmatic1

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

Does that actually happen though? I am quite ignorant on the topic of polygamy, but I always thought that it only really happened in developing countries where in a lot of cases men are deemed superior to women. Please though, if I am wrong then enlighten me!

It does happen. Its not just the mormons who are into polyamorous relationships.

RachaelVO

It's really more than one topic

Should there be same sex marriage... well yes there should. Marriage is a loving commitment between two people, fail to see why you can't marry the partner of your choosing.

I'm sure at first there would be big numbers of gay marriages, but it would soon even out, just like marriages in general have. Doesn't matter what your sexual orientation is, not everyone wants to get married!

As for the polygamy/bigamy thing, well nah. I for one, wouldn't accept another woman or her children into my home. Mind you I'm pretty sure my husband wouldn't be able for more than one wife. He can barely remember when my birthday, our anniversary, our kids birthdays are, having more would just kill him off. Besides which I think I pretty much drained any life out of him (before anyone else says anything.

As for this incest marriage thing, NO, NO, NO!!! Genetically there is a REALLY good reason we shouldn't marry our family! I cannot see how anyone can find a member of their immediate family marriage material. It's just so wrong on so many levels, it's giving me shivers down my spine just thinking about it!!!! (shiver)

Aishae

The way it works is a child gets 2 copies of each gene. One from each parent. In most cases 1 defective gene will not effect the child if they have one healthy copy of that gene.
Thus, if people who are closely related procreate there is a far more substantial chance of the child getting 2 defective copies of a gene (and thus having genetic diseases or birth defects etc) such as cystic fibrosis (to use one example)
It doesn't matter that the parents do not appear sick etc. As I said in most cases the parent will be ok if they themselves have one healthy gene copy.

This is why inbreeding is a bad idea. A wider gene pool makes for healthier stock. Its not the only way to have a birth defect etc. But it's a big one. And avoidable to a great extent.

I don't understand why gay marriage is being lumped in with incest and polygamy.

As for poly: consenting adults etc.

sensibleken

Coeurdepirate wrote: »

Does that actually happen though? I am quite ignorant on the topic of polygamy, but I always thought that it only really happened in developing countries where in a lot of cases men are deemed superior to women. Please though, if I am wrong then enlighten me!

under brehon law inn ireland it was common for women to have multiple husbands

Cavehill Red

bluewolf wrote: »

I would agree but I would have thought this was an entirely different topic altogether to gay marriage, rather than using it as a deflection ;s

Thank you. This isn't a thread about gay marriage at all. I only mentioned gay marriage in the OP because it was through researching the subject that I came across the 'full marriage equality' movement.

It seems to me that opinion here is divided between those opposed to extending marriage rights at all, those who support the extension to same sex couples but no further, and those who support polyamorous marriages but not consanguineous ones. So far, no one has offered support for that.

However, it would be interesting to see if anyone can take on the arguments presented on that blog. Personally, I can't. They have a logic, but I just can't get over the ick factor of incest in order to support those arguments, however.

Snakeblood

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Thank you. This isn't a thread about gay marriage at all. I only mentioned gay marriage in the OP because it was through researching the subject that I came across the 'full marriage equality' movement.

It seems to me that opinion here is divided between those opposed to extending marriage rights at all, those who support the extension to same sex couples but no further, and those who support polyamorous marriages but not consanguineous ones. So far, no one has offered support for that.

However, it would be interesting to see if anyone can take on the arguments presented on that blog. Personally, I can't. They have a logic, but I just can't get over the ick factor of incest in order to support those arguments, however.

JOSEPH AND MARY NOT MATTHEW AND SON.

Cavehill Red

Snakeblood wrote: »

JOSEPH AND MARY NOT MATTHEW AND SON.

Well, at least you seem to be supportive of extra-marital parenting. Who was it got Mary pregnant again?

Snakeblood

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Well, at least you seem to be supportive of extra-marital parenting. Who was it got Mary pregnant again?

That'd be the postman, or a conveniently blamed deity.

old hippy

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Well, at least you seem to be supportive of extra-marital parenting. Who was it got Mary pregnant again?

A beam of light, according to one of those old religious epics :rolleyes:

pajunior

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Thank you. This isn't a thread about gay marriage at all. I only mentioned gay marriage in the OP because it was through researching the subject that I came across the 'full marriage equality' movement.

It seems to me that opinion here is divided between those opposed to extending marriage rights at all, those who support the extension to same sex couples but no further, and those who support polyamorous marriages but not consanguineous ones. So far, no one has offered support for that.

However, it would be interesting to see if anyone can take on the arguments presented on that blog. Personally, I can't. They have a logic, but I just can't get over the ick factor of incest in order to support those arguments, however.

I've advocated consanguineous marriages in that I think the word marriage can be removed from our constitution/legislation.

What do we need it for?