Any advocates for full marriage equality?

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.

coffee_cake

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?

Snakeblood

pajunior wrote: »

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?

40 year arguments.

Cavehill Red

pajunior wrote: »

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?

In other words, resolve the issue of only some relationships being 'honoured' with the tag of institutional and state recognition by recognising no forms of relationship?
Interesting. And presumably, you'd also advocate the decriminalisation of such relationships too?

pajunior

Cavehill Red wrote: »

In other words, resolve the issue of only some relationships being 'honoured' with the tag of institutional and state recognition by recognising no forms of relationship?
Interesting. And presumably, you'd also advocate the decriminalisation of such relationships too?

I never said that you are just reading between the lines.

Personally I would be against it because of the risk of genetic diseases plus the possibility of an un-safe relationship between a parent and child even if it isn't sexual before they hit the age of consent. However I really don't know enough about it to properly comment.

strobe

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

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

I'd certainly be leaning towards to this line of thinking. Scrap it, waste of time and causes more issues than it solves. If you want to invite your mates round for a party and say "here everyone, me and Bianca are planning on riding each other for the rest of our lives" or something to that effect, or promise whatever God you believe in that you will make more humans for him together, then off ye go sure. Don't see where tax issues or the courts of the state should enter into the whole thing.

Maybe in times gone by there was a reasonable argument for government issued legally binding marriage but not any more.

mackg

sensibleken wrote: »

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

With sexy results:pac:

Chuck Stone

The thing about this argument is that people who are anti-gay marriage will say 'see - where does it stop - with animals marrying humming beans?'

So because someone somewhere wants to get married to a horse gay folk will be frustrated from achieving equal marriage status.

Cavehill Red

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The thing about this argument is that people who are anti-gay marriage will say 'see - where does it stop - with animals marrying humming beans?'

So because someone somewhere wants to get married to a horse gay folk will be frustrated from achieving equal marriage status.

Surely the issue there is that of informed adult consent? A horse can't give consent, nor a bean. Nor indeed a rollercoaster. And importantly, nor can a child.

If the principle of informed adult consent is adhered to, then what is the argument against polygamous or consanguineous marriages? Similarly, because some people find the concept of polygamous or consanguineous marriages icky, is that sufficient reason to prevent them from achieving equal marriage status?

Personally, I'm not comfortable with the concept at all, but I accept that my objection is visceral rather than logical. If marriage is to be interpreted as an official recognition of an adult relationship, what logical reasons are there for ruling some such relationships in and others out of that?

enfant terrible

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Surely the issue there is that of informed adult consent? A horse can't give consent, nor a bean. Nor indeed a rollercoaster. And importantly, nor can a child.

If the principle of informed adult consent is adhered to, then what is the argument against polygamous or consanguineous marriages? Similarly, because some people find the concept of polygamous or consanguineous marriages icky, is that sufficient reason to prevent them from achieving equal marriage status?

Personally, I'm not comfortable with the concept at all, but I accept that my objection is visceral rather than logical. If marriage is to be interpreted as an official recognition of an adult relationship, what logical reasons are there for ruling some such relationships in and others out of that?

Risk of genetic defect was the reason some people gave.

But if there was no possibility of a pregnancy in the marriage would it be ok to these people then.

miss no stars

I think how I see it is relatively simple. Civil partnership is a public commitment to remain faithful to one person. Marriage is more than just a commitment to remain faithful to a person. It affords inheritence rights and taxation difference and whatever else, I have no reason to know the minutae, but suffice it to say that

marriage = (civil partnership) + (financial rights & Responsibilities)

I fully support gay marriage. I see no reason whatsoever to oppose it.

I support civil partnership for polyamarous relationships, without prejudicing the right to of any one person to marry one other person. Why? If it's just about affirming the relationship between however many, civil partnership should suffice. Allowing marriage for multiple people could be far too easily abused - there are enough sham marriages as it is. People shouldn't be able to marry their way out of their tax liabilities.

I do not support either civil partnership or marriage for consanguineous relationships where the people are first cousins (incl once and twice removed) or closer. Second cousins on, sure we're such a small country that you probably share as many genes with your second cousin as you do with a random stranger who looks a bit like you. (Maybe I'm wrong though :P). I'd still find second cousins marrying a bit... odd, though. Especially if they knew each other growing up. Like, there are plenty of people out there - why marry a family member? As for a logical reason why a brother and sister can't marry? Does it REALLY need one?

pajunior

miss no stars wrote: »

I do not support either civil partnership or marriage for consanguineous relationships where the people are first cousins (incl once and twice removed) or closer. Second cousins on, sure we're such a small country that you probably share as many genes with your second cousin as you do with a random stranger who looks a bit like you. (Maybe I'm wrong though :P). I'd still find second cousins marrying a bit... odd, though. Especially if they knew each other growing up. Like, there are plenty of people out there - why marry a family member? As for a logical reason why a brother and sister can't marry? Does it REALLY need one?

I may be wrong but I've heard many times that you are more genetically compatible with your first cousin then your second.
First cousin the baby should be normal, it's the second cousin you need to be wary off. Which is a big worry for me because I don't do a lot of family stuff and barely know my first cousins and don't have a clue about 90% of my second cousins :pac:

Also apparently the reason Ireland has a higher percentage of cystic fibrosis is because our family trees are a little bit too intertwined on this small Island of ours!!!