Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

macyard

TheChizler wrote: »

Who's attacking your lifestyle? Could you address my question please? How would you vote on two separate referenda on the same day, one on same-sex marriage, and the other on polygamous marriage?

No to both, we need an inculsive marraige if there is a chance one passes and the other fails it's not a inclusive new marraige system.

macyard

Daith wrote: »

The start campaigning. I'll consider your views when I see your campaign.

We only just started when the current referendum became popular, we cannot do much in 3 months so push for NO now and will work with the lgbt for an inculsive proposal for the next chance

macyard

macyard wrote: »

No to both, we need an inculsive marraige if there is a chance one passes and the other fails it's not a inclusive new marraige system.

Given that a referendum would be called in order to amend the constitution, could you give us an idea of the language you would like entered into the constitution that you would vote yes on (all inclusive)?

macyard

Deleted User wrote: »

Given that a referendum would be called in order to amend the constitution, could you give us an idea of the language you would like entered into the constitution that you would vote yes on (all inclusive)?

That all consenting adults be allowed to marry and have aa many partners as they see fit.

This will allow gay and gay polygamous marriage also.

Daith

macyard wrote: »

We only just started when the current referendum became popular, we cannot do much in 3 months so push for NO now and will work with the lgbt for an inculsive proposal for the next chance

So after 30/40 years after all the fights successive generations of Irish homosexuals (and friends) went through to achieve the same rights you will hop on the bandwagon and vote no without doing any work yourselves?

Your group lacks courage.

macyard

macyard wrote: »

Problem is once light hits some of the community they will stop trying to demolish the tower cause it's too hard and they already have there light so they can live on in happiness

But isn't this already proven to be incorrect? Is it only homosexual people campaigning for SSM? If that was the case, perhaps you might have a point.

'all kinds of' People campaign for & against the rights of 'all kinds of' People.

macyard

Daith wrote: »

So after 30/40 years after all the fights successive generations of Irish homosexuals (and friends) went through to achieve the same rights you will hop on the bandwagon and vote no without doing any work yourselves?

Your group lacks courage.

There is lgbt people that want polygamous marriage also. Up till now we are more hated then lbgt people so only in the last few years are people starting to think inclusive, there is still some bigots as we see in this thread but if we work together we can get a fair marriage system for all

Daith

macyard wrote: »

There is lgbt people that want polygamous marriage also. Up till now we are more hated then lbgt people so only in the last few years are people starting to think inclusive, there is still some bigots as we see in this thread but if we work together we can get a fair marriage system for all

Why do you think LGBT people would work with you after you voted no to them being able to marry?

You don't want to work together.

macyard

Deleted User wrote: »

But isn't this already proven to be incorrect? Is it only homosexual people campaigning for SSM? If that was the case, perhaps you might have a point.

'all kinds of' People campaign for & against the rights of 'all kinds of' People.

Most straight people won't turn out at the referendum, it's predicted to be the lowest turnnout referendum ever. We are hated even more then SSM so one the light hits the majority the rest of us will be left in the dark

macyard

Daith wrote: »

Why do you think LGBT people would work with you after you voted no to them being able to marry?

Why are the people that wanted CP working with the ones that worked against it, cause people in time will learn not to be bigoted

Daith

macyard wrote: »

We are hated even more then SSM so one the light hits the majority the rest of us will be left in the dark

Coming out of the dark yourselves is the only way. Not holding onto the coattails of others.

MrPudding

macyard wrote: »

That all consenting adults be allowed to marry and have aa many partners as they see fit.

This will allow gay and gay polygamous marriage also.

It does not make any sense to tie two completely different 'things' to the same vote, and it makes even less sense to refuse to support something completely unrelated out of apparent spite.

I appreciate you desire for inclusivity, but it cheapens and takes away from your campaign when you show such an attitude. Particularly when the attitude you are showing is one that is used in a similar form by anti-ssm proponants.

Any person, or group, trying to get a particular type of marriage accepted should be expected to put forward arguments why it should be accepted, and answer any arguments against it. With respect to ssm this has been gone over quite a lot. Thus far there have not really been valid arguments against ssm, so on balance there does not appear to be any reason, beyond religiously inspired moralising for it not to be available for those that want it.

Whilst I am not an expert in it, or indeed an expert in anything much, polygamous relationships are considered by some to be harmful. There is research to suggest that polygamous relationships do cause problems within the groups or societies that permit them, and there is also a question of equality of persons in those societies, particularly women. I must confess I only looked into this briefly as part of a dissertation I wrote about ssm. It was not a major point of my work, and I only mentioned it as part of dispensing with the '... then we will have people marrying their pets, their cars and their sisters' argument.

So whist I would be of the opinion that you are perfectly entitled to campaign for what you consider to be a valid form of marriage I think you are very wrong to connect what you want to what another group that has been campaigning for a long time all round the world want. I makes you sound a bit mean.

MrP

robindch

TheChizler wrote: »

That's tongue-in-cheek, right?...

I've just thought of a very funny joke about tongue-in-cheek as it might apply to the thread topic, but I think I'd have to ban myself if I told it.

Daith

macyard wrote: »

Why are the people that wanted CP working with the ones that worked against it, cause people in time will learn not to be bigoted

Would the people who didn't want CP have voted NO to it?

Pherekydes

macyard wrote: »

Most straight people won't turn out at the referendum, it's predicted to be the lowest turnnout referendum ever. We are hated even more then SSM so one the light hits the majority the rest of us will be left in the dark

If the turnout is 40% and if the yes side gets 70% then 28% of the electorate will have voted yes. Allowing 10% of the electorate as gay, then 18% of the yes vote will be straight. 18 of 28% is 64%. At least.

macyard

MrPudding wrote: »

It does not make any sense to tie two completely different 'things' to the same vote, and it makes even less sense to refuse to support something completely unrelated out of apparent spite.

I appreciate you desire for inclusivity, but it cheapens and takes away from your campaign when you show such an attitude. Particularly when the attitude you are showing is one that is used in a similar form by anti-ssm proponants.

Any person, or group, trying to get a particular type of marriage accepted should be expected to put forward arguments why it should be accepted, and answer any arguments against it. With respect to ssm this has been gone over quite a lot. Thus far there have not really been valid arguments against ssm, so on balance there does not appear to be any reason, beyond religiously inspired moralising for it not to be available for those that want it.

Whilst I am not an expert in it, or indeed an expert in anything much, polygamous relationships are considered by some to be harmful. There is research to suggest that polygamous relationships do cause problems within the groups or societies that permit them, and there is also a question of equality of persons in those societies, particularly women. I must confess I only looked into this briefly as part of a dissertation I wrote about ssm. It was not a major point of my work, and I only mentioned it as part of dispensing with the '... then we will have people marrying their pets, their cars and their sisters' argument.

So whist I would be of the opinion that you are perfectly entitled to campaign for what you consider to be a valid form of marriage I think you are very wrong to connect what you want to what another group that has been campaigning for a long time all round the world want. I makes you sound a bit mean.

MrP

To lump us consenting adults marrying with people that want to marry pets is very bigoted. We are consenting adults which free choice to marry.

There is no reaaon to disallow polygamous marraige just like there is none to disallow SSM. Hence why it should be held back till it's inclusive of all

macyard

Pherekydes wrote: »

If the turnout is 40% and if the yes side gets 70% then 28% of the electorate will have voted yes. Allowing 10% of the electorate as gay, then 18% of the yes vote will be straight. 18 of 28% is 64%. At least.

Turnout is expected to be a lot lower then 40%

Daith

macyard wrote: »

Turnout is expected to be a lot lower then 40%

Ah you can see the future also. Do you have any evidence of this?

swampgas

macyard wrote: »

There is no reason to disallow polygamous marraige just like there is none to disallow SSM. Hence why it should be held back till it's inclusive of all

Well, polygamy would require quite a lot of legislative change. Most legislation that applies to Male-Female couples is easily adapted to SS couples. However, for polygamy, laws on inheritance and divorce would have to be adapted significantly. What happens when one person of three (assuming three are married) wants a divorce? What happens if one of the others wants to contest and one doesn't?

The case for marriage equality is well understood by most people. Many people are related to or friends with someone gay. Very few people are related to or friends with someone who wants a legal polygamous marriage.

So if you want legal polygamous marriage, you better start making a stronger case for it.

And anyway, it's a very mean and begrudging attitude to insist that SSM be delayed until you get polygamy accepted. I suspect you don't approve of SSM in any case, or you wouldn't be so quick to try to sabotage the Yes campaign.

robindch

macyard wrote: »

I have read articles of SS couples adopting children to abuse.

This thread is discussing marriage equality, not same-sex adoption. Also, if you're going to make the fairly hair-raising claim that some gay + lesbian couples adopt "to abuse", then you will need to provide links to the source articles so that people can assess the reliability of the claim. An unsourced claim isn't worth the paper it (isn't) written on.

macyard

macyard wrote: »

Turnout is expected to be a lot lower then 40%

If the turnout is 30% of the electorate, and we assume that 100% of homosexuals (roughly 10% of the electorate) vote Yes. Then the minimum percentage of the electorate that are required in order to pass the referendum in addition to homosexuals will be 5.1% of the electorate. That means that for every 100 homosexual persons who vote yes 51 heterosexuals will also vote yes.

That's using some very low assumptions of minimums (turnouts & margin of victory, and assumption of a Yes).

MrPudding

macyard wrote: »

To lump us consenting adults marrying with people that want to marry pets is very bigoted. We are consenting adults which free choice to marry.

There is no reaaon to disallow polygamous marraige just like there is none to disallow SSM. Hence why it should be held back till it's inclusive of all

OK, where exactly did I lump you in with people that want to marry pets? I simply mentioned some of the arguments that are used against same sex marriage, but that in no way means I see any kind of equivalence. I am not sure how mentioning things I had to read about and respond to is bigoted, perhaps you might explain more fully why I am a bigot...?

With respect to there being no reason to disallow polygamous marriage, as I mentioned previously, there are argument made against it, and there is quite a bit of scholarly work in this area, have a quick look here, for example. I think that if you want to make any progress in your campaign then you need, like the proponent of ssm have, address the concerns that are held by those that believe polygamy to be harmful.

macyard

robindch wrote: »

This thread is discussing marriage equality, not same-sex adoption. Also, if you're going to make the fairly hair-raising claim that some gay + lesbian couples adopt "to abuse", then you will need to provide links to the source articles so that people can assess the reliability of the claim. An unsourced claim isn't worth the paper it (isn't) written on.

Other poster brought kids into it, I said repeatedly kids have nothing to do with marraige but here is an article

www(.)smh.com.au/national/named-the-australian-paedophile-jailed-for-40-years-20130630-2p5da.html

Remove the bracket

macyard

MrPudding wrote: »

OK, where exactly did I lump you in with people that want to marry pets? I simply mentioned some of the arguments that are used against same sex marriage, but that in no way means I see any kind of equivalence. I am not sure how mentioning things I had to read about and respond to is bigoted, perhaps you might explain more fully why I am a bigot...?

With respect to there being no reason to disallow polygamous marriage, as I mentioned previously, there are argument made against it, and there is quite a bit of scholarly work in this area, have a quick look here, for example. I think that if you want to make any progress in your campaign then you need, like the proponent of ssm have, address the concerns that are held by those that believe polygamy to be harmful.

All the against are from the chruch and saying it's bad for kids the same cons as SSM.

But marriage has nothing to do with kids so consenting adults should be allowed to marry, there is no arguments of of polygamous marraige between adults.

Penn

macyard wrote: »

Other poster brought kids into it, I said repeatedly kids have nothing to do with marraige but here is an article

www(.)smh.com.au/national/named-the-australian-paedophile-jailed-for-40-years-20130630-2p5da.html

Remove the bracket

1 =/= All/Most/Some/Minority/Few

1 = 1

1 case does not equal anything remotely resembling enough of a percentage for such a case to be considered a possibility or likelihood, and does not negate the fact that heterosexual couples could potentially do the same thing.

macyard

Penn wrote: »

1 =/= All/Most/Some/Minority/Few

1 = 1

1 case does not equal anything remotely resembling enough of a percentage for such a case to be considered a possibility or likelihood, and does not negate the fact that heterosexual couples could potentially do the same thing.

They brought up polygamous marraige was bad for kids without sources the same has been said for gay couples. The arguments against polygamous marriage are the same as SSM.

So you if you agree consenting adults should be allowed to marry you need to allow SSM and polygamous otherwise you are just a bigot

MrPudding

macyard wrote: »

They brought up polygamous marraige was bad for kids without sources the same has been said for gay couples. The arguments against polygamous marriage are the same as SSM.

So you if you agree consenting adults should be allowed to marry you need to allow SSM and polygamous otherwise you are just a bigot

Just because the same arguments are used for both, and can be shown to be invalid for one, does not mean they are invalid for both.

Until the questions around the potential for harm to (particularly) women and children are addressed I will reserve judgement on polygamy, though given the number of articles I have seen on the subject, with little or not apparent rebuttal, I would suggest that opposing polygamous marriage would not necessarily make one a bigot.

MrP

macyard

MrPudding wrote: »

Just because the same arguments are used for both, and can be shown to be invalid for one, does not mean they are invalid for both.

Until the questions around the potential for harm to (particularly) women and children are addressed I will reserve judgement on polygamy, though given the number of articles I have seen on the subject, with little or not apparent rebuttal, I would suggest that opposing polygamous marriage would not necessarily make one a bigot.

MrP

The women are consenting adults and kids don't matter in a marriage as SSM people have being saying. Polygamous people can have the kids and not be married as happens no they just get less rights as the parents as they cannot marry.

Give me one valid reason why the consenting adults should not be allowed to marry

swampgas

macyard wrote: »

The women are consenting adults and kids don't matter in a marriage as SSM people have being saying. Polygamous people can have the kids and not be married as happens no they just get less rights as the parents as they cannot marry.

Give me one valid reason why the consenting adults should not be allowed to marry

To be honest, most people haven't given polygamy much thought, nor has there been much debate on it. You seem to want instant approval for legalising polygamy without putting in the effort to make convincing arguments for it.

I'm not saying that there aren't strong arguments for or against polygamy, I'm sure there are, but asking people to vote against SSM simply because you want your life made a bit easier right now is a bit selfish.

And I notice you never answered the question of whether you actually approve of Same Sex marriage either.

.

macyard

macyard wrote: »

The women are consenting adults and kids don't matter in a marriage as SSM people have being saying. Polygamous people can have the kids and not be married as happens no they just get less rights as the parents as they cannot marry.

Give me one valid reason why the consenting adults should not be allowed to marry

Woah. That's not what's been said at all.

The decision on same sex couples and children has already been made. They are allowed adopt, they are as good as opposite-sex couples at parenting.

I'm not aware of any literature or studies showing similar for Polygamous families (admittedly through utter ignorance).