Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

Options
1…222223225227228…325

Comments

  • Options
    #6722
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    Deleted User wrote: »
    woah

    SSM vote yes people have being saying kids don't come into the right to marraige. If anyone brings kids into the debate they say it's about the marraige only


  • Options
    #6723
    Kinley Thankful Thunderstorm
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Kinley Thankful Thunderstorm


    macyard wrote: »
    SSM vote yes people have being saying kids don't come into the right to marraige. If anyone brings kids into the debate they say it's about the marraige only

    That's not true. Please see my edit above.


  • Options
    #6724
    MrPudding
    Registered Users Posts: 9,788 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    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

    Saying that the kids don't matter is a simplification of matters... Gay people can already adopt, therefore tying ssm to the ability of gay people to adopt children is simply wrong. They are not related a gay people ALREADY have that right. The second string of the argument, why kids are used against ssm is that those against ssm argue that have same sex parents is bad for children. This argument is also invalid because all reliable studies into this area show that the children of same sex couples do at least as well as those of opposite sex couples. That is why the children argument against ssm is lacking.

    Have a look at some of the articles in the link I sent. Show me some article rebutting them. Until then I am going to say the potential for harm against women and children is a valid reason for disallowing polygamous marriage, but I am fully open to change my view on this if those risks can be shown to be incorrect.

    MrP


  • Options
    #6725
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    Deleted User wrote: »
    That's not true. Please see my edit above.

    Polygamous couples already can have kids too, just you can only marry one partner so the kids with the other women never get full rights.

    The kids aspect is invalid for both as they both can already have kids adoption or otherwise. It's purely about the consenting adults marrying.


  • Options
    #6726
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Otacon wrote: »
    The only argument I have ever heard that fits that bill is allowing same-sex couples to marry and enjoy tax benefits would cost the state too much money. Of course that doesn't hold up when you think that it is still discriminatory but it is the closest I have seen to a non-religious argument.

    FYI, it also doesn't hold up because it's incorrect. Civil partners get the same tax benefits as married couples, so there'll be no difference when gay couples can marry instead of entering a civil partnership.
    lazygal wrote: »
    Meant to say, I'm pretty sure Ben Conroy is Breda O'Brien's son.

    No pretty sure about it. Ben is Mrs Conroy's son. I'm calling her Mrs Conroy because traditionally married women take their husband's name and she's as big fan of traditional marriage.
    macyard wrote: »
    No half measures on being inculsive, if you give some people rights now it will be harder for polygamous people to get rights later. If we give rights to all at once if will be quicker and easier

    It's a fact of life that equality is achieved in increments. Look at the path to equality for gay people. Homosexuality was decriminalised in 1993, it became unlawful to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in 2000, civil partnerships were introduced in 2010, and we'll hopefully be granted marriage rights in 2015. Even then, the fight isn't over because we'll still have Section 37 of the Equal Status Acts to contend with.

    It's not just minorities either. Look at how equality has been achieved for women. The right to vote, the removal of the civil service marriage bar, an equal share in the family home, equal pay; they were all done over time, step by step. And there is still much work to be done before we can say women are truly equal.

    By your logic we shouldn't have decriminalised homosexuality until all the other aspects were remedied as well. But given that some opposed to decimalisation in 93 (and may still do!), we wouldn't have had a hope of winning all those other battles at the same time.

    If you want to change the law to allow polygamous marriages, then that's the platform you need to campaign on. And you'll need to do it publicly. Anonymously tying it into a different issue won't garner support for your position and won't effect change.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6727
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    If you want to change the law to allow polygamous marriages, then that's the platform you need to campaign on. And you'll need to do it publicly. Anonymously tying it into a different issue won't garner support for your position and won't effect change.

    In the last two months of contacting lgbt groups all have said they won't continue to fight to help get us rights after the referendum goes through, that is why we are push a no vote now so we can work together the next time it comes up, us push no now is the only hope we have to get a fair marriage system in the future. The push for no is the start then we will campaign in public for a fair marraige system.


  • Options
    #6728
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    macyard wrote: »
    In the last two months of contacting lgbt groups all have said they won't continue to fight to help get us rights after the referendum goes through, that is why we are push a no vote now so we can work together the next time it comes up, us push no now is the only hope we have to get a fair marriage system in the future. The push for no is the start then we will campaign in public for a fair marraige system.

    Why do you expect others to campaign on an issue you yourself are not willing to campaign on? Imagine how successful David Norris would have been if he had fought against criminalisation while hiding his identity. And the attitude to homosexuality in the 80s would have been a lot more toxic than the attitude today to polygamous marriages.

    You want it, so it's up to you to get out there and get it. Nothing will change otherwise, especially if you're advocating the status quo in May's referendum.


  • Options
    #6729
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Why do you expect others to campaign on an issue you yourself are not willing to campaign on? Imagine how successful David Norris would have been if he had fought against criminalisation while hiding his identity. And the attitude to homosexuality in the 80s would have been a lot more toxic than the attitude today to polygamous marriages.

    You want it, so it's up to you to get out there and get it. Nothing will change otherwise, especially if you're advocating the status quo in May's referendum.

    We plan to campaign once this discriminatory one fails


  • Options
    #6730
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    macyard wrote: »
    We plan to campaign once this discriminatory one fails
    And if it passes, what then?


  • Options
    #6731
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    macyard wrote: »
    We plan to campaign once this discriminatory one fails

    As campaign launches go, alienating people who want a yes vote in this referendum may not be the best tactic.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6732
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    lazygal wrote: »
    And if it passes, what then?

    We will try but it's probably futile, we know we are more discriminated then any group and even the lgbt that recently fought for marriage rights won't stick up for us.


  • Options
    #6733
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    macyard wrote: »
    We will try but it's probably futile, we know we are more discriminated then any group and even the lgbt that recently fought for marriage rights won't stick up for us.

    We're still fighting for it you know. You're the one voting No to equality then expecting other people to help you.


  • Options
    #6734
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    Daith wrote: »
    We're still fighting for it you know. You're the one voting No to equality.

    Any pro SSM lgbt group we contacted to help promote polygamous marraige after the referendum said no way they would not help or use their contacts to get us a fiar and equal marriage.


  • Options
    #6735
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,540 ✭✭✭swampgas


    macyard wrote: »
    We will try but it's probably futile, we know we are more discriminated then any group and even the lgbt that recently fought for marriage rights won't stick up for us.

    Are you LGBT? No? So why on earth should an LGBT group divert effort from the equal marriage referendum campaign to support you, right now?

    Surely the onus is on you to start your own campaign?

    And which "group" are you that is facing so much discrimination?


  • Options
    #6736
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    macyard wrote: »
    Any pro SSM lgbt group we contacted to help promote polygamous marraige after the referendum said no way they would not help or use their contacts to get us a fiar and equal marriage.

    Which one did you contact?

    Did you also state you would be voting No in the referendum?


  • Options
    #6737
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    Daith wrote: »
    Which one did you contact?

    Did you also state you would be voting No in the referendum?

    We contacted many, no we originally contacted about after it passing for help getting our marriage passed and help with contacts and tips about how to go about it, it was just a not intrested reply


  • Options
    #6738
    shruikan2553
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭shruikan2553


    It is pointless trying to throw as much as possible into the one thing. Relationships involving more than 2 people arent as widely accepted and risk losing it for same sex couples. Best to make your own group and campaign for it instead of trying to join in another different kind of relationship.


  • Options
    #6739
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    shruikan2553 wrote: »
    It is pointless trying to throw as much as possible into the one thing. Relationships involving more than 2 people arent as widely accepted and risk losing it for same sex couples. Best to make your own group and campaign for it instead of trying to join in another different kind of relationship.

    Our problem is no one will help we need contacts to help we are discriminated against and no one will fight with us


  • Options
    #6740
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    macyard wrote: »
    Our problem is no one will help we need contacts to help we are discriminated against and no one will fight with us

    But we don't know who you are. What's the name of your group?


  • Options
    #6741
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    lazygal wrote: »
    But we don't know who you are. What's the name of your group?

    We will go public if the referendum fails not point in giving public attention if we have to plan a different campaign, if this one passes I doubt we will ever get a fair marriage system


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6742
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    macyard wrote: »
    We will go public if the referendum fails not point in giving public attention if we have to plan a different campaign, if this one passes I doubt we will ever get a fair marriage system

    That's a very defeatist attitude. You might want to tell your group to take a different approach.


  • Options
    #6743
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    I'm curious: based on what you've said so far, macyard, the polygamy you're campaigning for involves one man and several women. Are you equally campaigning for polygamy including one woman and several men, several women without any men and several men without any women? Do you envisage any limits to the number of people who could be involved in a legally-recognised polygamous relationship?


  • Options
    #6744
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    lazygal wrote: »
    That's a very defeatist attitude. You might want to tell your group to take a different approach.

    The approch depends on the outcome in may, our best chance is this one to fail but after then we will settle our approch, we are mostly a tumblr and google group atm so are felxiable till we go public


  • Options
    #6745
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,540 ✭✭✭swampgas


    macyard wrote: »
    We will go public if the referendum fails not point in giving public attention if we have to plan a different campaign, if this one passes I doubt we will ever get a fair marriage system

    Probably best to wait until the dust settles after the referendum, people will not welcome the distraction of a quite different issue before then. In the meantime you could look to see what has been done in other countries by any other groups with similar views to your own, perhaps someone has been down the same road already.


  • Options
    #6746
    Doctor Jimbob
    Registered Users Posts: 7,634 ✭✭✭Doctor Jimbob


    You realise of course that a polygamous marriage would be a legal nightmare compared to one on one marriages? I'm sure there's a way to make it work, but piggybacking on a related but entirely functionally different issue (SSM) isn't helping anyone's cause.


  • Options
    #6747
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I'm curious: based on what you've said so far, macyard, the polygamy you're campaigning for involves one man and several women. Are you equally campaigning for polygamy including one woman and several men, several women without any men and several men without any women? Do you envisage any limits to the number of people who could be involved in a legally-recognised polygamous relationship?

    Any person with any amount of people, we have gay polygamous people in our tumblr group even non binary people with men and women all in one family


  • Options
    #6748
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    macyard wrote: »
    Any person with any amount of people, we have gay polygamous people in our tumblr group even non binary people with men and women all in one family
    #

    But you don't want them to get married. That needs to happen separate.

    Could you send on the details of what groups you contacted? Just want to check up and see what you said and the reply. Cheers!


  • Options
    #6749
    macyard
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 380 ✭✭macyard


    Daith wrote: »
    #

    But you don't want them to get married. That needs to happen separate.

    Could you send on the details of what groups you contacted? Just want to check up and see what you said and the reply. Cheers!

    Of course but the current referendum won't allow them to marry and create the family they want


  • Options
    #6750
    Daith
    Registered Users Posts: 4,946 ✭✭✭Daith


    macyard wrote: »
    Of course but the current referendum won't allow them to marry and create the family they want

    It will allow them to be come equal to the straight people in your group though?

    Or does your group discriminate against those who don't want polygamy?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6751
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,793 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    macyard wrote: »
    Any person with any amount of people, we have gay polygamous people in our tumblr group even non binary people with men and women all in one family

    It's not a topic that I've given a lot of thought to, but I'm curious: let's imagine a hypothetical marriage involving three men and two women. Is there one marriage involving all five of them? Does one of them have marriages with the other four? Can one of the women be married to two of the men and the other woman, who is also married to the third man?

    How does divorce work?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement