nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.)

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Cavehill Red

There's a story in the press today from South Africa, involving a young engaged couple, expecting their first child, who arranged to introduce their respective parents to each other, as is the tradition there.
They were devastated to discover that they were, in fact, siblings who had been parted in very early childhood when their parents split up, the daughter going with the mother and the son with the father. Both parents found new partners and the children were raised unknowing about their sibling, and only met in university, where they became partners, still not knowing they were related.
Due to the shock and the familial reactions, not to mention legal considerations, they have decided to part. However, there is still a child due to be born of the union next month.

pajunior

Cavehill Red wrote: »

There's a story in the press today from South Africa, involving a young engaged couple, expecting their first child, who arranged to introduce their respective parents to each other, as is the tradition there.
They were devastated to discover that they were, in fact, siblings who had been parted in very early childhood when their parents split up, the daughter going with the mother and the son with the father. Both parents found new partners and the children were raised unknowing about their sibling, and only met in university, where they became partners, still not knowing they were related.
Due to the shock and the familial reactions, not to mention legal considerations, they have decided to part. However, there is still a child due to be born of the union next month.

Apparently we're naturally attracted to our family members, but when we are raised in close quarters with people we are much less likely to be sexually attracted to them. So it makes sense that siblings/cousins who don't know each other would be attracted to each other.

Cavehill Red

They mention that on that blog - genetic sexual attraction. Can't say I've ever experienced anything like that. Then again, perhaps a taboo is bred into us as we grow up together.

Snakeblood

Cavehill Red wrote: »

They mention that on that blog - genetic sexual attraction. Can't say I've ever experienced anything like that.

Maybe your family is too ugly?*

*I'm so sorry, I just had to say it.

Ellis Dee

starbelgrade wrote: »

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

I draw the line at them fûcking each other as well, but that just the view of an old fossil like me.:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Cavehill Red

Snakeblood wrote: »

Maybe your family is too ugly?*

*I'm so sorry, I just had to say it.

So you'd find your close blood relatives sexually attractive, would you?

Eric Cartman

in all fairness im opposed to any marriage, i think its out-dated and pointless , but I think a lot of gay couples have this image that if the law was changed that theyd be welcomed into the arms of the catholic church and have big fancy weddings like straight couples do, In reality the most they will ever get is the heading on the registry office paper changed from 'civil partnership' to 'marriage'

Killer Pigeon

Eric Cartman wrote: »

in all fairness im opposed to any marriage, i think its out-dated and pointless , but I think a lot of gay couples have this image that if the law was changed that theyd be welcomed into the arms of the catholic church and have big fancy weddings like straight couples do, In reality the most they will ever get is the heading on the registry office paper changed from 'civil partnership' to 'marriage'

There's a difference between marriage and civil partnerships, and it's not just in the title. I'd agree with you when it comes to same-sex weddings in a catholic churches, it's never going to happened unless they're deconsecrated. I'd love the catholic church to be utterly annihilated, but, technically, they're a private organisation, therefore I would recognise their right to discriminate (yes, I believe private enterprise should have the right to choose who their clientele are and/or who they employ). That's no reason not to allow same-sex marriages elsewhere though.

indy_man

Must read article from the Irish Times on the subject.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/head-to-head-why-we-should-vote-against-the-same-sex-marriage-referendum-1.2100166

Boskowski

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.

Does it? Why couldn't a woman have several husbands?

I really don't like how same-sex, incest and polygamy are thrown into the same bucket here. Regardless where I stand on each of those its not fair on either of them.

humanji

Mod: Please don't drag up 4 year old threads.