Could bigamy be next?

blackcard · 23-05-2015 03:55PM #1

50 years ago, a majority would have opposed divorce and contraception in Ireland. 25 years ago, a majority would have opposed same sex marriage. In another 25 years, could bigamy be legal in Ireland? What would be wrong with it if all parties involved are happy with it? Nothing morally wrong with it.

Pretzill · 23-05-2015 03:59PM

blackcard wrote: »

What would be wrong with it if all parties involved are happy with it? Nothing morally wrong with it.

That's bigayou

(Get's coat before another what's-next thread opens)

Duckworth_Luas · 23-05-2015 04:01PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ust6bUwqqUc

One eyed Jack · 23-05-2015 04:01PM

blackcard wrote: »

50 years ago, a majority would have opposed divorce and contraception in Ireland. 25 years ago, a majority would have opposed same sex marriage. In another 25 years, could bigamy be legal in Ireland? What would be wrong with it if all parties involved are happy with it? Nothing morally wrong with it.

The whole point of criminalising bigamy is because all parties aren't privy to the fact. That's only one of the reasons why it's both immoral and illegal -

In cultures that practice marital monogamy, bigamy is the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another. Bigamy is a crime in most western countries, and when it occurs in this context often neither the first nor second spouse is aware of the other. In countries that have bigamy laws, consent from a prior spouse makes no difference to the legality of the second marriage, which is usually considered void.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigamy

Not a NSA agent · 23-05-2015 04:03PM

It could be done but requires a bit more work. I think we would have to get to a stage where there are more people going for that sort of thing and others get used to it being around, if only I could convince the girlfriend!

Its often used in cultures which dont have the best history in terms of treating people equal but marriage wasnt much better.

blackcard · 23-05-2015 04:40PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The whole point of criminalising bigamy is because all parties aren't privy to the fact. That's only one of the reasons why it's both immoral and illegal -

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigamy

But if all parties are aware of the circumstances, what is the problem? And what is morally wrong with it? I'm not saying that it is for everyone but it could be a happy arrangement for some.

Turtwig · 23-05-2015 04:43PM

As long as it's mutually consensual and nobody is being harmed, who gives a sht?

DarkyHughes · 23-05-2015 04:46PM

Can the mods do their jobs please & delete these stupid ****ing threads because a few assholes are unhappy with how a democratic vote went.

One eyed Jack · 23-05-2015 04:59PM

blackcard wrote: »

But if all parties are aware of the circumstances, what is the problem? And what is morally wrong with it? I'm not saying that it is for everyone but it could be a happy arrangement for some.

If all parties are aware of the circumstances, then it's not bigamy in the moral sense, but because the State considers the second marriage void, then it's bigamy in the legal sense, and there are plenty of legal implications to one individual in two different marriages.

You've yet to actually make a convincing argument as to why you think bigamy would be beneficial to society. You're going to have to do better than just because it makes people happy. There's lots of things would make me happy, but I understand why they are illegal.

mad muffin · 23-05-2015 04:59PM

I think OP is confusing bigamy with polygamy...

zeffabelli · 23-05-2015 04:59PM

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Can the mods do their jobs please & delete these stupid ****ing threads because a few assholes are unhappy with how a democratic vote went.

It's a perfectly valid arguement now.

If its consenting adults then there is no reason not to allow it if you allow gay marriage, you theoretically should also allow any other adult consenting marriage.

Otherwise you are privaleging monogamy and discriminating against polygamists and familiy members who may want to marry.

GreatDefector · 23-05-2015 05:02PM

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Can the mods do their jobs please & delete these stupid ****ing threads because a few assholes are unhappy with how a democratic vote went.

Let's add a poll

silverfeather · 23-05-2015 05:04PM

blackcard wrote: »

50 years ago, a majority would have opposed divorce and contraception in Ireland. 25 years ago, a majority would have opposed same sex marriage. In another 25 years, could bigamy be legal in Ireland? What would be wrong with it if all parties involved are happy with it? Nothing morally wrong with it.

You mean polygamy. Bigamy is when it's illegal.
Privileging an act is different to privileging a group of people. It usually ends up with many more kids than usual marriage with fewer parents.

Monogamy all the way!

blackcard · 23-05-2015 05:04PM

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Can the mods do their jobs please & delete these stupid ****ing threads because a few assholes are unhappy with how a democratic vote went.

I voted for the referendum. The point I am making is that it would have been unthinkable 25 years ago that the SSM referendum would have passed
Could it not be possible that marriage to two people could be legalised at some point in the future?

Grandpa Hassan · 23-05-2015 05:04PM

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Can the mods do their jobs please & delete these stupid ****ing threads because a few assholes are unhappy with how a democratic vote went.

I have an idea....why don't you unfollow the thread

kneemos · 23-05-2015 05:06PM

DarkyHughes wrote: »

Can the mods do their jobs please & delete these stupid ****ing threads because a few assholes are unhappy with how a democratic vote went.

Are people not entitled to be unhappy? You don't seem to have a problem with happy people?

Saipanne · 23-05-2015 05:09PM

I do think polygamy is for future legislation. I have no opposition to it.

zeffabelli · 23-05-2015 05:11PM

I think getting rid of marriage altogether solves a lot of problems.

kneemos · 23-05-2015 05:14PM

There's a nice looking horse down the field.

aaronjumper · 23-05-2015 05:14PM

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I have an idea....why don't you unfollow the thread

I think it's more than one thread though. Page one of After Hours appears to be "Will (insert something here) be next?" because the vote went through.

syklops · 23-05-2015 05:16PM

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

I have an idea....why don't you unfollow the thread

Why don't you leave him alone.

pmasterson95 · 23-05-2015 05:19PM

aaronjumper wrote: »

I think it's more than one thread though. Page one of After Hours appears to be "Will (insert something here) be next?" because the vote went through.

AH should be cleansed and this crap moved to gay and election forums.

aaronjumper · 23-05-2015 05:21PM

pmasterson95 wrote: »

AH should be cleansed and this crap moved to gay and election forums.

Or just merge them into one megathread and delete newcomers. I like an oul whinge myself when things don't go the way I want them to but all the different threads are hard to keep up with.

blackcard · 23-05-2015 05:26PM

aaronjumper wrote: »

Or just merge them into one megathread and delete newcomers. I like an oul whinge myself when things don't go the way I want them to but all the different threads are hard to keep up with.

Again I voted yes in the referendum and I am happy it passed. I think I am asking a legitimate question even if it is not the most important issue for most people

aaronjumper · 23-05-2015 05:29PM

blackcard wrote: »

Again I voted yes in the referendum and I am happy it passed. I think I am asking a legitimate question even if it is not the most important issue for most people

Wasn't attacking you personally, the other threads seem to be slowing down anyway. Just a lot of these threads popping up today. Easier to manage if it was in one big pile rather than lots of little ones was all I was saying. Or trying to.

endacl · 23-05-2015 05:31PM

aaronjumper wrote: »

Wasn't attacking you personally, the other threads seem to be slowing down anyway. Just a lot of these threads popping up today. Easier to manage if it was in one big pile rather than lots of little ones was all I was saying. Or trying to.

Marriage whataboutery mega thread time? A stupidity repository?

kneemos · 23-05-2015 05:32PM

It's the yes/no option that's causing the controversy.

aaronjumper · 23-05-2015 05:33PM

endacl wrote: »

Marriage whataboutery mega thread time? A stupidity repository?

I'm trying really hard to be respectful of other peoples opinions but that made me laugh. Actually out loud. :pac:

zeffabelli · 23-05-2015 05:36PM

silverfeather wrote: »

You mean polygamy. Bigamy is when it's illegal.
Privileging an act is different to privileging a group of people. It usually ends up with many more kids than usual marriage with fewer parents.

Monogamy all the way!

Actually, with the five year divorce wait and the cohabitation bills, we already have polygamy.

Alt J · 23-05-2015 05:37PM

Lemons Lemons how do them lemons taste

Grandpa Hassan · 23-05-2015 05:38PM

endacl wrote: »

Marriage whataboutery mega thread time? A stupidity repository?

I don't get it all anyway. What's the point of marriage? That would be my angle on such a thread (and that of my long term gf). I really don't get why people get so excited it. I don't see why you need the bit of paper to demonstrate your love for someone. I do that through the things I do every day. It wouldn't make my relationship any stronger. I voted yes, but for only equality reasons. The fact that it was relating to marriage is irrelevant to me.

Could bigamy be next?

Comments