Could bigamy be next?

aaronjumper wrote: »

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

I'm not. I'm just laughing.

endacl wrote: »

Marriage whataboutery mega thread time? A stupidity repository?

Prime location for a sniper.

blackcard wrote: »

Why do some people assume that having a view on a marriage with 3 or more people means they are disgruntled with the result of the referendum? I thought they would be the same people who would welcome equal opportunity for all people

Access to monogamous civil marriage for people who are LGBT, is completely unrelated to bigamy or polygamous marriage.

S.O wrote: »

Or could marriage between close relatives. ie incest be next in the next 20 or 30 years, 20 years ago a referendum on same sex marriage wouldn't of passed , when society no longer sees certain things as taboo or wrong other things will follow suit, Germany EUs biggest economy a German committee said the following a few months ago.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/11119062/Incest-a-fundamental-right-German-committee-says.html

If Germany scrapped anti incest laws other countries in the EU could follow suit, once incest is no longer a criminal offence as homosexuality once was, the next step is the argument for the right to marry.

Nice misrepresentation there S.O., unsurprising really. What you failed to mention this time is that was simply a government funded think tank, not the German Government itself (the German Government have already said there are no plans to decriminalise incest and they are supported in this decision by the EHCR).

You're also struggling if you think that the same arguments that were made for decriminalising homosexuality can be made for decriminalising incest.


(not to mention that any arguments you could come up with are entirely facetious given you tried to argue against marriage equality for people who are LGBT, but you would have no issues with incestuous marriage... you'll forgive me if I can't take your arguments seriously).

Lol I have to laugh. All the people came back from all over the world to vote for this and yet they wouldn't vote out a government if the country was on fire.

People are so stupid. They bought huge houses, went on holidays multiple times a year and then can't understand why they have to pay it all back now. Yet they will vote back in the same idiot government.

I bet if there was a vote to allow gays to roger each other with a 1000 degree hot poker it would get the world voting. When the elections come around they wont be seen for dead.

The day a Saudi Arabian woman can have 4 husbands I think human race is ready for polygamy (it's actually called polyandry then).

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.

yeah, well…i think there can be no serious doubt that most remaining taboos and legal restrictions, be it around bigamy, polygamy, incest, paedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia or whatever, are going to fall in the decades and generations to come, both legally and in public perception; not only in ireland but all over europe and the western world…their abolition has already been on the agenda of major political parties (e.g. the german greens) and will be hot again once they feel the time is ripe…can’t say i am a great fan of the whole trend, but who am i to say…

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.

Stupid threads are on boards all the time and I do not see what rules they are breaking would it not be undemocratic to not allow them. You know you have the democatic option of not clicking on these threads

I think the line will be drawn where harm may be caused.

Polygamy is no bother really, since it only involves consenting adults. Couldn't give a fiddle if it became law tbh.

Incest, I would feel, could involve coercing a family member into something that hurts them. You know, grooming within families. So I think it's a non runner.

Democracy does not mean liberalizing everything imo. It just means that people, in their wisdom, will decide what is acceptable to them or not, and what the majority wants will win.

And I think the majority of people are intelligent enough to make the right decisions, ie. if it doesn't hurt anyone, it's fine.

WTF is d'craic with all the threads implying same sex marriage is a first step away from 'normal'. It's just a side step to 'slightly unfamiliar for the moment give it a few years'.

There is no continuum from heterosexual marriage to marrying a mixed leaf salad. Implying otherwise is bizarre, and is frankly insulting given what the overwhelming majority of us voted in favour of.