Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

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).

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

macyard

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

lazygal

macyard wrote: »

We plan to campaign once this discriminatory one fails

And if it passes, what then?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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!

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

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?

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?