Gay Marriage/Marriage Equality/End of World?

macyard

Daith wrote: »

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

The way we do it atm is no one marries cause we cannot marry as the group so yes they are equal to the straight people.

Daith

macyard wrote: »

The way we do it atm is no one marries cause we cannot marry as the group so yes they are equal to the straight people.

No, no. The straight people in your group don't avail of marriage but they can marry.

The gay people in your group can't marry at all. Why are you discriminating against gay people in your group?

Also could you send the names of the groups you were in contact with?

MrPudding

macyard wrote: »

The way we do it atm is no one marries cause we cannot marry as the group so yes they are equal to the straight people.

Any comment on any of the articles that talk about the risk of polygamous marriage? it really isn't just a church thing.

MrP

macyard

MrPudding wrote: »

Any comment on any of the articles that talk about the risk of polygamous marriage? it really isn't just a church thing.

MrP

I comment as much as the SSM people comment on the risks of a SSM, we both take them as bigoted hogwash

MrPudding

macyard wrote: »

I comment as much as the SSM people comment on the risks of a SSM, we both take them as bigoted hogwash

That is not quite correct. The articles purporting to show the risks of ssm have been rebutted in peer reviewed articles, in books, by various professional bodies. All you are doing is ignoring them.

MrP

robindch

oscarBravo wrote: »

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?

I'm rather fascinated by the notion of a "plural marriage" -- as such things are called by the FLDS anyway -- which lasts multiple generations, with men and women marrying in and divorcing out as the years drift by.

How on earth would Revenue ever deal with that?

NuMarvel

macyard wrote: »

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

If May's referendum fails, it's less likely you'll achieve the changes you want in a second referendum, not more likely. Do you think the second divorce referendum would have passed if same sex marriage was also part of it?

aloyisious

@macyard:re children and marriage, I think you'll find the pro-SSM quote you're probably thinking of is a partial response to those from people of the Iona-ilk, who shout "will no one think about the children" (a despicable try at dis-information implying children will be put at risk within SSM). The SSM proponents respond that "SSM not all about the children alone" but SSM proponents DO recognize and validate the concept of children in SSM, as within existing straight marriage.

I know there are people within the "gay" community who don't support SSM. There are different reasons as to why they disagree with SSM, "it's not my thing", "I don't want to do what my parents/straights did/do", "I don't agree with marriage" or even something like "Equal but Different" in gay non-married relationships, wanting to hold on to what they have outside existing straight-marriage legal constraints.

magicbastarder

robindch wrote: »

I'm rather fascinated by the notion of a "plural marriage" -- as such things are called by the FLDS anyway -- which lasts multiple generations, with men and women marrying in and divorcing out as the years drift by.

what would happen if *everyone* in ireland decided to marry everyone else?

swampgas

magicbastarder wrote: »

what would happen if *everyone* in ireland decided to marry everyone else?

It would be one hell of a reception ... never mind the wedding night

lazygal

magicbastarder wrote: »

what would happen if *everyone* in ireland decided to marry everyone else?

David Quinn would explode.

aloyisious

It'd solve the nation's debt, all the tax money rolling in from the party necessities.

robindch

lazygal wrote: »

David Quinn would explode.

Weird - exactly what I was about to post

Still, it's worth a try though.

Peregrinus

lazygal wrote: »

David Quinn would explode.

David Quinn would be one of the spouses, surely?

magicbastarder

I WANT MY CONJUGAL RIGHTS, DAVID!

The Black Oil

lazygal wrote: »

David Quinn would explode.

Once the childers arrived he'd want to know who all the fathers are.

lazygal

magicbastarder wrote: »

I WANT MY CONJUGAL RIGHTS, DAVID!

This could be the next #soundsofsodomy trending #.

macyard

I see a lot of people making fun of polygamous relationships, if prople where going the same about gays there would be mod warnings and bannings.

But it's par for the course we are used to the bigoted comments don't know why boards would be any different

macyard

macyard wrote: »

I see a lot of people making fun of polygamous relationships, if prople where going the same about gays there would be mod warnings and bannings.

But it's par for the course we are used to the bigoted comments don't know why boards would be any different

Mr Pudding asked you to rebut scientific peer reviewed research into the dangers of polygamy.

You hand waved, and described the research as bigoted.

I think you're perhaps right in saying that some fun has been poked, and I don't agree with it, but at the same time, you are not engaging in debate, you are simply calling the 'opposition' bigots at every junction.

Correct, that is what seems to happen a lot when antagonists of the SSM position are called to task on their views. However, and this is a big however, the scientific, peer-reviewed research which has been conducted shows their views to be at best unfounded and misinformed, and at worst, bigoted tripe.

We've (in the main here imo) very little reference to polygamous marriage, and can only trust the research of others (and their reviewers). You cannot simply 'adhere' your cause to that of the SSM debate. They are similar in appearance, but very different beneath the surface. The 'polygamous question' is not supported by scientific evidence (that I have seen - admitting ignorance here!) in the same way that the 'SSM Question' is.

magicbastarder

macyard wrote: »

I see a lot of people making fun of polygamous relationships, if prople where going the same about gays there would be mod warnings and bannings.

there's a difference between 'making fun of' and 'finding fun in', and it's not a subtle difference.

shruikan2553

macyard wrote: »

I see a lot of people making fun of polygamous relationships, if prople where going the same about gays there would be mod warnings and bannings.

But it's par for the course we are used to the bigoted comments don't know why boards would be any different

I didnt see anyone making fun, I saw people making jokes but gay couples get that all the time. The jokes werent malicious.

macyard

shruikan2553 wrote: »

I didnt see anyone making fun, I saw people making jokes but gay couples get that all the time. The jokes werent malicious.

Do you practice polygamous relationship if not you cannot say if it's hurtful just like I cannot say if gay joke will be hurtfull to lgbt people.

I found the last few comments extremely hurtful and have seen mods ban for similar jokes against gay people

oscarBravo

macyard wrote: »

I see a lot of people making fun of polygamous relationships...

I wasn't making fun, I was trying to understand what you're looking for. If you want society to accept your norms, you're going to have to start by explaining them.

So, how does polygamy work, contractually? Is it a series of non-exclusive one-one contracts between individuals, or a multi-party contract between them all?

ShooterSF

I am one of the first when people against SSM say "Next it'll be polygamy", that says "so?". I even had a discussion with the head of an lgbt group in the UK a couple of years ago after he responded less kindly when the same was put to him.

But you have to admit the contractual side of it would take a lot more work, not saying it's impossible, than SSM will. Thinking about how I would look to do it you would probably need to do it incrementally. So maybe legalise for 3 people and and see what legal issues come up and get a better idea of what legal problems a 4 person marriage might present and try and prepare in advance etc..

I'd love to know if you have given this side of things any serious thought?

Personally I'd be quite interested if macyard would be happy to have a conversation on the topic.

However I don't think that this is the thread for it. Should we create a "Polygamous Marriage/Marriage Equality/Ramifications" thread?

Links234

So, Russia bans transgender people from driving

PopePalpatine

At least this thread isn't a target of the Putinbots.

Links234

yet

Daith

ShooterSF wrote: »

. I even had a discussion with the head of an lgbt group in the UK a couple of years ago after he responded less kindly when the same was put to him.

This is the thing I don't get. Why would it be anything to do with an LGBT group? Surely there would be far more hetrosexual people who want to get married to more than one person?

Cabaal

Catholic church won't like this priest

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/Dublin-priest-says-he-is-gay-during-Mass--receives-standing-ovation.html

Father Martin Dolan, who has been a priest at Church of St Nicholas of Myra in Francis Street in Dublin’s city center for 15 years, opened up to his congregation at the Saturday night Mass. He also confided in his Sunday morning congregation. Dolan is the only priest in the parish.

Calling on his Dublin city congregation to support same sex marriage in the upcoming Irish referendum, set for the end May, Dolan said “I’m gay myself.”

Brian Shanahan

magicbastarder wrote: »

what would happen if *everyone* in ireland decided to marry everyone else?

Something like this:

Brian Shanahan

ShooterSF wrote: »

But you have to admit the contractual side of it would take a lot more work, not saying it's impossible, than SSM will. Thinking about how I would look to do it you would probably need to do it incrementally. So maybe legalise for 3 people and and see what legal issues come up and get a better idea of what legal problems a 4 person marriage might present and try and prepare in advance etc..

So would the child protection side of things, the spousal violence side of things, the sexual disease prevention side of things (the link to PNG article also deals with this), and all the other issues that have shown to be more prevalent in polygamous societies.

Seriously it is not that hard to see why polygamy should not be allowed, and why macyard is wrong, so why don't we stop rising to his baiting in the thread?

Brian Shanahan

Links234 wrote: »

So, Russia bans transgender people from driving

And Russia continues it's long descent into Nazism.

MrPudding

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And Russia continues it's long descent into Nazism.

Long descent?

MrP

macyard

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Seriously it is not that hard to see why polygamy should not be allowed, and why macyard is wrong, so why don't we stop rising to his baiting in the thread?

Child protection, and sexual disease prevention are not an issue for SSM?

Is the spread of AIDS not the higest in the gay community also please don't use male pronouns when referring to me

robindch

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

And Russia continues it's long descent into Nazism.

One year ago, I'd have said that Russia would not descend into open fascism, but one year on, I suspend that belief.

For much of that time, I'd hoped - on an ongoing basis - that the end of the hall of mirrors which is Russian foreign and domestic policy might be near, and that the willfully naive, complacent response of the international community might change. But each time, that hope has wilted a little more as the entire Russian state, by which I mean the hollow, paranoid, unpredictable, chekist conscience of VV Putin, takes another little step towards the precipice - a dangerous line crossed here, a war-won precedent snubbed there, both to his Siberian-cold sneer.

So, as above, I've suspended hope for the country. Perhaps VVP will recall his troops, his weaponry and his fabricated war from Ukraine; perhaps he'll see that co-operation can bring great wealth to the country and its long-suffering people; perhaps he'll stop feeding them fascist propaganda which has split the Russian community and its few remaining friends down the middle. And perhaps, hope against experience, he'll stop behaving like two-ruble doorman pissing up against the door of a one-ruble whorehouse.

Cabaal

macyard wrote: »

Is the spread of AIDS not the higest in the gay community

Highest for all gay people? Female to female hiv transmission is very rare indeed. It's far more likely for a non gay couple.

Absolam

macyard wrote: »

Child protection, and sexual disease prevention are not an issue for SSM?
Is the spread of AIDS not the higest in the gay community also please don't use male pronouns when referring to me

Is it not highest amongst iv drug abusers?

macyard

Cabaal wrote: »

Highest for all gay people? Female to female hiv transmission is very rare indeed. It's far more likely for a non gay couple.

I said gay not lesbian, our female/female std transmission is very rare also.

There is no males in our community that purposely go out to get and spread std's unlike the bug catchers in the gay male community for that section they see having aids as a badge of honour.

Absolam

When did lesbians stop being gay?

macyard

Absolam wrote: »

When did lesbians stop being gay?

I use lgbt when talking about the group and gay when talking about gay men, is there a gay male only term like lesbian I should be using?

If gay is men and women why not just call it gbt

Benny_Cake

macyard wrote: »

I said gay not lesbian, our female/female std transmission is very rare also.

There is no males in our community that purposely go out to get and spread std's unlike the bug catchers in the gay male community for that section they see having aids as a badge of honour.

There is no shortage of heterosexual men who are sexually irresponsible, have kids all over the place, cheat on their partners etc. Should straight men be prevented from marrying?

macyard

Benny_Cake wrote: »

There is no shortage of heterosexual men who are sexually irresponsible, have kids all over the place, cheat on their partners etc. Should straight men be prevented from marrying?

Another poster brought up thqr stds should stop people being allowed to marry, I don't agree with them. It's not a reason to stop marraige as we both agree

MrPudding

macyard wrote: »

Child protection, and sexual disease prevention are not an issue for SSM?

Ho about you back up your accusation with, you know, a bit of evidence?

Also, could you provide a bit of clarification around what you mean by 'child protection'? What do children of same sex couples need protecting from?

MrP

macyard

MrPudding wrote: »

Ho about you back up your accusation with, you know, a bit of evidence?

Also, could you provide a bit of clarification around what you mean by 'child protection'? What do children of same sex couples need protecting from?

MrP

Nothing same as us, just pointing out the hypocrisy, both SSM and poly can already have kids, marraige will have no effect on that so only bigots use kids as a reason not to allow marriage.

All the reasons the lgbt groups use to say we should not be married can be used against them. Until a few months ago I thought lgbt groups would be for fair marriage for all but they keep throwing back these lame excuses why we are lesser then them when all the reasons they give are valid for their group too.

All consenting adults should be allowed to express their love in marraige

Benny_Cake

macyard wrote: »

Nothing same as us, just pointing out the hypocrisy, both SSM and poly can already have kids, marraige will have no effect on that so only bigots use kids as a reason not to allow marriage.

All the reasons the lgbt groups use to say we should not be married can be used against them. Until a few months ago I thought lgbt groups would be for fair marriage for all but they keep throwing back these lame excuses why we are lesser then them when all the reasons they give are valid for their group too.

All consenting adults should be allowed to express their love in marraige

As far as I know LGBT groups don't take any stance on the matter of polygamous marriage. Why should they? If there is a demand our there for marriage to be opened up to more than two people, then the argument for it should stand or fall on it's own merits, instead of expecting LGBT organisations to make the case.

macyard

Benny_Cake wrote: »

As far as I know LGBT groups don't take any stance on the matter of polygamous marriage. Why should they? If there is a demand our there for marriage to be opened up to more than two people, then the argument for it should stand or fall on it's own merits, instead of expecting LGBT organisations to make the case.

They are campaigning for a change in marriage, we contacted them to ask after they won would they give us tips and contacts so we can finally have a fair marriage, they come back with bigoted and hateful comments and tell us we should not be allowed.

Cause of this it leaves a bad taste in our mouth and makes us not want to support people that hate us anymore

smokingman

macyard wrote: »

They are campaigning for a change in marriage, we contacted them to ask after they won would they give us tips and contacts so we can finally have a fair marriage, they come back with bigoted and hateful comments and tell us we should not be allowed.

Cause of this it leaves a bad taste in our mouth and makes us not want to support people that hate us anymore

You have stated that gay people can't be trusted around children, are full of disease and are somehow lesser people for not doing your own job of campaigning for your cause. It reeks of an iona shill and if you don't share the google group you described earlier then we can all quite rightly see through the fact that you have no interest in equality and are not a very nice person at all.

Go on, prove me wrong!

macyard

smokingman wrote: »

You have stated that gay people can't be trusted around children, are full of disease and are somehow lesser people for not doing your own job of campaigning for your cause. It reeks of an iona shill and if you don't share the google group you described earlier then we can all quite rightly see through the fact that you have no interest in equality and are not a very nice person at all.

Go on, prove me wrong!

I was showing the hypocrisy that SSM are using bigoted reasons against us that are used against them.

LGBT groups say they are for social justice but have proven not to be as if they don't like you they make fun and ridicule you.

We think all adults should be allowed to marry but lgbt groups don't agree which does not match the social justice they say they are for.

smokingman

macyard wrote: »

I was showing the hypocrisy that SSM are using bigoted reasons against us that are used against them.

LGBT groups say they are for social justice but have proven not to be as if they don't like you they make fun and ridicule you.

We think all adults should be allowed to marry but lgbt groups don't agree which does not match the social justice they say they are for.

Google groups link now please.