vote yes?Three Lesbian Women In Massachusetts “Marry” Each Other

SireOfSeth

wenxue wrote: »

http://www.westernjournalism.com/three-lesbian-women-massachusetts-marry/



Is polygamy now becoming acceptable in American society? Three lesbian women in Massachusetts recently “married” each other after exchanging vows in a wedding-style ceremony last year. They claim they are the world’s first “throuple.”

Although Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriages, the state does not recognize polygamous ones. Nevertheless, the three women named Brynn, Doll, and Kitten still entered into the three-way relationship. Brynn told The Sun newspaper: “In our eyes we are married.We had specialist lawyers draw up paperwork so our assets are equally divided.”

What has any of this to do with Voting Yes or the Referendum? The title of this thread is confusing.

Ozymandius2011

wenxue wrote: »

http://www.westernjournalism.com/three-lesbian-women-massachusetts-marry/



Is polygamy now becoming acceptable in American society? Three lesbian women in Massachusetts recently “married” each other after exchanging vows in a wedding-style ceremony last year. They claim they are the world’s first “throuple.”

Although Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriages, the state does not recognize polygamous ones. Nevertheless, the three women named Brynn, Doll, and Kitten still entered into the three-way relationship. Brynn told The Sun newspaper: “In our eyes we are married.We had specialist lawyers draw up paperwork so our assets are equally divided.”

I don't mind how many people some one marrys provided there are measures to deter abuse of the system for immigration, taxation and social welfare purposes. I also support polyandry.

ArtSmart

Uncle Ben wrote: »

A bird in the hand is worth two in the with a bush. I like.

fyp

Billy86

wenxue wrote: »

http://www.westernjournalism.com/three-lesbian-women-massachusetts-marry/



Is polygamy now becoming acceptable in American society? Three lesbian women in Massachusetts recently “married” each other after exchanging vows in a wedding-style ceremony last year. They claim they are the world’s first “throuple.”

Although Massachusetts recognizes same-sex marriages, the state does not recognize polygamous ones. Nevertheless, the three women named Brynn, Doll, and Kitten still entered into the three-way relationship. Brynn told The Sun newspaper: “In our eyes we are married.We had specialist lawyers draw up paperwork so our assets are equally divided.”

Polygamy is legal in some countries where same sex marriage is not. If the referendum doesn't pass, then surely polygamy would be the next step voters on the no side would take, right?

ArtSmart

problem with threesomes is that someone always ends up doing the dishes alone.

Billy86

Endthescam wrote: »

It's a slippery slope.

So is a water slide.

Billy86

Del.Monte wrote: »

Just like anybody who intends to vote No, or dares speak out against the herd, is labelled a homophobe or bigot. :rolleyes:

To be fair, I have yet to see even one slightly compelling argument for the no side. These tend to be the most prevalent:

1. It is not traditional... except it is. The oldest recorded same sex marriage/union is o ly about 50 years after the first recorded with a man and woman. Both stretch back to around 2,400 BC. Marriage has always changed in time, we don't marry for land and titles anymore.

2. It is not natural... except it is. Many, many animals practice homosexuality, and even form relationships with animals of the same sex. Therefore, it LITERALLY exists in nature. There is no argument against this either.

3. What about adoption? What about the kids?? There is no evidence to show that children raised by same sex couples are any worse off than those raises by a mother and father.

4. First gay marriage, next polygamy! But surely if countries that outlaw homosexuality do allow polygamy, then voting no is the first step towards polygamy? Basically, this is a desperate attempt to clutch at straws that are not even there to begin with.

5. Isn't civil union enough? No, it clearly isn't... both in terms of how a couple feel about the status of their relationship and the 160+ differences involved in being in a civil partnership compared to a civil union.

6. They'll be forcing churches to perform them... no they won't, and churches shouldn't have to. This is nothing more than scaremongering, as the referendum says nothing about churches. It is about civil marriage, not religious.

I have repeatedly asked people on the no side for a single decent reason why, and am still waiting over a year later.

galljga1

Del.Monte wrote: »

Just like anybody who intends to vote No, or dares speak out against the herd, is labelled a homophobe or bigot. :rolleyes:

Given your moniker, I assumed you would say yes.

AlphaRed

Zaph wrote: »

I have a lot of pride in my Irish heritage, but that has nothing to do with the question I asked you. You specifically stated that "All of this is an attack on our culture", and I asked you what culture. What I get as a response is a lot of hot air and bluster about independence days and language which is clearly designed to distract from the question you were asked. So I ask the question again, what culture is our culture, and how is same sex marriage an attack on it?

I think it has a lot of do with the question you asked and your concept of "modern" which you have yet to explain. But that seems to be a recurrent tactic of some people posting here, if you get an answer you don't like you keep insisting the question hasn't been answered. Or if you don't like the argument you say there has been no argument made.

The change to the constitution concerns sex (biology) and gender (a masculine or feminine expression). In our culture and as it is consistently seen across the globe and throughout history, sex and gender has always been apart of cultures and societies, a very defining part cultures and societies. Now, this referendum is attempting to wash all that away. To say sex and gender is meaningless. This is just ignoring reality. It is attempting to creating a huge blind spot in how we live and that's just not acceptable.

Because a small minority don't exactly fit perfectly with the rest of society the rest of society now has to drop sex and gender which is deep rooted in our culture and society and pretend it doesn't matter. Maybe there is a better way to do this? Can you at least consider the attempted change to the constitution could be better?

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Explain how any of this hogwash has anything to do with you hating on the gays?

I don't hate on gays. I had a laugh with a guy who happened to be gay I met at meeting the other night. He was a lovely chap. I'm being attacked because I'm pointing out the difference between gay and straight relationships. They are just not the same, simple as that. We are not all equal, deal with it. There is no society on earth where all the members are equal. When you try to change that and make everyone equal it just starts to look like communism. You have central planners who think they can control everything for the betterment of everyone but it just doesn't work. The government are trying to make us all equal but in the end we will see it just doesn't work. Do you think making us all sheep instead of individuals is good or bad for the government?

Don't get me wrong, it's pissing me off and I think it's important but that doesn't mean I hate gays. What's wrong with acknowledging the difference and reality between gay and straight people and gay and straight couples?

Zaph

AlphaRed wrote: »

I think it has a lot of do with the question you asked and your concept of "modern" which you have yet to explain. But that seems to be a recurrent tactic of some people posting here, if you get an answer you don't like you keep insisting the question hasn't been answered. Or if you don't like the argument you say there has been no argument made.

Now hang on a minute there, let's get something absolutely straight - there is nothing for me "yet to explain" because I have not been asked to explain anything. The only question you asked me was did I not like my own history, to which I replied that I have a lot of pride in my Irish heritage. So you can cut out the nonsense of trying to make it look like other people are evading questions, questions that haven't even been asked. So again, for the third time I'll ask you the question that you are so wilfully evading - what is the culture that same sex marriage is an attack in? Because it's clear that we have different opinions on the topic and yet you're claiming that this is "our" culture being attacked. So I really want to know what it is that you're claiming on my, and presumably other yes voters, behalf as a shared culture under attack.

oscarBravo

AlphaRed wrote: »

I'm being attacked because I'm pointing out the difference between gay and straight relationships. They are just not the same, simple as that. We are not all equal, deal with it.

The beauty of equality - in a societal as opposed to a mathematical sense - is that it doesn't require that people be the same. My neighbour and I are not the same - that's a truism, how could we be? - and yet we have equal rights under the law.

The argument that you can't have equality because people are different falls at the first test of coherence. Yes, we know that gay couples aren't the same as straight couples. It doesn't matter - they can still have equal rights, in the same way that men are not the same as women, but they can have equal rights; in the same way that black people are not the same as white people, but they can have equal rights.

If you want to argue that gay couples are less deserving of equal rights just because they're different from straight couples, please do so - but merely tossing out the argument that "they're different" is so lazy that it doesn't even count as an argument.

mayway

That's absurd. If you vote YES then this is the appalling vista that's awaits us all.

Not a NSA agent

mayway wrote: »

That's absurd. If you vote YES then this is the appalling vista that's awaits us all.

That will be difficult when we are specifically adding the two people part.

I really need to get a copy of the constitution a lot of people are using. The ones Im finding online dont have half the **** people claim.

Guy:Incognito

If you vote no , every couple has to marry off one of their children to a horse.


It's in there, promise.

Del.Monte

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

If you vote no , every couple has to marry off one of their children to a horse.


It's in there, promise.

Won't be long now before some PC loon suggests inter-species marriage.

C14N

Del.Monte wrote: »

Won't be long now before some PC loon suggests inter-species marriage.

Of course, just look at all of those other countries that legalised and have since had successful campaigns for inter-special marriage. No, wait, hang on, my bad, that's literally never happened because it's a baseless slippery-slope accusation and not something grounded in any facts or logic whatsoever.

bur

Why should someone who wants to be in polygamist relationship not have the same rights as everyone else?

oscarBravo

bur wrote: »

Why should someone who wants to be in polygamist relationship not have the same rights as everyone else?

If it's something you want, get popular support for it and put it to a referendum. It's not what we're voting on this month, however, so I don't know why it's being discussed here.

AlphaRed

oscarBravo wrote: »

The argument that you can't have equality because people are different falls at the first test of coherence. Yes, we know that gay couples aren't the same as straight couples. It doesn't matter - they can still have equal rights, in the same way that men are not the same as women, but they can have equal rights; in the same way that black people are not the same as white people, but they can have equal rights.

If you want to argue that gay couples are less deserving of equal rights just because they're different from straight couples, please do so - but merely tossing out the argument that "they're different" is so lazy that it doesn't even count as an argument.

Can you explain how gay couples are not the same as straight couples? And how does it not matter?

You think my argument is lazy? It relies on common sense and clarity. Those are the people I speak to, if you don't get it I can't help you.

AlphaRed

oscarBravo wrote: »

If it's something you want, get popular support for it and put it to a referendum. It's not what we're voting on this month, however, so I don't know why it's being discussed here.

It's being discussed here in the same way you keep bringing blacks and women into the argument to try to justify your position. And people are not fooled by it. People have the common sense and clarity to know the difference.

bopper

AlphaRed wrote: »

It's being discussed here in the same way you keep bringing blacks and women into the argument to try to justify your position. And people are not fooled by it. People have the common sense and clarity to know the difference.

Enlighten us so and explain the difference.

AlphaRed

Zaph wrote: »

Now hang on a minute there, let's get something absolutely straight - there is nothing for me "yet to explain" because I have not been asked to explain anything. The only question you asked me was did I not like my own history, to which I replied that I have a lot of pride in my Irish heritage. So you can cut out the nonsense of trying to make it look like other people are evading questions, questions that haven't even been asked. So again, for the third time I'll ask you the question that you are so wilfully evading - what is the culture that same sex marriage is an attack in? Because it's clear that we have different opinions on the topic and yet you're claiming that this is "our" culture being attacked. So I really want to know what it is that you're claiming on my, and presumably other yes voters, behalf as a shared culture under attack.

Oh I'm sorry about that. It's just no voters get accused of not answers questions all the time when we clearly have.

You only quoted half my response. I wrote about sex and gender being a part of our culture and the marriage referendum cuts out sex and gender. Is that good enough for you?

Billy86

AlphaRed wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry about that. It's just no voters get accused of not answers questions all the time when we clearly have.

You only quoted half my response. I wrote about sex and gender being a part of our culture and the marriage referendum cuts out sex and gender. Is that good enough for you?

So gender didn't exist in Mesopotamia, Rome, Egypt, China and many other cultures? Has it evaporated away in Holland, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, Brazil, France, England, New Zealand and most of the US?

AlphaRed

Billy86 wrote: »

So gender didn't exist in Mesopotamia, Rome, Egypt, China and many other cultures? Has it evaporated away in Holland, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Portugal, Iceland, Argentina, Denmark, Brazil, France, England, New Zealand and most of the US?

I'm not concerned with ancient cultures.

For the others we will have to wait and see. The fact of the matter is people do gender and it is rooted in our biology and expressed in our culture and society. To pretend it doesn't matter is creating a blind spot that is a negative for our society.

Zaph

AlphaRed wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry about that. It's just no voters get accused of not answers questions all the time when we clearly have.

You only quoted half my response. I wrote about sex and gender being a part of our culture and the marriage referendum cuts out sex and gender. Is that good enough for you?

Seriously? That's the best you can come up with, that sex and gender are part of our culture? Are they not part of every culture? Assuming they are, what makes them so exceptional in Irish culture that they're being attacked? And then you wonder why you're being accused of not answering questions? Contrary to your assertion, I've yet to see one single straight response from you on any thread that I've seen you post.

AlphaRed

Zaph wrote: »

Seriously? That's the best you can come up with, that sex and gender are part of our culture? Are they not part of every culture? Assuming they are, what makes them so exceptional in Irish culture that they're being attacked? And then you wonder why you're being accused of not answering questions? Contrary to your assertion, I've yet to see one single straight response from you on any thread that I've seen you post.

It's just turning into a circular argument with you (haven't answered the question again)

Zaph

AlphaRed wrote: »

It's just turning into a circular argument with you (haven't answered the question again)

It is, because as you state, you haven't answered the question again, although I'm fully aware that that's not what you're implying. And you're not going to answer it either without resorting to doublespeak and nonsense, so I may as well accept that I'm wasting my time and bow out.

I don't know how you're going to cope with the world after the referendum, but my biggest hope is that the result will make closed minded people such as yourself open up to the fact that the world has changed, and will keep on changing, and that embracing that change and the diversity that comes with it is a far healthier way to live than saying no to everything and depriving people of things that they should already have.

AlphaRed

Zaph wrote: »

It is, because as you state, you haven't answered the question again, although I'm fully aware that that's not what you're implying. And you're not going to answer it either without resorting to doublespeak and nonsense, so I may as well accept that I'm wasting my time and bow out.

I don't know how you're going to cope with the world after the referendum, but my biggest hope is that the result will make closed minded people such as yourself open up to the fact that the world has changed, and will keep on changing, and that embracing that change and the diversity that comes with it is a far healthier way to live than saying no to everything and depriving people of things that they should already have.

What bases do you have for saying change and diversity is better or healthier? It's just more liberal/fascist nonsense.

Billy86

AlphaRed wrote: »

I'm not concerned with ancient cultures.

So you are trying to argue that same sex marriage will cause genders to be threatened, but want to ignore all evidence from the real world and instead focus only on the notions in your head. Got it.

Billy86

AlphaRed wrote: »

What bases do you have for saying change and diversity is better or healthier? It's just more liberal/fascist nonsense.

Yeah, those intolerant, dictatorial, extreme right wing liberals are just the worst!

AlphaRed

Billy86 wrote: »

Yeah, those intolerant, dictatorial, extreme right wing liberals are just the worst!

They are when they always force you to agree with them.

Billy86

AlphaRed wrote: »

They are when they always force you to agree with them.

If by "forcing you to agree with them" you mean asking for actual solid reasons for what you are claiming, and calling out the large holes in your logic, then you might want to google the definitions of some of those words.

Not a NSA agent

AlphaRed wrote: »

They are when they always force you to agree with them.

Like when a person is voting no?

oscarBravo

AlphaRed wrote: »

Can you explain how gay couples are not the same as straight couples? And how does it not matter?

Gay couples involve gay people. Straight couples involve straight people. Of course, either can involve bisexuals.

It doesn't matter for the purposes of equality, because the people who make up those couples are humans, who have equal rights. In the same way - as I've already pointed out - that men and women, despite being self-evidently different, have equal rights.

You think my argument is lazy? It relies on common sense and clarity.

It mostly seems to involve avoiding difficult questions, such as why it's OK to discriminate on the basis of sexuality.

AlphaRed wrote: »

It's being discussed here in the same way you keep bringing blacks and women into the argument to try to justify your position. And people are not fooled by it. People have the common sense and clarity to know the difference.

That's another evasion. I'll ask again: why is it OK to discriminate against people based on sexuality, if it's not OK to discriminate based on race or gender?

AlphaRed

oscarBravo wrote: »

Gay couples involve gay people. Straight couples involve gay people. Of course, either can involve bisexuals.

Sweet Jesus :eek: The pattern of fuzzy headed boundaries and a week sense of self are quiet evident amognst the yes voters now, and that line proves it.

Why don't you go ahead and have the thread locked now sweetheart.

oscarBravo

AlphaRed wrote: »

Sweet Jesus :eek: The pattern of fuzzy headed boundaries and a week sense of self are quiet evident amognst the yes voters now, and that line proves it.

Why don't you go ahead and have the thread locked now sweetheart.

That's an oblique and snarky way of pointing out a typo, but thanks (I guess) for bringing it to my attention - fixed.

Rabo Karabekian

AlphaRed wrote: »

Oh I'm sorry about that. It's just no voters get accused of not answers questions all the time when we clearly have.

You only quoted half my response. I wrote about sex and gender being a part of our culture and the marriage referendum cuts out sex and gender. Is that good enough for you?

This is one thing I don't understand. You say that the marriage referendum cuts out sex and gender, but the article that it's referring to doesn't mention sex and gender either.

mayway

Is it just me or are the YES crew more militant than the NO side? They're defacing posters all over the country. It's bizarre.

mayway

And while I'm at it, if you vote YES to this what material difference will it actually make? I'd read the literature that the government are sending out if I actually received any.

elfy4eva

mayway wrote: »

I'd read the literature that the government are sending out if I actually received any.

www.refcom2015.ie

All the exact same literature is there. What an age we live in....

mayway

elfy4eva wrote: »

www.refcom2015.ie

All the exact same literature is there. What an age we live in....

Yes, but it's supposed to be delivered to every home in the country. If anyone doesn't receive it with plenty of time to review then NO is the only answer.

C14N

mayway wrote: »

Yes, but it's supposed to be delivered to every home in the country. If anyone doesn't receive it with plenty of time to review then NO is the only answer.

Why would you vote no if you hadn't read the thing?

oscarBravo

C14N wrote: »

Why would you vote no if you hadn't read the thing?

Hush, you. Don't you know an "I've found a specious reason for a no vote!" post when you see one?

mayway

Because the constitution should be protected at all costs. It's up to the proposer of the changes to explains what the changes are and why they're proposing them.

In this case no literature found it's way to my door so, regardless of the issue, the answer is NO.

I suspect anyway that less than 1% actually read up on what the referendum was actually about and most people voted YES because they felt intimidated or thought it would be "cool". Either way, marriage has now been wrecked for the citizens of Ireland.

PopePalpatine

How exactly has it been "wrecked"? For you lot it's been wrecked ever since the marriage bar was done away with

Ave Sodalis

mayway wrote:

I suspect anyway that less than 1% actually read up on what the referendum was actually about and most people voted YES because they felt intimidated or thought it would be "cool". Either way, marriage has now been wrecked for the citizens of Ireland.

I would consider myself incredibly well informed on this and still voted yes... am I cool now? has your marriage fallen apart because of this? Has anyone else's? Do you feel threatened? And more importantly, why the feck is this still being talked about?

Penn

mayway wrote: »

Because the constitution should be protected at all costs.

The Constitution was written by people and is changed on a regular basis by way of public vote to update it to reflect changes to society.

The Constitution is a document, which is in no way infallible or taken to be correct simply because it's the Constitution. It can, and should be changed, as needs must.

mayway

It's wrecked as it's rendered meaningless. No, my relationship hasn't fallen apart, it's just that the overriding covenant of marriage has been rendered meaningless which is regretful. And pointless. But that's what happens I suppose.

mayway

Bad Horse wrote: »

The Constitution was written by people and is changed on a regular basis by way of public vote to update it to reflect changes to society.

The Constitution is a document, which is in no way infallible or taken to be correct simply because it's the Constitution. It can, and should be changed, as needs must.

Absolutely agree. However, as I pointed out, the onus is on the proposer of the changes to explain what they are and why they are proposing them. I received no documentation on this so the answer must be NO.

PopePalpatine

mayway wrote: »

Because the constitution should be protected at all costs. It's up to the proposer of the changes to explains what the changes are and why they're proposing them.

I take it you're still butthurt over the RCC losing its "special status" in our constitution?