Could bigamy be next?

Manach

Latin phrase might sum it up: "vox populi, voc dei".

blackcard

Is it possible to love two people at the same time? Is it possible to be okay with the fact that the person who loves you also loves someone else?

kowloon

darkpagandeath wrote: »

What's that supposed to mean it's all about Love equality ? If consenting adults want to engage in different kinds of relations who are we to stop them ?

Did you reply to the right post there?

Tony Beetroot

Anything is possible.

martingriff

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

Geniass

Tony Beetroot wrote: »

Anything is possible.

We might all, once more, slavishly follow men in skirts spouting a 2 thousand year old myths and legends as facts?

shudder

Mountainsandh

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.

allthedoyles

Has to prostitution next , thats if it needs a referendum to be legalised

endacl

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.

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

Magico Gonzalez

i heard that a stoat will be legally able to marry a spider next, country has gone to the dogs joe

Minderbinder

personally think polygyny would be good for society as it would increase the numbers of offspring for the wealthy, well educated in society and reduce the chances of the uneducated swines reproducing multiple more versions of themselves. why should great men be so limited? if you have a top race horse you would want it reproducing as much as possible. it would obviously benefit society because as it stands the lower classes are only going to further outnumber the upper classes into the future.

zeffabelli

sashafierce wrote: »

Maybe I'm wrong but wouldn't incest be dangerous in the sense if kids were produced there may be birth defects? I wouldn't support incest.

As for having more than one partner.. jeez isn't once enough work!!

Not if they are gay.

Greaney

Our social welfare system was never designed with Polygamy in mind.

LookingFor

Just an aside, but this isn't a 'if same sex marriage, therefore bigamy' thing... The argument for bigamy has always been there regardless of same sex marriage. You only have to look at countries where bigamy and polygamy are legal to see that. We can ask how open minded Irish people may be to the idea, but they are quite distinct issues.

zeffabelli

We already have polygamy. Five year divorce wait means you can set up a common law spouse while your waiting for your divorce, have more kids etc.

What privaledge does a marriage bring?

blackcard

zeffabelli wrote: »

We already have polygamy. Five year divorce wait means you can set up a common law spouse while your waiting for your divorce, have more kids etc.

What privaledge does a marriage bring?

You could ask all the people who voted yes yesterday

c montgomery

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.

Pretty intolerant attitude you have there!!

Buona Fortuna

Pretzill wrote: »

That's bigayou




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

Only just got that

silverfeather

Plumgirth wrote: »

I have two girlfriends and a child with each we all live together, financially it works well as my girlfriends can both work part time and share childminding duties while I work full time. Legally it would be nice to have our relationship recognised for practical purposes.

How many bambinos??

zeffabelli

blackcard wrote: »

You could ask all the people who voted yes yesterday

That's what I'm doing.

mocha please!

If there ever were such a referendum, I'd probably vote in favour of it. It would be good to have some legislation in place, particularly in cases where children are involved.

However I just can't see it ever happening. There are too few people involved in such relationships, or who feel strongly about the issue, to put pressure on the government to hold a referendum.

Also ... If you're someone who's capable of loving more than one person, doesn't that sort of go against the nature of marriage? I mean if you're in a committed long-term relationship with two people, at what stage can you rule out the possibility of a time coming where you want a fourth person to the relationship? It's another reason that I can't ever imagine there being a big push for a referendum.

silverfeather

no way monogamy foreverrrr

Means Of Escape

blackcard wrote: »

Is it possible to love two people at the same time? Is it possible to be okay with the fact that the person who loves you also loves someone else?

Cue Mary Mc Gregor singing "Torn between two lovers"

silverfeather

Originally Posted by blackcard
Is it possible to love two people at the same time? Is it possible to be okay with the fact that the person who loves you also loves someone else?

No it's not. Never I could never love anyone who loved someone else. I would become apathetic to them. That's a platonic kind of love there is no passion. For me anyway. I demand loyalty and faithfullnes. It's an attractive quality.

Greaney

mocha please! wrote: »

If there ever were such a referendum, I'd probably vote in favour of it. It would be good to have some legislation in place, particularly in cases where children are involved.

However I just can't see it ever happening. There are too few people involved in such relationships, or who feel strongly about the issue, to put pressure on the government to hold a referendum.

Some folk couldn't see gay marriage happening five years ago so it's possible.

FloatingVoter

What if your other half loves Jesus too ? Stiff competition there, middle eastern guy with godlike powers.

silverfeather

Not for me anyway...my lover is all mine or nothing! Yes I am excessive!

SaveOurLyric

Fortunately, we are following a path of equality for all, and retaining laws that forbid someone who is married from additionally marrying someone else is just plain discrimination. Those who believe in being married solely to one person are entitled to to that if they wish. But they cannot restrain others from being married to two or more people if they wish it, just because they would not choose to be bigamist or polygamist themselves.
It can only be a matter of time if we are really true to our conviction in Fridays referendum decision. Probably not within this Dail at this stage. But surely in the next one.

SaveOurLyric

silverfeather wrote: »

Not for me anyway...my lover is all mine or nothing! Yes I am excessive!

But surely you wouldnt deny other the possibility to do so even though it isnt your choice for yourself ?

Lando Griffin

At the beginning of this thread I was for Monogamy , then I found out that Im not in favour of it but instead would be in favour of polygamy. Then my one wife came in and reminded me of the list of DIY she has earmarked for me to do and has convinced herself that I can do them a to top tradesman levels.
Now I just want to be left alone.

wakka12

2(or more) consenting adults, doing something that has no negative effects on the lives of anybody else outside of the arrangement is perfectly fine by me.

wakka12

allthedoyles wrote: »

Has to prostitution next , thats if it needs a referendum to be legalised

If gay marriage needed one Id say prostitution will as well.
Also legalisation of marijuana.
Abortion and euthanasia.

I hope all 4 pass.

wakka12

Also I would vote for polygamy but I seriously doubt it will ever pass if gay marriage got as much opposition as it did.

zeffabelli

I vote that asexual relationships, whether incestuos or not, should have equal rights and enjoy the privaledges that homo and heterosexuals now enjoy.

Maximus Alexander

zeffabelli wrote: »

I vote that asexual relationships, whether incestuos or not, should have equal rights and enjoy the privaledges that homo and heterosexuals now enjoy.

I may be missing your point somehow, but there is nothing preventing two asexual people of either gender from marrying.

ToddyDoody

Are you born a bigamist or do you become a bigamist?

whisky_galore

zeffabelli wrote: »

What privaledge does a marriage bring?

Gay and lesbian couples have a perfect right to be as miserable as heterosexual married couples.

ThinkProgress

Polygamy is something I could see... but not bigamy.

Some people are capable of satisfying more than one partner, while others struggle to satisfy one! (or any)

Carlos Orange

allthedoyles wrote: »

Has to prostitution next , thats if it needs a referendum to be legalised

Prostitution is legal in Ireland. Unless I missed it being criminalised which is possible.

Egginacup

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

Well.....not necessarily true, Jack. Yes, we've read or heard about (in movies, stories, documentaries, newspaper articles, etc.) of men and sometimes women living what are called "double lives". The man maintains a wife and family in two separate locations and negotiates his way through this web of deceit by having an occupation that permits him to divide his time between both families. That's most likely what you are talking about. The "watered down" version of this is a married man who has a mistress. The mistress knows about the marriage and is content to be the "other woman". This is a far more common occurrence. Marital infidelity is very common by both husband and wife. This is usually for sexual gratification or "something different/sordid/exciting" but there are also cases where the married man has a perfectly happy and harmonious marriage yet maintains a mistress who is more than a sexual companion. German Field Marshall Erwin Rommel had a long and loving marriage yet also maintained another longterm partner with whom he had a child.

But bigamy in the sense that the OP is writing about is probably along the lines of multiple spouses by mutual consent. Personally I think it's very rare and probably not even up for discussion regarding legalisation. There just isn't in my opinion the need or demand for it. It's too rare a phenomenon to countenance recognition as a legal position.
Humans are essentially non-monogamous but marriage doesn't have a whole lot to do with satisfying sexual urges. It's more of legal partnership. I'm not fully in support of the philosophy behind it but it's a cultural norm that the majority of people seem to go along with so who am I to argue.
If three or more people want to enter into a partnership that fulfills their sexual and companionship needs then they are free to do so. If they want to share legal protections regarding taxation, assets, inheritance etc then they probably ought to set up some kind of corporation or entity whereby they are shareholders or something. Sounds crass but I don't know how else they could address the issue. It gets really sticky when children are involved. Is one female the biological mother while another is the adoptive parent? I think it's too much work and hassle to address something that is so uncommon.

Places like Saudi Arabia permit it. That's why there are something like 10 or 20 thousand princes there. The great-great-great grandfather fathered dozens of children with multiple wives and the offspring did the same, rinse repeat until the family tree looked like a damn pyramid scheme. Of course these idiots just lie around all day being fed grapes by concubines or smashing up their Bentleys after downing a bottle of Stoli Cristal. Nice work if you can get it.
Anyway back to the point. Bigamy legalisation in Ireland? Don't think it's even worth considering.

ThinkProgress

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Polygamy is something I could see... but not bigamy.

Some people are capable of satisfying more than one partner, while others struggle to satisfy one! (or any)

What about polyandry? After all, women are renowned for being able to multi tack, so why not have multiple Husbands?

ThinkProgress

Deleted User wrote: »

What about polyandry? After all, women are renowned for being able to multi tack, so why not have multiple Husbands?

Already exists... that's why we have hookers! :P

Eugene Norman

Seriously if it's known and consented to its polygamy.

Lots of people would vote against that for personal reasons. Reducing the pool of available partners wouldn't help many of us.

That's said in theory it probably shouldn't be banned.

seamus

Yeah, unlike SSM, there are quite a few complications around polygamy when it comes to the legalities.

Children, for example, let's say three people in the relationship have 6 kids between them. One of them dies, and that person is only the biological parent of 3 of the kids. Do all 6 kids inherit, or just the biological 3?

How does a maintenance order work if one partner divorces the other 2?

And all that fun stuff. Not impossible, but certainly quite complicated and quite a bit of effort for something that's probably not in high demand.

There could be a stopgap solution which allowed for a person to be a member of multiple marriages provided their existing spouse(s) agree. So rather than a single marriage with 3 people in it, each person would be separately married to the other two. Still a little messy, but it doesn't require any major rewrites, and may not even require a referendum.

catallus

seamus wrote: »

And all that fun stuff. Not impossible, but certainly quite complicated and quite a bit of effort for something that's probably not in high demand.

I'd say there's easily as much demand for this as there is for same-sex marriage.

And when did the amount of demand matter when it comes to equality, anyways? :mad:

Eugene Norman

catallus wrote: »

I'd say there's easily as much demand for this as there is for same-sex marriage.

And when did the amount of demand matter when it comes to equality, anyways? :mad:

There really isn't. Feel free to get a campaign going however.

blackcard

blackcard wrote: »

Is it possible to love two people at the same time? Is it possible to be okay with the fact that the person who loves you also loves someone else?

Yes and yes. As a resource human love appears to be only one we have without limits. We love more than one child - sibling - family member - or friend at the same time all the time. So why not romantic love too?

sashafierce wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It does not scale really. Having two partners does not double the amount of effort or "work" in a relationship. Because there is much more of a division of labour too - so it kind of balances itself out.

UCDVet

Any number of consenting adults should be able to marry each other, in whatever configuration they see fit. Anything else is just as close minded as not allowing same-sex or inter-racial marriage.

If four dudes want to marry each other, or two women want to marry me (but not each other), all of it should be permitted, so long as all parties consent (and are of age/able to consent).