Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

'Marriage Equality' is a cleverly worded con

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The government is soon going to launch its consultation on how to implement 'marriage equality.' To you and me, this means giving someone the right to join in matrimony with someone of the same sex.

    Pretty much everyone in favour of redefening marriage bangs on about how it will bring 'equality' and entirely eradicate discrimination. There's even a 'Coalition for Equal Marriage' set up.

    Sure, at first read this sounds immensely appealing. Equality can only be a good thing! I think we'd all agree that denying someone a right because of their race, disability, eye colour etc is morally wrong.

    But isn't equality about giving all people congruent rights? So for instance not allowing someone to marry because they are black is clearly inequality because they are being denied a right that people of other races have available.

    Those who've coined the concept 'Marriage Equality' are in effect being dishonest with their arguments. They're using 'equality' to appeal to the public because of its association with black civil rights, slave trading etc.

    However when you analyse their viewpoint, what they are actually looking to do is
    create a new universal right - the right to allow someone to partake in a marriage of their choice with whoever they want.

    But propose to them the notion of allowing 3 loving men to collectively wed and you get a different message. Those in support of 'marriage equality' are not in favour of ending the discrimination and inequality faced by 3 men who wish to marry. Surely equality's not equality if it's only for some.

    And what harm does it cause anyway if 3 loving consenting men marry? Surely if you don't agree with poly marriage, then don't have one. (This is an argument often used in support of same sex marriage.)

    In fact, there is no rational reason for anyone to oppose marriage between consenting loving adults. Even if the people involved happen to be consaninguinious! Opposing allowing people this way inclined to marry surely makes you just as much of a bigot as the church leaders.

    So, my appeal to those arguing for same-sex marriage - please debate honestly without trying to appeal to people's heartstrings. Treat the issue for what it is.

    You may find you get the outcome you want.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'm for gay marriage, and I see absolutely no problem with polymarriage.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Society will redefine marriage when it is culturally necessarily to do so.
    More people than ever are now in same-sex relationships. This means there is now a demand to alter marriage to be inclusive of this.
    Nobody is going to campaign for 3+ person marriages unless there is a demand for it. If there is no one asking, fighting for it.. Then why would that alteration be made?
    If society suddenly takes to relationships consisting of 3+ people then maybe marriage will change again. Whether you like that or not is another issue, but it's not going to happen any time soon.. And if it does? It will only be reflecting society- as marriage should.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Do you think 2 loving consenting adults that just happen to be siblings should be able to marry if they so desire?
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James0507)
    Society will redefine marriage when it is culturally necessarily to do so.
    More people than ever are now in same-sex relationships. This means there is now a demand to alter marriage to be inclusive of this.
    Nobody is going to campaign for 3+ person marriages unless there is a demand for it. If there is no one asking, fighting for it.. Then why would that alteration be made?
    If society suddenly takes to relationships consisting of 3+ people then maybe marriage will change again. Whether you like that or not is another issue, but it's not going to happen any time soon.. And if it does? It will only be reflecting society- as marriage should.
    You're not really responding to the points in this thread - but I must say that the number of people campaigning is irrelevant.

    If there is genuinely inequality, we need to change things.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joels247)
    Do you think 2 loving consenting adults that just happen to be siblings should be able to marry if they so desire?
    there's more of a sexual argument against this, as inbred children are much more likely to have genetic complications or be born with disabilities. That goes further than people's dislike of the relationship that they're in, which is basically the case with polygamous and gay marriage being currently illegal.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joels247)
    You're not really responding to the points in this thread - but I must say that the number of people campaigning is irrelevant.

    If there is genuinely inequality, we need to change things.
    And my point is... How can you be unequal to a segment of society that doesn't really exist? Know of any 3 person relationships? Know of anywhere in the world where that happens? It's pretty much human nature to form couples, gay or straight.
    If nobody is asking to be equal (and I can't say there's a massive poly marriage campaign going) then nothing will be changed.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seanfromtheblock)
    there's more of a sexual argument against this, as inbred children are much more likely to have genetic complications or be born with disabilities. That goes further than people's dislike of the relationship that they're in, which is basically the case with polygamous and gay marriage being currently illegal.
    So do you think that the fact that there is a risk of a pregnancy complication is justification for denying the right to marriage? Or is it just consaninguinious couples? As if the latter, then that would be bigotry and prejudice.

    This is besides the point anyway - these people will still be having sex irrespective of whether they're married.

    But I do take it you support the rights of same-sex siblings to marry. And siblings who aren't sexually inactive. And siblings who have protected sex.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joels247)
    So do you think that the fact that there is a risk of a pregnancy complication is justification for denying the right to marriage? Or is it just consaninguinious couples? As if the latter, then that would be bigotry and prejudice.

    This is besides the point anyway - these people will still be having sex irrespective of whether they're married.

    But I do take it you support the rights of same-sex siblings to marry. And siblings who aren't sexually inactive. And siblings who have protected sex.
    yeah, if they want to sleep together, and get married and not have children, I have no objection. I personally would not ever want to, but that doesn't mean that they can't.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James0507)
    And my point is... How can you be unequal to a segment of society that doesn't really exist? Know of any 3 person relationships? Know of anywhere in the world where that happens? It's pretty much human nature to form couples, gay or straight.
    If nobody is asking to be equal (and I can't say there's a massive poly marriage campaign going) then nothing will be changed.
    Have you heard of the Netherlands?

    They allowed people to marry a member of the same sex in 2001 and introduced legal unions for 3 or more people which are basically marriage in all but name.

    If you're denying the existence of poly people, then I'd say that you've lived a sheltered life.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seanfromtheblock)
    yeah, if they want to sleep together, and get married and not have children, I have no objection. I personally would not ever want to, but that doesn't mean that they can't.
    So to confirm you support ending the 'discrimination' faced by loving consenting siblings who wish to marry.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Oh someone's negged me already - not even half an hour in!

    What's the problem - don't like the fact that your dishonest arguments have been exposed?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joels247)
    Have you heard of the Netherlands?

    They allowed people to marry a member of the same sex in 2001 and introduced legal unions for 3 or more people which are basically marriage in all but name.

    If you're denying the existence of poly people, then I'd say that you've lived a sheltered life.
    I'm not denying their existence, I'm telling you I'm yet to hear from the Poly marriage campaign. I'm yet to see them submit a petition, march down the street with banners, form organisations. If poly relationships exist to a wide extent, it would seem they're certainly not too fussed about marriage.
    But if they suddenly became fussed, so what? Marriage may change, and marriage would then be reflecting society. Nothing wrong with that.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joels247)
    So to confirm you support ending the 'discrimination' faced by loving consenting siblings who wish to marry.
    I don't think there's much call for it to be legalised, but I wouldn't oppose it, as long as sibling couples didn't have children (which would be pretty difficult to enforce without sterilisation/forced abortion - which is obviously not ideal).

    Sadly it's unlikely these conditions would ever be met. In a perfect world I'd support it, but it's pretty unworkable.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by seanfromtheblock)
    I don't think there's much call for it to be legalised, but I wouldn't oppose it, as long as sibling couples didn't have children (which would be pretty difficult to enforce without sterilisation/forced abortion - which is obviously not ideal).

    Sadly it's unlikely these conditions would ever be met. In a perfect world I'd support it, but it's pretty unworkable.
    So you think that all couples that have a risk of experiencing pregnancy complications should be denied the right to marriage?

    Does this include non-consanguinious couples or just those where they happen to be related?

    And even so how would it be policed? How much of a risk would there have to be etc...

    You also mustn't forgot that people are going to be trying for babies irrespective of whether or not they're married.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James0507)
    I'm not denying their existence, I'm telling you I'm yet to hear from the Poly marriage campaign. I'm yet to see them submit a petition, march down the street with banners, form organisations. If poly relationships exist to a wide extent, it would seem they're certainly not too fussed about marriage.
    But if they suddenly became fussed, so what? Marriage may change, and marriage would then be reflecting society. Nothing wrong with that.
    But by not actively supporting it, James, you're advocating that these people be discriminated against, aren't you?

    As I've said before, if this campaign is about equality, there won't be equality until all people have the right to marry who they want.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Please can everyone who supports full marriage equality please make sure you let the 'Equalities Minister' know.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    This has been done before. Slippery slope argument, blah blah.

    Tbh, I think you'll find most people who are in favour of same-sex marriage coming in aren't strongly opposed to poly marriage either, and would probably be happy to at least consult on relaxing the incest laws too.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joels247)
    So you think that all couples that have a risk of experiencing pregnancy complications should be denied the right to marriage?

    Does this include non-consanguinious couples or just those where they happen to be related?

    And even so how would it be policed? How much of a risk would there have to be etc...

    You also mustn't forgot that people are going to be trying for babies irrespective of whether or not they're married.
    I don't really feel that people who are at significant risk of having children with genetic disorders or disabilities should have children in any circumstance, and this is pretty irrelevant from marriage.

    In terms of marriage, if the people involved are consenting adults who are commited to each other and love each other, why not?
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    This has been done before. Slippery slope argument, blah blah.

    Tbh, I think you'll find most people who are in favour of same-sex marriage coming in aren't strongly opposed to poly marriage either, and would probably be happy to at least consult on relaxing the incest laws too.
    I was wondering how long it'd be before this evasive response came up. I was hoping within an hour, but you've impressed me!

    The slippery slope approach itself is essential when scrutinising any piece of legislation. We need to look at likely results of changing the law in the interest of common sense!

    But I'm not saying that one change will lead to another. My point is that someone arguing for 'equality' for some but 'inequality' for others, is not advocating equality!

    Having said that though, a slippery slope is only a fallacy if it makes illogical jumps between premises. And is this being done? Nope. The Netherlands already has poly-marriage (in all but name,) and Canada is on the way to doing this as well.

    And finally why are you only happy to 'consult' on relaxing the law that currently prohibits 2 loving adults from marrying? Surely you're a bigot.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?

    this is what you'll be called on TSR

  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?

    never shared and never spammed

  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide the button to the right to create your account

    Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: March 16, 2012
New on TSR

What are your A-level predictions?

Join our AS and A2 results day chat thread

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.