Legalise multi-partner marriage

Forums › Off topic › Legalise multi-partner marriage

1 | 2

josephhinvest

1550 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 322

ID Verified

Trusted

#805419 25-Apr-2013 12:34

I'm immediately sceptical about this. Can anyone link to the Facebook group?
I've done some googling, and searched on Facebook but can't find it. One article I read about this "news story" actually says that they couldn't find the group.
Who are the people that are supporting this call for multi-partner marriage?

I personally suspect this is a red herring, for the purposes of pushing the "slippery slope" argument.

Cheers,
Joseph

ajobbins

5053 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1279

Trusted

#805425 25-Apr-2013 12:52

I have no issue with it. But I don't think there is much of an appetite for it therefore it wont get far (at least for now).

Twitter: ajobbins

1080p

1332 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 152
Inactive user

#805469 25-Apr-2013 14:59

josephhinvest: I'm immediately sceptical about this. Can anyone link to the Facebook group?
I've done some googling, and searched on Facebook but can't find it. One article I read about this "news story" actually says that they couldn't find the group.
Who are the people that are supporting this call for multi-partner marriage?

I personally suspect this is a red herring, for the purposes of pushing the "slippery slope" argument.

Cheers,
Joseph

The page is here. A slippery slope argument being made now makes no sense. It is too late.

josephhinvest

1550 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 322

ID Verified

Trusted

#805496 25-Apr-2013 16:19

1080p:
josephhinvest: I'm immediately sceptical about this. Can anyone link to the Facebook group?
I've done some googling, and searched on Facebook but can't find it. One article I read about this "news story" actually says that they couldn't find the group.
Who are the people that are supporting this call for multi-partner marriage?

I personally suspect this is a red herring, for the purposes of pushing the "slippery slope" argument.

Cheers,
Joseph

The page is here. A slippery slope argument being made now makes no sense. It is too late.

Excellent, thanks for link. Not a huge following for the group, for the amount of media attention.
The reason I mentioned the slippery slope is because the group was started just before the marriage equality bill vote, the timing seems to be very convienent to gain media attention.

I'm not strongly opposed to the idea in principle, but I find it hard to imagine much active support for the cause in western countries, excluding a few very small minority groups.

Cheers,
Joseph

Edit.. "It is too late". For what? I think it's pretty widely accepted there is a much broader ranger of gender identities and stuff that most people consider to be "normal" now, compared with in the past. Same sex marriage seems to be a relatively minor tweak to marriage IMHO, it's still fundamentally a union of two. I don't see any reason why it's now inevitable that people will be able to marry pets and cars and anything else they want.

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#805501 25-Apr-2013 16:53

Anyone can marry anyone based on the gay marriage argument.

Married people should be able to marry other married people too.

So you could have 2 hetero sexual couples where the females from each relationship are also married to each other.

And, anyone opposed is a bigot i suppose.

Who has the right to tell consenting adults what to do?

surfisup1000

5288 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2159

#805503 25-Apr-2013 17:00

josephhinvest:
Edit.. "It is too late". For what? I think it's pretty widely accepted there is a much broader ranger of gender identities and stuff that most people consider to be "normal" now, compared with in the past. Same sex marriage seems to be a relatively minor tweak to marriage IMHO, it's still fundamentally a union of two. I don't see any reason why it's now inevitable that people will be able to marry pets and cars and anything else they want.

Marriage 'was' fundamentally a union between different sexes but there was nothing to stop that from changing meaning.

The only fundamental is that people should not have the right to impose their values and beliefs on those who differ from themselves.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

lucky015

746 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 182

ID Verified

Trusted

#805536 25-Apr-2013 18:10

This is a difficult one, Its not about right or wrong, Gay marriage came down to has it contributed to anyone getting hurt with a resounding no as the answer, Polygamous marriage however has a high association with cults and forced marriage, Can you say the same about it?

I would suggest it would require some very strong rules and regulations but in its self is not bad.

Provided all existing partners in the prior marriages sign off on each-other and there is a strong consent process I don't see too much of a problem.

NZtechfreak

4649 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 461

Trusted

#805541 25-Apr-2013 18:28

Sounds to me like something started by the religious right, supports their proposition about 'slippery slopes', will help galvanise voting support for idiotards like Colin Craig.

Twitter: @nztechfreak
Blogs: HeadphoNZ.org

lucky015

746 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 182

ID Verified

Trusted

#805548 25-Apr-2013 18:42

NZtechfreak: Sounds to me like something started by the religious right, supports their proposition about 'slippery slopes', will help galvanise voting support for idiotards like Colin Craig.

Probably true, The irony being that its religious groups that tend to have a particular interest in the topic in the name of freedom to practice their "religious rights"

josephhinvest

1550 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 322

ID Verified

Trusted

#805550 25-Apr-2013 18:49

NZtechfreak: Sounds to me like something started by the religious right, supports their proposition about 'slippery slopes', will help galvanise voting support for idiotards like Colin Craig.

Yes this is indeed what I was also trying to suggest.

Cheers,
Joseph

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
80657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 41065

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#805551 25-Apr-2013 18:50

The Facebook page has no names or contact information. It's anonymous. How seriously can you take that?

Referral links: Quic Broadband (free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE) | Samsung | AliExpress | Wise | Sharesies

Support Geekzone by subscribing (browse ads-free), or making a one-off or recurring donation through PressPatron.

Geekzone

Want to support Geekzone and browse the site without the ads? Subscribe to Geekzone now (monthly, annual and lifetime options).

scuwp

3927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2510

#806291 27-Apr-2013 11:28

I vote we just ban marriage...lets just all hang out together and be friends, some with benefits :-)

Problem solved

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

1 | 2