Gay marriage in Britain: Does this open the door to other forms of marriage?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Gay marriage in Britain: Does this open the door to other forms of marriage?


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01490/polygamy_1490320c.jpg

With the recent legalisation of gay marriage, supported by a majority of Britons in the polling data, critics of the legislation have stated that one of the dangers of gay marriage is that other forms of sexual behaviour, relationships and maybe even marriage will also be swept up in the equality storm and thus the path towards marriage between multiple partners and maybe even family members will open up. The argument for this is that when homosexuality was legalised in the 1960s, one of the reasons given for legalising was that it would remove the law from the bedroom and would reach a balance: a balance that has since swung in one direction only.

Supporters of gay marriage on the other hand will argue that legalising marriage between two consenting adults will not lead to such chages - as is the case in Brazil - and that such warnings from religious leaders and opponents of the Same-Sex Marriage Bill are mere scaremongering. But what do you think? Is there a dangerous that once an age-old institution has been tampered with, there's nothing to stop it being tampered with again in the future? Is the definition of marriage purely about love? Can love be between more than two people?


There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum. Positive contributions towards official debates will sometimes be rewarded with a month's VIP subscription in a colour of your choice as part of the Top Contributor award. As well as this, reputation will be awarded throughout the debate to those who make valid and constructive posts. Those who make the best contributions within a month win the Debater of the Month award and wins themselves a month's worth of forum VIP and 10 reputation points. Finally, those who create debate topics that generate a lot of buzz and engaging discussion will receive 20 reputation points.

The debate is open to you.

[The Don]

At one point people were saying the same about interracial marriage. Using your religion and outdate ideology of what constitutes acceptable in a relationship is unacceptable and there is no place for that dangerous type of thought in modern society. As Max Planck said "the world progresses one funeral at a time", thankfully the newer generations seem to be more accepting than those before them.

[-:Undertaker:-]

At one point people were saying the same about interracial marriage. Using your religion and outdate ideology of what constitutes acceptable in a relationship is unacceptable and there is no place for that dangerous type of thought in modern society. As Max Planck said "the world progresses one funeral at a time", thankfully the newer generations seem to be more accepting than those before them.

Is it not intolerant of itself to call other opinions unacceptable and that they have 'no place' in society?

[The Don]

Is it not intolerant of itself to call other opinions unacceptable and that they have 'no place' in society?

No because i'm not out protesting against those people having equal rights.

[-:Undertaker:-]

No because i'm not out protesting against those people having equal rights.

So you support marriage between multiple partners then?

[The Don]

So you support marriage between multiple partners then?

If they are all consenting adults then yeh, sure, why would I care whether other people want to get married?

[-:Undertaker:-]

If they are all consenting adults then yeh, sure, why would I care whether other people want to get married?

Fair enough.

I'd agree with you on a legal perspective (as in getting the state out of marriage) but not a moral one.

[Rachel]

To be quite honest, I have nothing against gay marriages but couple marriages....I am not sure with this. Do you think this was a good idea? The thing is I thought letting gay people getting married was only for that purpose not opening other doors... but I am not to sure about this now if this was a good idea or not.

[The Don]

To be quite honest, I have nothing against gay marriages but couple marriages....I am not sure with this. Do you think this was a good idea? The thing is I thought letting gay people getting married was only for that purpose not opening other doors... but I am not to sure about this now if this was a good idea or not.

Don't let Dan's propaganda warp your mind. I have yet to see people campaigning for polygamous marriages. Even if they did though, why would it affect you?

[Rachel]

Don't let Dan's propaganda warp your mind. I have yet to see people campaigning for polygamous marriages. Even if they did though, why would it affect you?

It's not like it will bother me as I live in Canada and not in Britain but I just find it wrong, gay marriage is fine with me it is their choice but to open all types of marriages.....hmmm not sure.

[CrazyLemurs]

Equality is (supposedly) coming on leaps and bounds with all the minority groups in society being pushed to be more open and those in the majority pushed to accept them.

I believe marriage between any people, regardless of their gender, race, age and number should be legal. If a man loves a woman and that woman loves that man, who's to say that woman and that man can't also love another man who loves them, making a three-way relationship? And who's to say that a man who used to be a woman can't love a woman who used to be a man (see my favourite couple ever here (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/katie-hill-arin-andrews-split-3007674))? If a group of people can legitimately find love, why may they not be joined?

That does open things up to family members, and whether they can love each other in a sexual way. I personally don't find this wrong, so long as any children are monitored for signs of genetic disease. This becomes even more broad when you look at this taken from Wikipedia, which provides evidence that even second-level relations are comparatively safer than first-level ones.

Children of parent-child or sibling-sibling unions are at increased risk compared to cousin-cousin unions

[The Don]

Equality is (supposedly) coming on leaps and bounds with all the minority groups in society being pushed to be more open and those in the majority pushed to accept them.

I believe marriage between any people, regardless of their gender, race, age and number should be legal. If a man loves a woman and that woman loves that man, who's to say that woman and that man can't also love another man who loves them, making a three-way relationship? And who's to say that a man who used to be a woman can't love a woman who used to be a man (see my favourite couple ever here (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/real-life-stories/katie-hill-arin-andrews-split-3007674))? If a group of people can legitimately find love, why may they not be joined?

That does open things up to family members, and whether they can love each other in a sexual way. I personally don't find this wrong, so long as any children are monitored for signs of genetic disease. This becomes even more broad when you look at this taken from Wikipedia, which provides evidence that even second-level relations are comparatively safer than first-level ones.

With age I assume you mean big age gaps and are not talking about minors marrying. If not I hugely disagree. I also don't agree with family members getting married. Things like a Father marrying his Daughter opens up a whole lot of problems. Parents are in a huge position of power over their children for the first 16-18 years of their lives and if allowed to marry then that opens up cases of neglect and abuse. The genetic problems of children resulting from incest is also a whole other matter. It's not right to knowingly have children when they are likely to have defects which is another reason I am opposed to marriage between family members.

[karter]

Equality is (supposedly) coming on leaps and bounds with all the minority groups in society being pushed to be more open and those in the majority pushed to accept them.


what 'minorities' are you referring to

[-:Undertaker:-]

Don't let Dan's propaganda warp your mind. I have yet to see people campaigning for polygamous marriages. Even if they did though, why would it affect you?

Not sure how it's my propaganda... i've said i'd de facto legalise all marriage by removing the state from it. No, this debate stems from the fact that nations such as Brazil and South Africa allow marriages between more than two people. Now, logically, if the rationalé for legalising gay marriage is because 'people love eachother and therefore should be equal' then why not extend that to three, four or seven people?

It was not reactionaries like me who started this redefinition of relationships/marriage, it was the left. Now the radicals have to say where it will end.

[CrazyLemurs]

karter; I refer to minorities simply for the most cover-all word. In this I include so many groups of people: those with alternate sexualities (non-straight); those with physical and mental disabilities; those of formerly-oppressed races (non-white), just for a few.
The Don; (do mentions work with spaces :S) I more meant old men marrying younger women, something seen as inappropriate in much of society. I do agree that minors should not be allowed to marry, as it is difficult to determine the true intent of under 16s/18s in their actions. Surely, if your problems to do with familial marriage are with the dangers associated with children, then marriage within a family under the condition they do not have children is okay? I'm confident that clause could be put in place if familial marriage could be.

[The Don]

karter; I refer to minorities simply for the most cover-all word. In this I include so many groups of people: those with alternate sexualities (non-straight); those with physical and mental disabilities; those of formerly-oppressed races (non-white), just for a few.
The Don; (do mentions work with spaces :S) I more meant old men marrying younger women, something seen as inappropriate in much of society. I do agree that minors should not be allowed to marry, as it is difficult to determine the true intent of under 16s/18s in their actions. Surely, if your problems to do with familial marriage are with the dangers associated with children, then marriage within a family under the condition they do not have children is okay? I'm confident that clause could be put in place if familial marriage could be.

I stil disagree with family marriage due to the other reason I mentioned, parents and relatives having a position of power for years.

[karter]

@karter (http://www.habboxforum.com/member.php?u=58762); I refer to minorities simply for the most cover-all word. In this I include so many groups of people: those with alternate sexualities (non-straight); those with physical and mental disabilities; those of formerly-oppressed races (non-white), just for a few.


What do you mean when you say this


Equality is (supposedly) coming on leaps and bounds with all the minority groups in society being pushed to be more open and those in the majority pushed to accept them.

Are you implying that the majority is somehow above minorities and are doing some arduous task of recognizing minority groups? that's what it sounds like to me ... why would you use the word 'push'.

[CrazyLemurs]

karter; I just feel since some groups of people who previously were seen as a lower part of society have found their freedom, the media (and other people, but primarily media) feels it's their job to force everyone into being open about themselves and whatever minority groups they may find themselves in.

[FlyingJesus]

Yeah it's totally a huge risk in the same way that abolishing slavery has led to worldwide anarchy and civil collapse

[Reality]

That's very differential on your side... (no more said)

O/T : Its good that it has been, no more waits no more inequality
To be quite honest, I have nothing against gay marriages but couple marriages....I am not sure with this. Do you think this was a good idea? The thing is I thought letting gay people getting married was only for that purpose not opening other doors... but I am not to sure about this now if this was a good idea or not.

[Inseriousity.]

Let's not do point A because point B and C might happen.
I'm okay with people using this argument but when point B/C are so exaggerated and extremist, it just baffles me. There is absolutely no chance of familial relationships being granted the right to marry. Current incest laws are perfectly adequate and the only people actually talking about this happening (in this country) are the right-wingers scaremongering. If you disagree with gay marriage, fine, but let's not ascribe certain motives to a whole spectrum of political belief that's unfounded and ridiculous.

[GommeInc]

I think this is the last step really. Transsexuals have been covered since 2004 (where a woman, born a man, has an op and gets married to man). Multiple marriages will never happen - they are impractical in our legal system. Marriages are glorified contracts specifically designed to be between two people and two people only - the change to allow same sex couples was easy as there were no barriers to really go through - it really is just a standard person to person contract that entitles the two parties to specific rights - the bog standard being what happens when either person dies and their wills/estates (intestacy rules apply).

To put it simply:

Inter-familial marriages - cannot work - individuals are already covered by intestacy rules: if a man dies and his sister lives on, his estate will pass onto the family. Equity will then take over if the sister is entitled to more. Not forgetting medical interventions, social barriers.

Animal-to-Person marriages - animals cannot inherent an estate, only people can to look after the animals in trust for the remainder of their lives. Social and medical interventions.

Polygamous marriages - Incompatible with multiple laws (Rent Act for an example). How an estate will be divided would be difficult. Would there be a "Head Wife/Husband?" Again the only practical reasons for marriage are these sorts of benefits where the surviving spouse receives the other half's estate. What if some individuals in the marriage may have more claim over the estate? It would have to be shared equally, until equity takes over to distribute it fairly. Again, this is impractical. The best option would be to just have lots of mistresses and sign a will to highlight what to do, which already happens anyway.

In short, marriage is strictly between two people for practical reasons. Any relation to it being religious (even then it was purely just a boring contract with moral obligations) or social is just an old use for them.

[Ozzinator$]

I'm okay with gay marriage, inter-racial marriage, LEGAL age difference marriage, but when it starts to involve more than two people is when I start having problems with it. IMO, marriage should be between two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together. [If this later breaks down, fair enough, not got an issue with divorce either]. I'm sure it's possible to love more than one person but marriage should be about commitment. If you get married you're committing yourself to being with that person. If marriage then allows more people to be involved in a marriage, what's to stop somebody 'loving' somebody else and then wanting to add them to their marriage aswell?

I'm fairly open-minded, but that's just one thing I would draw the line under.

[FlyingJesus]

I agree that in terms of law polygamy would be tricky but it saddens me that people think you can only commit to one person at a time, purposefully limiting oneself

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yeah it's totally a huge risk in the same way that abolishing slavery has led to worldwide anarchy and civil collapse

Non sequitur.

But my concerns are clearly proven by your own indifference/advocacy for marriages with more than two people involved, don't you agree?

[FlyingJesus]

No because I'm very clearly in an absolute miniscule minority with that view. And of course it's a non sequitur that's the whole point

[LiquidLuck.]

The argument for this is that when homosexuality was legalised in the 1960s, one of the reasons given for legalising was that it would remove the law from the bedroom and would reach a balance: a balance that has since swung in one direction only.

Supporters of gay marriage on the other hand will argue that legalising marriage between two consenting adults will not lead to such chages - as is the case in Brazil - and that such warnings from religious leaders and opponents of the Same-Sex Marriage Bill are mere scaremongering.

About the first bolt part, what does that mean?

Also do you mean that in Brazil such changes have happened or have not?

About homosexuality being legalised in the 60's, something I didn't know about so I googled information about it and it seems that even after that, you could still be arrested for showing you were gay in public so there goes the law.

I do believe that polygamy will never be legalised, or at least not in the close future and this is due to the fact that most people do agree that love is only between two people. I mean yes mentalities have changed because years ago most also believed love was only between a man and a woman, but I still think that polygamy being accepted by enough people (in modern countries) is still far away. Me, I am against it. Why? If I was okay with polygamy I would be a hypocrite if I was against cheating, which I am.

I believe that for polygamy to finally be accept by people, their mentalities would have to change more than they did about gay marriage because when mentalities changed about gay people, it had very little repercussion on straight people's lives. What I mean is if you are straight, it shouldn't matter to you if someone gay is getting married to someone they love because you can still keep your life like it was. Now, if you are straight or gay, like most people you will be against cheating, you will either feel bad if someone does it to you or feel terrible for doing it to someone. But if polygamy becomes legal THEN, you could come home one day and have your husband be like ''Oh hi darling, what about start sharing me and I get another wife?''. How would you react to that? I would be like ''Divorce plz kty xx'' Haha.

About marriage between family members, for me that was never something that I was against because they share the same blood. The reason I am against it is if they grew up together, were raised together. For example I look at my brother and my male cousins and I can say anything like ''you look sexy in that suit'' (first thing I remembered because I did say that to my brother haha) without feeling the least bit of attraction to them, because they are my family. Also most modern world countries are not against first cousin marriage. How not?! I mean again if they grew up together, that would creep me out.

Now if someone hadn't grow up with their brother/cousin and met them, then fell in love and wanted to marry them, not knowing they were a cousin/brother, then that's another story and if it didn't creep them out that they shared the same blood line and actually did love each other, I wouldn't really be against it. To put it in a more simple way: I would be more against two adoptive siblings getting married (which is allowed) if they grew up together than I would be against two siblings getting married (which is against the law) without having grown up together.

I believe that if first cousin marriage and adoptive siblings marriage is allowed then other situations should be more deeply reviewed or considered as well.

About inter-racial marriage, totally forward. Animal-to-Person marriages just messes with my head to be honest. I mean I'm totally against it, I just really don't understand how some people are not against it and even do it... It's a pet. I talk to my pets all the time, but I still know they cannot understand me, it's like talking to a journal. My mother treats my pets like her children kind of haha. Not like that lady who breast feeds her dog because she didn't breast feed her children, no, we all still know they are animals. But we love them so we treat them like our babies, always having the ''animal limit''. You have to take care of them and everything, a lot like a child, so why would you want to marry your own child?! Now, marrying someone is so much more than wanting to spend your life with someone, it includes stuff that I hope they don't do to their pets! Also pets don't pay taxes so the whole getting married and having two people in a household, I wonder how that works..

[Kardan]

About the first bolt part, what does that mean?

Also do you mean that in Brazil such changes have happened or have not?

About homosexuality being legalised in the 60's, something I didn't know about so I googled information about it and it seems that even after that, you could still be arrested for showing you were gay in public so there goes the law.

I do believe that polygamy will never be legalised, or at least not in the close future and this is due to the fact that most people do agree that love is only between two people. I mean yes mentalities have changed because years ago most also believed love was only between a man and a woman, but I still think that polygamy being accepted by enough people (in modern countries) is still far away. Me, I am against it. Why? If I was okay with polygamy I would be a hypocrite if I was against cheating, which I am.

I believe that for polygamy to finally be accept by people, their mentalities would have to change more than they did about gay marriage because when mentalities changed about gay people, it had very little repercussion on straight people's lives. What I mean is if you are straight, it shouldn't matter to you if someone gay is getting married to someone they love because you can still keep your life like it was. Now, if you are straight or gay, like most people you will be against cheating, you will either feel bad if someone does it to you or feel terrible for doing it to someone. But if polygamy becomes legal THEN, you could come home one day and have your husband be like ''Oh hi darling, what about start sharing me and I get another wife?''. How would you react to that? I would be like ''Divorce plz kty xx'' Haha.

About marriage between family members, for me that was never something that I was against because they share the same blood. The reason I am against it is if they grew up together, were raised together. For example I look at my brother and my male cousins and I can say anything like ''you look sexy in that suit'' (first thing I remembered because I did say that to my brother haha) without feeling the least bit of attraction to them, because they are my family. Also most modern world countries are not against first cousin marriage. How not?! I mean again if they grew up together, that would creep me out.

Now if someone hadn't grow up with their brother/cousin and met them, then fell in love and wanted to marry them, not knowing they were a cousin/brother, then that's another story and if it didn't creep them out that they shared the same blood line and actually did love each other, I wouldn't really be against it. To put it in a more simple way: I would be more against two adoptive siblings getting married (which is allowed) if they grew up together than I would be against two siblings getting married (which is against the law) without having grown up together.

I believe that if first cousin marriage and adoptive siblings marriage is allowed then other situations should be more deeply reviewed or considered as well.

About inter-racial marriage, totally forward. Animal-to-Person marriages just messes with my head to be honest. I mean I'm totally against it, I just really don't understand how some people are not against it and even do it... It's a pet. I talk to my pets all the time, but I still know they cannot understand me, it's like talking to a journal. My mother treats my pets like her children kind of haha. Not like that lady who breast feeds her dog because she didn't breast feed her children, no, we all still know they are animals. But we love them so we treat them like our babies, always having the ''animal limit''. You have to take care of them and everything, a lot like a child, so why would you want to marry your own child?! Now, marrying someone is so much more than wanting to spend your life with someone, it includes stuff that I hope they don't do to their pets! Also pets don't pay taxes so the whole getting married and having two people in a household, I wonder how that works..

The whole issue with siblings that are biologically related getting married is the genetic disorders that arise from inbreeding and the fact that sibling relationships are more likely to have resulted from sexual abuse as a child.

[LiquidLuck.]

The whole issue with siblings that are biologically related getting married is the genetic disorders that arise from inbreeding and the fact that sibling relationships are more likely to have resulted from sexual abuse as a child.

I know but I don't think you can decide on whether to make a marriage legal or not based on the risks of having a child. First of all, you don't even know if they will ever have kids. Second, you can find out about defects in the baby when it's not too late to have an abortion, which is what many people do. Having a kid after you're 40 is dangerous both for you and the baby, does that mean it will be against the law? No, so I don't see why deciding stuff based on ''what if''s is okay.

[Kardan]

I know but I don't think you can decide on whether to make a marriage legal or not based on the risks of having a child. First of all, you don't even know if they will ever have kids. Second, you can find out about defects in the baby when it's not too late to have an abortion, which is what many people do. Having a kid after you're 40 is dangerous both for you and the baby, does that mean it will be against the law? No, so I don't see why deciding stuff based on ''what if''s is okay.

I was going to write 'But marriage doesn't equal sex' at the end of my last post, but I couldn't make it sound right. Also, I'm not 100% sure, but I reckon there are many many defects that can't be predicted prior to birth.

[-:Undertaker:-]

About the first bolt part, what does that mean?

Well the trade-off in the 1960's was that it was still disapproved of but that it wasn't fair for the law to go after people in their own homes because that's a step too far for state involvement. The trade-off (and this is where Section 28 came from) was essentially that the state would turn a blind eye to it.


Also do you mean that in Brazil such changes have happened or have not?

In Brazil apparently they're legal. So I hear anyway.


The whole issue with siblings that are biologically related getting married is the genetic disorders that arise from inbreeding...

A lot of sexual diseases result from gay sex but that doesn't stop it being approved of.

[LiquidLuck.]

I was going to write 'But marriage doesn't equal sex' at the end of my last post, but I couldn't make it sound right. Also, I'm not 100% sure, but I reckon there are many many defects that can't be predicted prior to birth.

Yes, but birth defects can be caused by so much more than just genetics. I understand how the percentage of the probability of the child having defects is higher, but same thing happens if the mother smokes, drinks or takes drugs. Also according to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ''birth defects affect 1 in 33 babies every year and cause 1 in 5 infant deaths. For many babies born with a birth defect, there is no family history of the condition.'' Also you and a sibling only share 50% of your genes, so why not?

(Also the more I'm reading stuff about this, the more I think I'm adopted.. I wonder how much it would cost to do a DNA test..)

EDIT: 250 pounds.. **** that I'll keep living my life!

- - - Updated - - -


Well the trade-off in the 1960's was that it was still disapproved of but that it wasn't fair for the law to go after people in their own homes because that's a step too far for state involvement. The trade-off (and this is where Section 28 came from) was essentially that the state would turn a blind eye to it.

Oh, I get the first part but then that also made them ''turn a blind eye'' to aggression against gays.. Not good. To be honest my grandmother still jokingly says that being gay is a disease.. I wonder if she actually does think that but either way I know that if any of her grandchildren were to be gay, she would still love all of us, so all good. :P



In Brazil apparently they're legal. So I hear anyway.

Which of them is legal in Brazil though? Polygamy?



A lot of sexual diseases result from gay sex but that doesn't stop it being approved of.

And agreed.