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

[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.