If you do redefine the definition of marriage (which I am in favour of) from a man and a woman, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the definiton could be expanded to cover polygamy. The president of South Africa has married a fourth wife. Islamic law allows for a man to have up to four wives and the practice is quite commoin in Africa as well as parts of Asia. Why can the definition of mrriage be expanded to cover gay marriage but not a polygamous one? By refusing to acknowlege a polygamous marriage are you really any different to those who refuse to accept gay marriage?
I have never really understood what is wrong with polygamy
If you do redefine the definition of marriage (which I am in favour of) from a man and a woman, it is not unreasonable to suggest that the definiton could be expanded to cover polygamy. The president of South Africa has married a fourth wife. Islamic law allows for a man to have up to four wives and the practice is quite commoin in Africa as well as parts of Asia. Why can the definition of mrriage be expanded to cover gay marriage but not a polygamous one? By refusing to acknowlege a polygamous marriage are you really any different to those who refuse to accept gay marriage?
I would be all for polygamous marriage.
If there has to be marriage let anyone not related be allowed to marry anyone else.
He's an MP so of course he should have to defend his view on this or any other subject. Ultimately he will defend it in an election and hopefully this bigot will lose his seat - unfortunately with our dodgy electoral system he's probably in a safe seat.
I'm not so sure about that. He's an MP with voting rights and responsibilities and surely he has to be able to defend any action he takes while carrying out his duties.
OK. Explain, yes; defend no. On the other hand, to spout such pernicious claptrap would lead me instantly to refuse to vote for him any longer, in the unlikely event that I'd voted for him in the first place.
I'm of the opinion that his views are bigoted, clearly rooted in religion and think his argument shows a lack of intelligence (child marriage lol), but he is entitled to those views and if the people of Lincoln disagree with him or cannot live with him holding those views then the solution is not to vote him in at the next elections.
bib Clearly rooted in his view of religion, which is not the same thing. Bigotry and stupidity do not automatically go hand in hand with religion, although clearly they may. I've met some remarkably bigotted and stupid people who profess no religious faith whatsoever.
Bottom line - his ill-expressed and sad little views have shot him in the foot. Can't blame religion for that, only himself.
I have never really understood what is wrong with polygamy
Me neither; it's never appealed to me, but I have friends who've been in polyamorous arrangements and been very happy, and who have been serious enough that marriage would have been an option if it were available.
He's entitled to a "personal" opinion on such a matter...that has always been the case with all MPs when it comes to matters of moral/religious conscience.
That said to extend the argument to "it leading to bigamy/child marriage" is both intellectual BS and hyperbole that simply undermines any previous justification.
However you only have to watch an hour or two of the Parliament channel to realise there are some very limited "intellects" among MPs from all parties...who would never get elected if they were not in "safe seats"...the sort where a chimp could get elected if they wore a rosette of the right colour.
The slippery slope is one of my favourite arguments... Lord Tebbit has also weighed in with it
Within the can of worms that Mr Cameron is determined to open there are several nests of snakes. Why should a*marriage be confined to just two persons?*What is the barrier to the marriage of sisters, brothers or even parents and children?
In the US a lot of opponents of equal marriage also add animals and inanimate objects into their list of consequences...
The bottom line is that yes, changing the law to allow same-sex marriage could cause proponents of polygamy etc to use it to add weight to their argument. But that isn't a reason to oppose same sex marriage - it is simply a reason to get a better argument against polygamy etc.
The slippery slope is one of my favourite arguments... Lord Tebbit has also weighed in with it
Within the can of worms that Mr Cameron is determined to open there are several nests of snakes. Why should a*marriage be confined to just two persons?*What is the barrier to the marriage of sisters, brothers or even parents and children?
In the US a lot of opponents of equal marriage also add animals and inanimate objects into their list of consequences...
The bottom line is that yes, changing the law to allow same-sex marriage could cause proponents of polygamy etc to use it to add weight to their argument. But that isn't a reason to oppose same sex marriage - it is simply a reason to get a better argument against polygamy etc.
Me neither; it's never appealed to me, but I have friends who've been in polyamorous arrangements and been very happy, and who have been serious enough that marriage would have been an option if it were available.
As I said, not really my cup of tea, though.
Not really my cup of tea either. But if that's what other folks want I have no objection. It's certainly not in the same category as child marriages. Consent is the key.
The slippery slope is one of my favourite arguments... Lord Tebbit has also weighed in with it
Within the can of worms that Mr Cameron is determined to open there are several nests of snakes. Why should a*marriage be confined to just two persons?*What is the barrier to the marriage of sisters, brothers or even parents and children?
In the US a lot of opponents of equal marriage also add animals and inanimate objects into their list of consequences...
The bottom line is that yes, changing the law to allow same-sex marriage could cause proponents of polygamy etc to use it to add weight to their argument. But that isn't a reason to oppose same sex marriage - it is simply a reason to get a better argument against polygamy etc.
What is your argument against polygamy? Why defend the status quo and deny rights to a minority group? Is it because you don't agree with polygamous relationships? If so how does that make you different from the people who don't agree with gay relationships?
What is your argument against polygamy? Why defend the status quo and deny rights to a minority group? Is it because you don't agree with polygamous relationships? If so how does that make you different from the people who don't agree with gay relationships?
I haven't actually heard anyone in the UK calling for polygamy if I'm honest? The only people that ever mention polygamy are those who seem to think that it's the next logical step once gay marriage becomes the law.
I suppose one difference between the polygamy position and gay marriage is that polygamy is actually a criminal offence. There is on the other hand no law which criminalises gay marriage, it's just they're not available. If as a gay couple my boyfriend and I tried to obtain a marriage licence we'd be turned away but we wouldn't have committed any crime. I also don't think that it is hyporctical to say that you believe that relationships should be between two people including gay couples and not more.
I'm not personally against polygamy myself although I can't imagine being happy in a polygamous situation. I could foresee an absolute legal nightmare in trying to deal with all the issues that could arise (after all currently most polygamous relationships tend to be a series of marriage contracts between a man and several wives rather than between large groups of people) and it would be a worry trying to ensure that everyone is treated equally and fairly - lawyers would make a fortune, only instead of just two there'd be a fleet!
Who cares if gay marriage leads to polygamy? Certainly not me. As long as everyone is consenting it's fine with me. If I am not mistaken there are lots of instances in the Bible of men having multiple wives, so why would people with religious beliefs consider it wrong?
Don't see how it could lead to child marriage though. Children cannot lawfully give consent and it will never be legal in any country that isn't backwater/primitive/run by idiots.
Gay marriage allows a group who are often excluded from mainstream society to apply a conservative instiution to their relationships, against a backdrop of extensive family breakdown in mainstream society, therefore a true conservative should support it without question.
I'm of the opinion that his views are bigoted, clearly rooted in religion and think his argument shows a lack of intelligence (child marriage lol), but he is entitled to those views and if the people of Lincoln disagree with him or cannot live with him holding those views then the solution is not to vote him in at the next elections.
The man is obviously a total plonker but as far as the next election is concerned I don't suppose most of the people in his constituency give a toss about gay marriage despite being constantly beaten with it in the media:rolleyes:
The man is obviously a total plonker but as far as the next election is concerned I don't suppose most of the people in his constituency give a toss about gay marriage despite being constantly beaten with it in the media:rolleyes:
That's as maybe but the swing needed to unseat him isn't very big. The number of gay and bisexual people in his constituency may not be huge (if we take the ONS figure of 1.5% then the gay population is about 1,000) but each of them have friends and family. It's conceivable that enough people could change their vote in order to unseat him over this one issue.
Freedom of speech and freedom to talk crap are often one in the same, and as such I wholeheartedly support this man's right to talk crap.
And how about our right to tell him that we think he's talking crap and ask him to explain the crap he's come out with? Freedom of speech isn't one sided.
What is your argument against polygamy? Why defend the status quo and deny rights to a minority group? Is it because you don't agree with polygamous relationships? If so how does that make you different from the people who don't agree with gay relationships?
I am not arguing for or against polygamy. I am saying to someone who uses the 'slippery slope' argument that they should not try and deny equal marriage for gay people because they oppose polygamy. Both changes should be argued on their own merits. At the moment the government is consulting on equal marriage for same-sex *couples*, not polygamy.
I haven't actually heard anyone in the UK calling for polygamy if I'm honest? The only people that ever mention polygamy are those who seem to think that it's the next logical step once gay marriage becomes the law.
I suppose one difference between the polygamy position and gay marriage is that polygamy is actually a criminal offence. There is on the other hand no law which criminalises gay marriage, it's just they're not available. If as a gay couple my boyfriend and I tried to obtain a marriage licence we'd be turned away but we wouldn't have committed any crime. I also don't think that it is hyporctical to say that you believe that relationships should be between two people including gay couples and not more.
I'm not personally against polygamy myself although I can't imagine being happy in a polygamous situation. I could foresee an absolute legal nightmare in trying to deal with all the issues that could arise (after all currently most polygamous relationships tend to be a series of marriage contracts between a man and several wives rather than between large groups of people) and it would be a worry trying to ensure that everyone is treated equally and fairly - lawyers would make a fortune, only instead of just two there'd be a fleet!
Gay sex was a criminal offence not so long ago but that law was rightfully abolished. In my opinion it is hypocritical to say that it is okay to discriminate against one group and not the other - polygamous marriages have existed for centuries and are still common in many countries today. How can you say with a straight face that these people should be denied the same rights as everyone else? Saying it can't be done because it would be too difficult to draw up the law is clutching at straws as there are so many complicated statutes already in existence I can't see this one being that difficult.
.
Comments
I have never really understood what is wrong with polygamy
I would be all for polygamous marriage.
If there has to be marriage let anyone not related be allowed to marry anyone else.
OK. Explain, yes; defend no. On the other hand, to spout such pernicious claptrap would lead me instantly to refuse to vote for him any longer, in the unlikely event that I'd voted for him in the first place.
bib Clearly rooted in his view of religion, which is not the same thing. Bigotry and stupidity do not automatically go hand in hand with religion, although clearly they may. I've met some remarkably bigotted and stupid people who profess no religious faith whatsoever.
Bottom line - his ill-expressed and sad little views have shot him in the foot. Can't blame religion for that, only himself.
Me neither; it's never appealed to me, but I have friends who've been in polyamorous arrangements and been very happy, and who have been serious enough that marriage would have been an option if it were available.
As I said, not really my cup of tea, though.
Actually, he should. He has been voted in based on the mandate of the party and he should follow the party line.
Mind you, he's a tory and therefore evil.
That said to extend the argument to "it leading to bigamy/child marriage" is both intellectual BS and hyperbole that simply undermines any previous justification.
However you only have to watch an hour or two of the Parliament channel to realise there are some very limited "intellects" among MPs from all parties...who would never get elected if they were not in "safe seats"...the sort where a chimp could get elected if they wore a rosette of the right colour.
In the US a lot of opponents of equal marriage also add animals and inanimate objects into their list of consequences...
Ellen Degeneres on the subject:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeN6S4XfZ3E&feature=related
The bottom line is that yes, changing the law to allow same-sex marriage could cause proponents of polygamy etc to use it to add weight to their argument. But that isn't a reason to oppose same sex marriage - it is simply a reason to get a better argument against polygamy etc.
Animals, how can they consent:rolleyes:
Not really my cup of tea either. But if that's what other folks want I have no objection. It's certainly not in the same category as child marriages. Consent is the key.
What is your argument against polygamy? Why defend the status quo and deny rights to a minority group? Is it because you don't agree with polygamous relationships? If so how does that make you different from the people who don't agree with gay relationships?
I haven't actually heard anyone in the UK calling for polygamy if I'm honest? The only people that ever mention polygamy are those who seem to think that it's the next logical step once gay marriage becomes the law.
I suppose one difference between the polygamy position and gay marriage is that polygamy is actually a criminal offence. There is on the other hand no law which criminalises gay marriage, it's just they're not available. If as a gay couple my boyfriend and I tried to obtain a marriage licence we'd be turned away but we wouldn't have committed any crime. I also don't think that it is hyporctical to say that you believe that relationships should be between two people including gay couples and not more.
I'm not personally against polygamy myself although I can't imagine being happy in a polygamous situation. I could foresee an absolute legal nightmare in trying to deal with all the issues that could arise (after all currently most polygamous relationships tend to be a series of marriage contracts between a man and several wives rather than between large groups of people) and it would be a worry trying to ensure that everyone is treated equally and fairly - lawyers would make a fortune, only instead of just two there'd be a fleet!
Don't see how it could lead to child marriage though. Children cannot lawfully give consent and it will never be legal in any country that isn't backwater/primitive/run by idiots.
The man is obviously a total plonker but as far as the next election is concerned I don't suppose most of the people in his constituency give a toss about gay marriage despite being constantly beaten with it in the media:rolleyes:
That's as maybe but the swing needed to unseat him isn't very big. The number of gay and bisexual people in his constituency may not be huge (if we take the ONS figure of 1.5% then the gay population is about 1,000) but each of them have friends and family. It's conceivable that enough people could change their vote in order to unseat him over this one issue.
And how about our right to tell him that we think he's talking crap and ask him to explain the crap he's come out with? Freedom of speech isn't one sided.
Yes it's his statutory right (I think) to expose himself to extreme ridicule if he so wishes.
I am not arguing for or against polygamy. I am saying to someone who uses the 'slippery slope' argument that they should not try and deny equal marriage for gay people because they oppose polygamy. Both changes should be argued on their own merits. At the moment the government is consulting on equal marriage for same-sex *couples*, not polygamy.
Gay sex was a criminal offence not so long ago but that law was rightfully abolished. In my opinion it is hypocritical to say that it is okay to discriminate against one group and not the other - polygamous marriages have existed for centuries and are still common in many countries today. How can you say with a straight face that these people should be denied the same rights as everyone else? Saying it can't be done because it would be too difficult to draw up the law is clutching at straws as there are so many complicated statutes already in existence I can't see this one being that difficult.
.
He's an MP. He most certainly does have to defend his points of view to his constituency.
That doesn't mean he should be thrown out for expressing his views, but when called upon to try and explain himself, he bloody well better answer.
If he doesn't like that, he shouldn't be in politics.