Originally Posted by
theheadmaster
I don't see the inconsistency at all. This discussion is not about polygamy.
No. Not about polygamy per se. Everyone knows that were we arguing for the 'right' to marry multiple people that the Aussie public would put the kibosh on that in an instant. So the pro SSM try to limit the discussion to preclude polygamy as part of the discussion even though the rights you champion are equally able to be claimed by polygamists and GSA people who wish to have their relationships recognised in law.
You are the one who has kept banging on about providing gay people with the 'right' to get married. It's a point that you and others have raised multiple times. It's important for me and probably the rest of Australia to understand where this 'rights' issue can lead to. If you're going to argue that principle I can't work out why you won't jump in with both feet and actually fully defend the principle you're espousing.
Like I said, it's intellectually dishonest to espouse SSM on the basis of 'rights' but to not discuss whether this 'right' to be married be extended to other relationships.
Not sure how it's illogical framer. Gay people want the 'right' to 'marry whom they love'. Why can't Mormons and Muslims 'marry whom they love' even if it's multiple people. It's the exact same principle.
To show how it's not illogical, ACT Greens convenor doesn't like the Greens and Australian Marriage Equality restricting the definition of marriage to two people:
Simon Copland, who is political editor of the gay magazine FUSE, ... said: “I am now seeing major queer organisations and queer activists develop exclusive habits, excluding those who they think don’t fit the mainstream gay and lesbian model. For example, after some publicity around the issue, marriage advocates from Australian Marriage Equality and the Greens recently (came) out strongly against the idea of polyamorous marriage. “The institutional queer movement has become dominated by upper- to middle-class wealthy queer activists . . . ensuring a select few get equal access to heteropatriarchal systems.”
UK Greens in the wake of same sex marriage in the UK
Former Green party leader Natalie Bennett has revealed she is open to the idea of legalising three-way marriages... She replied: 'At present, we do not have a policy on civil partnerships involving more than two people... We have led the way on many issues related to the liberalisation of legal status in adult consenting relationships, and we are open to further conversation and consultation on this issue.'
From 2013 the Polyamorous Action Lobby (PAL).
PAL recently started a petition which reads:
The House of Representatives For too long has Australia denied people the right to marry the ones they care about. We find this abhorrent. We believe that everyone should be allowed to marry their partners, and that the law should never be a barrier to love. And that's why we demand nothing less than the full recognition of polyamorous families.
Illogical? The only illogical thing is to NOT be able to see polyamory as an extension to the 'rights' principle being espoused to justify SSM.
Originally Posted by
reivilo
Bisexual persons can indeed fall in love with people from both sexes. However just like gay or straight people, falling in love usually occurs only to one other person at the same time. Therefore a bisexual person will normally be just in either a relationship with someone of the opposite or from the same sex, but not with both at the same time.
By the way, this is the most common misconception about bisexuals, so I dont blame you for being a bit ignorant about it.
reivilo, who are you to define who a bisexual may fall in love with? What if they want to marry both people? It may only happen to 1 in 100 bisexual people but I still don't get why you would want to prevent them to right to marry whomever they choose? Who are you to prevent them from the same 'right' that heterosexual people (and presumably in the future) gay people have?
It's not a 'slippery slope' le Pingouin. It's actually the exact same principle. I'm stunned that people on this thread have used virtually the exact same words to promote same sex marriage that I'm now using now to 'promote' polygamous marriages can't draw the parallel- and see the irony. Perhaps it's a wilful distortion because the SSM advocates understand the implications as to how the Aussie public is likely to view SSM if they comprehend the full extent of the 'rights' argument.