Petition to hold a Northeast referendum on the Group Unions Act

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

X Mr. X

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

And the fear-mongering continues.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I don't have any statistics or studies readily available.  However, I think that assertion is pretty much common sense and you guys aren't going to change my mind on it.

an attack on the very institution of marriage itself

What does that even mean?

The quoted portion of my post means that I consider group marriage an attack on the institution of marriage.

And I'm asking: What is an "attack on the institution of marriage"? This is a line typically associated with opponents of gay marriage, and I'm not sure what it means when they use it, either, aside from "this is a thing that makes me uncomfortable so I don't think anyone else should be allowed to do it."

Well, I suspect that opponents of polygamy will inevitably end up using certain lines often associated with opposition to same-sex marriage, even if they support allowing the latter (as I do).  You'd be right in saying that I personally have a problem with the concept of a marriage between more than two people and that this is part of why I oppose it.  Unlike gay marriage, I don't think one can legitimately argue that banning polygamy is state-sanctioned discrimination or that opposition to polygamy stems from bigotry (though knowing Atlasia, someone will surely try to argue both these things ).  However, my biggest reason for opposing it is that I believe it has the potential to be extremely damaging to the emotional and psychological health of children throughout the Northeast.  Before Representative Deaus asks, I admit I don't have any statistics or studies readily available.  However, I think that assertion is pretty much common sense and you guys aren't going to change my mind on it.  However, one thing that is well-established is that IRL is that polygamy has been a significant contributor to the spread of HIV/AIDS in Africa.  It is also pretty well-documented that polygamy tends to increase the number of families with more children than they can afford to take care of (and I have to imagine that in wealthier areas, it'd lead to more abortions too).

Since you insist on taking things out of context in order to try to misrepresent my views, here is the full post so people can see that the argument you are referring to wasn't the only one I made, by any means.

And here is another post where I actually did provide citations for some of my other arguments:

Should we also prohibit poor people from getting married because they tend to have more children than they can afford? Is there even any evidence that legalizing group marriage would encourage people to have more children? (There's nothing stopping them now.) And can you provide a citation for any of this?

Another straw-man, come on Nix, you're better than this.  Anyway, you asked for citations and I will give you two (the first is really more of an example of what can happen when polygamy is widespread although I freely admit it is probably one of the more extreme examples):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4720457.stm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2205968/

[Deus Naturae]

As I see it, if you are unhappy with a piece of legislation passed by the Assembly, you have three main options, none of which involve attempting to undermine representative democracy (unless the Northeast actually has a law that allow citizens to bring a law to popular referendum upon collecting enough signatures, in which case I apologize):

1. Run for the Assembly (presumably on an anti-polygamy platform) and then try to change the law if you're elected.

2. Leave the Northeast for another region more to your liking (perhaps you ought to return to the Mideast, where your social views are more likely to garner support).

3. Come up with some sort of legal argument against the law and challenge it in court.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As I see it, if you are unhappy with a piece of legislation passed by the Assembly, you have three main options, none of which involve attempting to undermine representative democracy (unless the Northeast actually has a law that allow citizens to bring a law to popular referendum upon collecting enough signatures, in which case I apologize):

1. Run for the Assembly (presumably on an anti-polygamy platform) and then try to change the law if you're elected.

2. Leave the Northeast for another region more to your liking (perhaps you ought to return to the Mideast, where your social views are more likely to garner support).

3. Come up with some sort of legal argument against the law and challenge it in court.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeast_Constitution#Article_V:_The_People

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yet you never explained how polygamy as it is practiced in the developing world relates to group marriage in the Northeast, the proposal that you objected to. Again:

I don't have any statistics or studies readily available.  However, I think that assertion is pretty much common sense and you guys aren't going to change my mind on it.

How is anyone supposed to debate the issues with someone so totally disinterested in evidence or argument that he proclaims his unyielding allegiance to his own prejudices at the outset?

I did explain how, but if you won't take the time to read my posts, that's your problem.  It is disappointing to see that you keep trying to misrepresent my views rather than make a remotely legitimate or fact-based argument.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Almost enough to make me think that Governor ZuWo had the right idea.

You support referendums to overturn laws you don't like, but when it is a law you like, you think that the voters should be denied the right to have a say in their region's laws?  Very nice

[Napoleon]

As I see it, if you are unhappy with a piece of legislation passed by the Assembly, you have three main options, none of which involve attempting to undermine representative democracy (unless the Northeast actually has a law that allow citizens to bring a law to popular referendum upon collecting enough signatures, in which case I apologize):

1. Run for the Assembly (presumably on an anti-polygamy platform) and then try to change the law if you're elected.

2. Leave the Northeast for another region more to your liking (perhaps you ought to return to the Mideast, where your social views are more likely to garner support).

3. Come up with some sort of legal argument against the law and challenge it in court.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeast_Constitution#Article_V:_The_People

Still, option two seems like it would be best for all involved parties.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Almost enough to make me think that Governor ZuWo had the right idea.

You support referendums to overturn laws you don't like, but when it is a law you like, you think that the voters should be denied the right to have a say in their region's laws?  Very nice

As the "" apparently wasn't enough to tip you off...

Fair enough

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

As I see it, if you are unhappy with a piece of legislation passed by the Assembly, you have three main options, none of which involve attempting to undermine representative democracy (unless the Northeast actually has a law that allow citizens to bring a law to popular referendum upon collecting enough signatures, in which case I apologize):

1. Run for the Assembly (presumably on an anti-polygamy platform) and then try to change the law if you're elected.

2. Leave the Northeast for another region more to your liking (perhaps you ought to return to the Mideast, where your social views are more likely to garner support).

3. Come up with some sort of legal argument against the law and challenge it in court.

https://uselectionatlas.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Northeast_Constitution#Article_V:_The_People

Still, option two seems like it would be best for all involved parties.

If you're so confident that your views on this issue are more in line with those of The People of the Northeast than mine, you should sign the petition.  After all, if the voters back the law, then that'd settle this entire debate in the region.  Really the only reason not to sign this is if you think your views are out-of-line with those of most Northeasterners and that, if given the chance, they'd repeal it at the ballot box.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nonsense. You don't hold a referendum to reaffirm that the region supports a law; we've already achieved that legitimacy through our Assembly and Gubernatorial elections. We don't need to hold a vote to prove anything.

A signature on this petition is a signature endorsing fear, misinformation, and intolerance, period. 

No, it is a signature for letting The People have the final word on this issue.

[DemPGH]

I would not favor it for a host of reasons, but it was passed legally and does not appear to be specifically unconstitutional, so you should seek to have it repealed, however difficult that may be.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Besides, like you have a history of dumping parties that elected you to the senate when they don't reward you with leadership positions,

This is simply a bald-faced lie.  Hopefully Griffin has the decency to join me in calling you out on it and vouch that this wasn't the case, but either way, what you said isn't true and you know it.

you have a history of leaving regions following a referendum. 

This isn't true either.  For one thing, I've only switched regions once.  Additionally, the region switch occurred a long time after the ballot initiative I fought for to repeal the Mideast's then-recent abortion restrictions had been voted on.

I'm suggesting we skip straight to step two and save us all the trouble. If I have to hear one more thing about common sense it won't be pretty.

This makes me really want to introduce a "Common Sense Smoking Ban" just for you

[LeBron]

2. Leave the Northeast for another region more to your liking (perhaps you ought to return to the Mideast, where your social views are more likely to garner support).

Or he could come to the Midwest where I can promise an abomination of a law like this will never be passed.

X is of course, right. Legalizing group marriages (or unions, in this case) is just going to lead to legalizing polygamy which is typically a very sexist form of marriage. I think you guys are really trying to force full equality when really by doing this, you're forming an anarchist society law by law where 80 people can get a civil union in a group while they get high on methamphetamine. Growing up though, this is a huge problem for the kids. There's an accepted balance in a marriage and that's 2 people whether they be a man and a woman, man and man, woman and woman, trans and trans etc. and by allowing these many people into a union, it becomes a dysfunctional family of parents who really don't love each other as much as a two person couple would. The kids deserve better and should only need two parents as is the norm and it would just cause more emotional distress for them and wouldn't know who to come talk to. I had a friend who I met in 1st grade a little over a decade ago and when I first met his parents, they were great and they seemed like a regular, great family. Then after the two had another son and they were both working jobs, the father had to bring in her sister to help them with the kids as if she was a second mom. I met her to and she was one of those rock band, party all night people with tattoos and piercings who likely smoked to. From there, it went downhill for him and he started taking this new lady as his role model and started getting piercings himself in high school, dying his hair, acting different, etc. so it's not a good idea to legalize this. What's next? Are civil unions between donkeys and humans and elephants and humans going to be legalized in the meaning of equality? I support some equality and SSM is of course one of them, but this takes it too far.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

If a chimpanzee could be scientifically proven to give informed consent to a marriage, I would support human-chimpanzee marriage.

[Adam Griffin]

Besides, like you have a history of dumping parties that elected you to the senate when they don't reward you with leadership positions,

This is simply a bald-faced lie.  Hopefully Griffin has the decency to join me in calling you out on it and vouch that this wasn't the case, but either way, what you said isn't true and you know it.

Napoleon is indeed wrong. Allow me to correct him:

Besides, like you have a history of dumping parties that elected you to the senate when they don't reward you with leadership positions,

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Besides, like you have a history of dumping parties that elected you to the senate when they don't reward you with leadership positions,

This is simply a bald-faced lie.  Hopefully Griffin has the decency to join me in calling you out on it and vouch that this wasn't the case, but either way, what you said isn't true and you know it.

Napoleon is indeed wrong. Allow me to correct him:

Besides, like you have a history of dumping parties that elected you to the senate when they don't reward you with leadership positions,

Thanks    As Griffin said, I have switched parties twice in the Senate.  I left the Liberal Party because I was upset with Wolfentoad's tactics and I left Labor with no malice because TPP was (imo) the best thing to ever happen to Atlasia during my time here and I wanted to help bring it back.  I'd argue the voters and not the party elected me, but Griffin's post isn't unfair.

[cinyc]

X cinyc

[Oakvale]

ITT: People oppose group marriage based on literally the exact same tired old slippery slope cliches trotted out against same-sex marriage.

Are civil unions between donkeys and humans and elephants and humans going to be legalized in the meaning of equality? I support some equality and SSM is of course one of them, but this takes it too far.

Atlasia: Equality goes too far.

[DemPGH]

FTR, finding a first world study on this is going to be tough, because it's completely and utterly regressive! It's like finding a first world study on feudalism or something. It's been abandoned because it's largely about one person having power and also spouse collecting. It's just so hard in terms of marriage to separate the issue from economics.

Now if a person just wants to have a bunch of sex partners, that's different. Economically and legally, at least.

If a chimpanzee could be scientifically proven to give informed consent to a marriage, I would support human-chimpanzee marriage.

The DNA isn't even compatible!

[TNF]

Why does Senator X hate freedom?

[Oakvale]

Why does Senator X hate freedom?

I fear that the Common Sense police state is coming, Senator.

[Simfan34]

ITT: People oppose group marriage based on literally the exact same tired old slippery slope cliches trotted out against same-sex marriage.

Are civil unions between donkeys and humans and elephants and humans going to be legalized in the meaning of equality? I support some equality and SSM is of course one of them, but this takes it too far.

Atlasia: Equality goes too far.

Why the f--k are we acting like polygamy is even remotely acceptable now? I'm confused. What happened when I was gone?

It was opposed on a slippery slope, that it would lead to things like, oh, say, polygamy?

Right now their case is looking pretty good.

x Simfan

[Napoleon]

Signing NE petitions is trolling just the same as trying to vote in the Assembly. Go away, troll.

[Simfan34]

Signing NE petitions is trolling just the same as trying to vote in the Assembly. Go away, troll.

I have never had a <20% approval rating. Presumably The People approve of my trolling.