Petition to hold a Northeast referendum on the Group Unions Act

[Napoleon]

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.

The best you can come up with is a two year old poll that was taken prior to me winning a third consecutive national election? Go get banned again, please.

[cinyc]

It would be nice if non-Northeast residents didn't sign this petition, as their signatures are invalid for determining whether a referendum will be put on the Northeast ballot.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

It would be nice if non-Northeast residents didn't sign this petition, as their signatures are invalid for determining whether a referendum will be put on the Northeast ballot.

This

[cinyc]

It would be nice if non-Northeast residents didn't sign this petition, as their signatures are invalid for determining whether a referendum will be put on the Northeast ballot.

This

Well, you should probably specify that this is a Northeast petition in the title.

[Simfan34]

I didn't actually realize this was a Northeast poll, in my defense....

[Yeahsayyeah]

I'm not comfortable with the Group Marriage Act as it can refer to two forms at relationship that are totally different. Of course, today we all know that being a couple is not the only legitimate way of a relationship that is based on love, respect, trust and all the other things. So I can understand the intention to strengthen equality in this case (though it leaves many open questions like fictious marriages for tax reasons - a problem that is multiplied hiere, and the problem of the possiblities and consequences of dissolution. I think this can be worked out, but it will be not easy to make complex relationship structures fit into law)

The other form of relationship that would fall under the Group Marriage Act is that it recognizes forms of marriages that are coming from the darks of patricharchate, tribalism and cults that allow one man to have many wives for the reason of religion and tradition. Often and in many places around the world, women are forced into these kind of marriages, that the region of the Northeast now would recognize. I think, everybody can understand, that from a perspective of WOMEN'S RIGHTS  and repudiation of marriage structures based on oppression, tribalism, and religious beliefs that don't fit into an elightened society I am not comfortable with the Group marriage act. So I would like to make a subscription here to give the people of the Northeast the possibility to reconsider the Group Marriage Act that is well intended, but possibly not thought out well.

x Yeahsayyeah

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

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!

A lot of couples are incompatible, but we haven't banned civil unions yet. Furthermore, who cares? If Chimpy and Bob want to get married, then let them!

[sentinel]

If one were to classify group marriage as a right...then are rights something we should be voting on?

[SWE]

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.

What the hell does meth have to do with group marriages?
 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, should single parents be banned from raising kids?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You think your friends aunt wasn't a good role model, do group marriage should be banned. Makes sense

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Do you realize how much you sound like an anti SSM activist right now?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Apparently you don't

[President Tyrion]

So, first off, I don't have any issue with the institution of polygamy. I do have issues with gaming the taxation system and claiming multiple dependents in a group marriage, which isn't expressly prohibited by the Northeastern law.

Another major issue with the bill (and I'm sad I didn't notice this whole debate earlier) is:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If one person in, say, a 3 person union, is the major breadwinner, but an adulterer, and chooses to "divest" from the union, he/she may do so without the consent of the others?

I figure marriage law has a lot of different scenarios in real life, and it's frankly boring to have to go through every single scenario in a bill such as this, but I'm a little worried at the potential for abuse here. In this case, the abuse I'm talking about is purely financial, for the record.

And, yes, polygamy as an institution was formerly used to subjugate women, but I think it's rather clear that this law would not enable that any more than a one on one marriage would.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

x Nathan

This law is effectively a conservative parody of social liberalism.

[Deus Naturae]

Is Mr. X's signature still considered valid now that he's deregistered?

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

i entirely agree with tyrion

x butafly

[DemPGH]

x Nathan

This law is effectively a conservative parody of social liberalism.

I agree with you, and something like that was one thought that had crossed my mind. Since they appear sincere about it, it strikes me, with some of the things that have been said, as one of those moments where intellectualism runs amok.