Based God Polling: Do you support group marriages?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:59:26 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Based God Polling: Do you support group marriages?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Poll
Question: Yes or no?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 52

Author Topic: Based God Polling: Do you support group marriages?  (Read 2607 times)
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2014, 10:27:22 PM »

Alfred my friend, contrary to your statement, I have not ranked these situations in any order.

Now, let me be clear, I will not be dragged into a protracted discussion about marriage, which is clearly where you are headed.  Goodness knows I have had my fair share of that on this forum.

Real marriage is a union between one man and one woman.  If you don't like that, then feel free to hold your own views on the subject.   

Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2014, 10:52:56 PM »

This is a thread about marriage - did you not expect a discussion? And I'll be content with holding my own views on the subject when you are content with holding your own views and not forcing themselves on others.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: March 18, 2014, 10:58:13 PM »

Alfred my friend, contrary to your statement, I have not ranked these situations in any order.

Now, let me be clear, I will not be dragged into a protracted discussion about marriage, which is clearly where you are headed.  Goodness knows I have had my fair share of that on this forum.

Real marriage is a union between one man and one woman.  If you don't like that, then feel free to hold your own views on the subject.   



I see.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,509
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: March 19, 2014, 07:05:39 PM »
« Edited: March 19, 2014, 07:09:51 PM by Frodo »

I'm usually fine with open relationships/swinging (perhaps even group marriages), but not when children are involved.  Our society may indeed be liberalizing, but we haven't quite gotten to the point yet when non-monogamous relationships are considered as valid as traditional monogamous relationships (in this context, it includes same-sex couples).  
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: March 19, 2014, 08:27:32 PM »

I'm usually fine with open relationships/swinging (perhaps even group marriages), but not when children are involved.  Our society may indeed be liberalizing, but we haven't quite gotten to the point yet when non-monogamous relationships are considered as valid as traditional monogamous relationships (in this context, it includes same-sex couples).  

Why should society's view of things have an impact on their merit? And why shouldn't more than two people be allowed to raise children?
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: March 19, 2014, 08:56:33 PM »

I have a question... and it's a reason why I don't support group marriages. It's purely legal.

Let's say, three people marry... then, one person wishes to divorce one party, but not the other. How would that work? Then you have issues of custody/property/maintenance. I have no particular feelings either way on the issue at all, I wouldn't want to be in one, but I don't give a toss either way... but it strikes me as a massive legal nightmare.

If you want to talk about marriage, great, but at the same time, you need to think about dissolution.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: March 19, 2014, 09:08:30 PM »

Well I suppose that if John and Bob and Mary all married each other, and Bob wanted to divorce John and not Mary, then Mary would stay married to John and Bob and they'd sort of split "custody" of her (and yes, I'm aware that word fits there terribly; this is a totally new legal thing we're opening up). Then again, I repeat that I'm not a divorce lawyer.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: March 19, 2014, 09:11:06 PM »

I have a question... and it's a reason why I don't support group marriages. It's purely legal.

Let's say, three people marry... then, one person wishes to divorce one party, but not the other. How would that work? Then you have issues of custody/property/maintenance. I have no particular feelings either way on the issue at all, I wouldn't want to be in one, but I don't give a toss either way... but it strikes me as a massive legal nightmare.

If you want to talk about marriage, great, but at the same time, you need to think about dissolution.
The law the Northeast passed recently requires those wishing to enter into group marriages to agree to a prenuptial agreement prior to getting married.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: March 19, 2014, 10:15:21 PM »

I have a question... and it's a reason why I don't support group marriages. It's purely legal.

Let's say, three people marry... then, one person wishes to divorce one party, but not the other. How would that work? Then you have issues of custody/property/maintenance. I have no particular feelings either way on the issue at all, I wouldn't want to be in one, but I don't give a toss either way... but it strikes me as a massive legal nightmare.

If you want to talk about marriage, great, but at the same time, you need to think about dissolution.
The law the Northeast passed recently requires those wishing to enter into group marriages to agree to a prenuptial agreement prior to getting married.

Then the Northeast is discriminating against those wishing to enter into group marriages by forcing them into a situation where they must agree to a prenuptial agreement, a requirement not demanded of those entering into other marriages.

You cannot therefore say that group marriages are treated equally in the Northeast.  They must agree to a standard not required of others.

Logged
Napoleon
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,892


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: March 19, 2014, 10:18:40 PM »

Am I the only one who thinks all civil unions should require a pre-union contract?
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: March 19, 2014, 10:22:03 PM »

I have a question... and it's a reason why I don't support group marriages. It's purely legal.

Let's say, three people marry... then, one person wishes to divorce one party, but not the other. How would that work? Then you have issues of custody/property/maintenance. I have no particular feelings either way on the issue at all, I wouldn't want to be in one, but I don't give a toss either way... but it strikes me as a massive legal nightmare.

If you want to talk about marriage, great, but at the same time, you need to think about dissolution.
The law the Northeast passed recently requires those wishing to enter into group marriages to agree to a prenuptial agreement prior to getting married.

Then the Northeast is discriminating against those wishing to enter into group marriages by forcing them into a situation where they must agree to a prenuptial agreement, a requirement not demanded of those entering into other marriages.

You cannot therefore say that group marriages are treated equally in the Northeast.  They must agree to a standard not required of others.
People can still enter into a group marriage without a prenuptial agreement. A prenup is only required if they want their marriage to be recognized as a civil union for legal purposes.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: March 19, 2014, 10:29:59 PM »

I have a question... and it's a reason why I don't support group marriages. It's purely legal.

Let's say, three people marry... then, one person wishes to divorce one party, but not the other. How would that work? Then you have issues of custody/property/maintenance. I have no particular feelings either way on the issue at all, I wouldn't want to be in one, but I don't give a toss either way... but it strikes me as a massive legal nightmare.

If you want to talk about marriage, great, but at the same time, you need to think about dissolution.
The law the Northeast passed recently requires those wishing to enter into group marriages to agree to a prenuptial agreement prior to getting married.

Then the Northeast is discriminating against those wishing to enter into group marriages by forcing them into a situation where they must agree to a prenuptial agreement, a requirement not demanded of those entering into other marriages.

You cannot therefore say that group marriages are treated equally in the Northeast.  They must agree to a standard not required of others.

I wouldn't really call it discrimination. A standard marriage is basically a contact between two people, while a group marriage is a similar contract involving a larger number of people, so it requires different set of rules and regulations.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: March 19, 2014, 10:45:01 PM »

I have a question... and it's a reason why I don't support group marriages. It's purely legal.

Let's say, three people marry... then, one person wishes to divorce one party, but not the other. How would that work? Then you have issues of custody/property/maintenance. I have no particular feelings either way on the issue at all, I wouldn't want to be in one, but I don't give a toss either way... but it strikes me as a massive legal nightmare.

If you want to talk about marriage, great, but at the same time, you need to think about dissolution.
The law the Northeast passed recently requires those wishing to enter into group marriages to agree to a prenuptial agreement prior to getting married.

Then the Northeast is discriminating against those wishing to enter into group marriages by forcing them into a situation where they must agree to a prenuptial agreement, a requirement not demanded of those entering into other marriages.

You cannot therefore say that group marriages are treated equally in the Northeast.  They must agree to a standard not required of others.
People can still enter into a group marriage without a prenuptial agreement. A prenup is only required if they want their marriage to be recognized as a civil union for legal purposes.

But your above statement, bolded, does not say that, simply those wishing to enter into group marriages.  It does not specify any particular type of group marriage.  

But thank you for the clarification.

However, I assume you would not have other types of marriages who want their marriage to be recognized as a civil union for legal purposes, sign a prenup.  If this is the case, then this would still be a different set of standards for group marriages than for other marriages when it comes to those wanting their marriages to be recognized as a civil union for legal purposes.  
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: March 19, 2014, 10:55:37 PM »

I have a question... and it's a reason why I don't support group marriages. It's purely legal.

Let's say, three people marry... then, one person wishes to divorce one party, but not the other. How would that work? Then you have issues of custody/property/maintenance. I have no particular feelings either way on the issue at all, I wouldn't want to be in one, but I don't give a toss either way... but it strikes me as a massive legal nightmare.

If you want to talk about marriage, great, but at the same time, you need to think about dissolution.
The law the Northeast passed recently requires those wishing to enter into group marriages to agree to a prenuptial agreement prior to getting married.

Then the Northeast is discriminating against those wishing to enter into group marriages by forcing them into a situation where they must agree to a prenuptial agreement, a requirement not demanded of those entering into other marriages.

You cannot therefore say that group marriages are treated equally in the Northeast.  They must agree to a standard not required of others.

I wouldn't really call it discrimination. A standard marriage is basically a contact between two people, while a group marriage is a similar contract involving a larger number of people, so it requires different set of rules and regulations.

Therefore, what you are saying, is that group marriages have a different set of standards than other marriages, as it requires, in your words, a different set of rules and regulations.

Therefore, by this logic, group marriages are not treated the same as other marriages, as they require a different set of rules and regulations, your words.   
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: March 19, 2014, 11:10:42 PM »

I have a question... and it's a reason why I don't support group marriages. It's purely legal.

Let's say, three people marry... then, one person wishes to divorce one party, but not the other. How would that work? Then you have issues of custody/property/maintenance. I have no particular feelings either way on the issue at all, I wouldn't want to be in one, but I don't give a toss either way... but it strikes me as a massive legal nightmare.

If you want to talk about marriage, great, but at the same time, you need to think about dissolution.
The law the Northeast passed recently requires those wishing to enter into group marriages to agree to a prenuptial agreement prior to getting married.

Then the Northeast is discriminating against those wishing to enter into group marriages by forcing them into a situation where they must agree to a prenuptial agreement, a requirement not demanded of those entering into other marriages.

You cannot therefore say that group marriages are treated equally in the Northeast.  They must agree to a standard not required of others.

I wouldn't really call it discrimination. A standard marriage is basically a contact between two people, while a group marriage is a similar contract involving a larger number of people, so it requires different set of rules and regulations.

Therefore, what you are saying, is that group marriages have a different set of standards than other marriages, as it requires, in your words, a different set of rules and regulations.

Therefore, by this logic, group marriages are not treated the same as other marriages, as they require a different set of rules and regulations, your words.   

...Yes? I'm not really sure what your point is. Group marriages are different monogamistic marriages, that should be obvious to everyone. The argument is about whether or not these different groupings should have the same legal rights as traditional monogamistic marriages.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: March 20, 2014, 07:11:17 PM »

You know, I hate to sound like a pessimist, but I don't get why everyone's focused on such trivial social issues like 'group marriage' or 'extraterrestrial rights.'  I mean, really.  Regardless of whether or not they're acceptable for us to embrace, when is our government ever going to have to deal with situations that warrant these policies?

Real marriage is a union between one man and one woman.  If you don't like that, then feel free to hold your own views on the subject.

You heard the man.  It doesn't matter if a marriage is between two people who were divorced twenty times.  It doesn't matter if the nature of the marriage is purely sexual.  It doesn't matter if people got married out of guilt or family obligation.  All that matters is that it's between one man and one woman.  Anything else is just, you know, offensive.
Logged
Goldwater
Republitarian
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,054
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: -4.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: March 20, 2014, 07:14:31 PM »

You know, I hate to sound like a pessimist, but I don't get why everyone's focused on such trivial social issues like 'group marriage' or 'extraterrestrial rights.'  I mean, really.  Regardless of whether or not they're acceptable for us to embrace, when is our government ever going to have to deal with situations that warrant these policies?

Well, Atlasia is so liberal on nontrivial social issues that we wouldn't have anything to debate otherwise. Tongue
Logged
MyRescueKittehRocks
JohanusCalvinusLibertas
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,763
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: March 20, 2014, 07:54:41 PM »

You know, I hate to sound like a pessimist, but I don't get why everyone's focused on such trivial social issues like 'group marriage' or 'extraterrestrial rights.'  I mean, really.  Regardless of whether or not they're acceptable for us to embrace, when is our government ever going to have to deal with situations that warrant these policies?

Well, Atlasia is so liberal on nontrivial social issues that we wouldn't have anything to debate otherwise. Tongue

And that is a fundamental problem in this game.  Progressives get their way on all "social issues" and whenever a conservative like myself tries to bring a good idea in regards to social policy they throw a nuclear fit. The Mideast Abortion debate being our example. A good socially conservative idea social progressives from all over Atlasia came together and got that just law thrown out.  And not once have I actually tried to end SSM in Atlasia. So I'm asking social liberals to have an open mind and not blindly attack every socially conservative idea.
Logged
H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY
Alfred F. Jones
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,075
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: March 20, 2014, 08:10:22 PM »

You know, I hate to sound like a pessimist, but I don't get why everyone's focused on such trivial social issues like 'group marriage' or 'extraterrestrial rights.'  I mean, really.  Regardless of whether or not they're acceptable for us to embrace, when is our government ever going to have to deal with situations that warrant these policies?

Well, Atlasia is so liberal on nontrivial social issues that we wouldn't have anything to debate otherwise. Tongue

And that is a fundamental problem in this game.  Progressives get their way on all "social issues" and whenever a conservative like myself tries to bring a good idea in regards to social policy they throw a nuclear fit. The Mideast Abortion debate being our example. A good socially conservative idea social progressives from all over Atlasia came together and got that just law thrown out.  And not once have I actually tried to end SSM in Atlasia. So I'm asking social liberals to have an open mind and not blindly attack every socially conservative idea.

Damn close-minded gays! Always opposing our attempts to take away their basic rights!

Also I find it interesting that the anti-group marriage crowd is complaining about our social radicalism when they're winning in the poll.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: March 20, 2014, 08:14:29 PM »


Real marriage is a union between one man and one woman.  If you don't like that, then feel free to hold your own views on the subject.

You heard the man.  It doesn't matter if a marriage is between two people who were divorced twenty times.  It doesn't matter if the nature of the marriage is purely sexual.  It doesn't matter if people got married out of guilt or family obligation.  All that matters is that it's between one man and one woman.  Anything else is just, you know, offensive.

Methinks Mr. Scott has been in the political game too long.  He has become quite proficient at twisting, exaggerating, embellishing, putting his own spin on what others say.

But then again, this is exactly what I would expect from a radical leftist like Mr. Scott, to denigrate and trivialize a marriage between one man and one woman of legal age.
Logged
The world will shine with light in our nightmare
Just Passion Through
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,174
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: March 20, 2014, 08:19:25 PM »


Real marriage is a union between one man and one woman.  If you don't like that, then feel free to hold your own views on the subject.

You heard the man.  It doesn't matter if a marriage is between two people who were divorced twenty times.  It doesn't matter if the nature of the marriage is purely sexual.  It doesn't matter if people got married out of guilt or family obligation.  All that matters is that it's between one man and one woman.  Anything else is just, you know, offensive.

Methinks Mr. Scott has been in the political game too long.  He has become quite proficient at twisting, exaggerating, embellishing, putting his own spin on what others say.

But then again, this is exactly what I would expect from a radical leftist like Mr. Scott, to denigrate and trivialize a marriage between one man and one woman of legal age.

No need to be a condescending little twat when your narrow views of marriage are put into question.  But then you wouldn't be being yourself, now would you?
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: March 20, 2014, 08:49:13 PM »


Real marriage is a union between one man and one woman.  If you don't like that, then feel free to hold your own views on the subject.

You heard the man.  It doesn't matter if a marriage is between two people who were divorced twenty times.  It doesn't matter if the nature of the marriage is purely sexual.  It doesn't matter if people got married out of guilt or family obligation.  All that matters is that it's between one man and one woman.  Anything else is just, you know, offensive.

Methinks Mr. Scott has been in the political game too long.  He has become quite proficient at twisting, exaggerating, embellishing, putting his own spin on what others say.

But then again, this is exactly what I would expect from a radical leftist like Mr. Scott, to denigrate and trivialize a marriage between one man and one woman of legal age.

No need to be a condescending little twat when your narrow views of marriage are put into question.  But then you wouldn't be being yourself, now would you?

Oh Mr. Scott, you are soooooooooo predictable.

Hurling personal insults, so unbecoming, and then followed up by throwing a hissy fit, so very immature.

But, whatever.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: March 20, 2014, 09:03:26 PM »


Real marriage is a union between one man and one woman.  If you don't like that, then feel free to hold your own views on the subject.

You heard the man.  It doesn't matter if a marriage is between two people who were divorced twenty times.  It doesn't matter if the nature of the marriage is purely sexual.  It doesn't matter if people got married out of guilt or family obligation.  All that matters is that it's between one man and one woman.  Anything else is just, you know, offensive.

Methinks Mr. Scott has been in the political game too long.  He has become quite proficient at twisting, exaggerating, embellishing, putting his own spin on what others say.

But then again, this is exactly what I would expect from a radical leftist like Mr. Scott, to denigrate and trivialize a marriage between one man and one woman of legal age.

No need to be a condescending little twat when your narrow views of marriage are put into question.  But then you wouldn't be being yourself, now would you?

Oh Mr. Scott, you are soooooooooo predictable.

Hurling personal insults, so unbecoming, and then followed up by throwing a hissy fit, so very immature.

But, whatever.

To be fair... you're the one who made the determination of what a 'real marriage' is.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: March 26, 2014, 09:05:16 PM »

Anyway, nobody has refuted my statements that the proposed group marriage policy sets a different requirement for group marriages than it does for other marriages, therefore setting a standard of inequality in group marriages as opposed to other marriages.

I can only assume, therefore, that my statements in this matter are accurate. 
Logged
Maxwell
mah519
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,459
Germany


Political Matrix
E: -6.45, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: March 26, 2014, 11:38:08 PM »

With 52 voters, I think we have finally hit the point where Atlasian voters start to say no on social policy.

Support for Group Marriage
44% Yes
56% No
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 14 queries.