Beyond Gay Marriage

[B_bi_mmf]

Recent polling and developments in several states indicate that there is strong movement in the U.S. toward acceptance of gay marriage.

Glory Fuckin' Hallelujah!

Simple principles of equal rights for all might actually prevail within our lifetimes, and a nasty form of institutionalized discrimination will have ended at long last.

One of the favorite objections to gay marriage from the religious right has been this: "If gays can marry, then what is next? Group marriage?"

Some have responded: "Don't be ridiculous."

My response is: "Absolutely!" It follows like the night the day. Freedom to marry means just that -- freedom to marry whomever we want. If three people want to be married, then why should they be discriminated against?

Progressives might say "Shhhhh," that pointing out this inevitable implication of taking religious doctrine out of the legal concept of state-sanctioned marriage will arouse people's fears, and progress on gay marriage might be slowed or reversed. I disagree. Facing up to all of the implications of equal rights in marriage ought to be a healthy thing.

I doubt that the numbers opting for group marriage would be very large, since jealousy and exclusiveness and even ownership are central to many people's personal concept of marriage. But if only one threesome wanted to marry, then that relationship should, in my opinion, be afforded the same rights and responsibilities as any twosome.

What do others think about this issue?

 

[Fredro]

One of the main reasons I get pissed off about this subject is that there's always someone screaming about how gay marriage destroys the sanctity of traditional man/woman marriage. Can anyone PLEASE give me an example of how a traditional marriage is in any way lessened by gay marriage? Don't just tell me it is. Explain how it is. If those people were really worried about preserving the sanctity of traditional marriage, they would be doing something about skyrocketing divorce rates. To me, those are the ones who have ruined the sanctity of traditional marriage. If the god you worship tells you to marry and be happy, do it! You'll still be just as married in the eyes of your god and government if gays can do the same thing. Why can't the god I worship tell me the same thing? If you tell me that my god can't tell me that, that's religious persecution - another form of persecution banned by the constitution.

Quite often, this ruined sanctity bullshit sounds more like a prospective case of "sour grapes" It's hard to explain but it's something like "I believe you aren't quite good enough to own a house like I have. If by some chance you do buy a house like mine, I'll have to sell mine because the thought of you (being something less than me) will make me enjoy my house less". So, you get pissed off because I have the same thing you do. Why should the government be allowed to give a flying fuck about this???

Don't tell me of how gays marrying will destroy procreation. Hey, We're gay. We were never going to breed and produce anyway. Gays being married isn't going to stop traditionally married straight couples from procreating. It's also not going to stop unmarried straight women from having children out of wedlock.

Don't tell me that traditional marriage is intended for straight couples to marry and produce offspring. If this is true, why should a 70 year old male/female couple be permitted to marry? They'll never fulfill their "obligation" to produce children. Will they? Also, if straight couples are supposed to marry and make babies, how come those couples who decide not to reproduce aren't required to divorce once they make that decision???

Also, this country's government is legally bound to follow the concept of "separation of church and state". I can see no valid reason why the state (federal and individual states) government should be able to veto the legalization of gay marriage other than the fact that it'll piss off the religious right wingers to no end. Can someone PLEASE tell me what valid reason(s) the state could have for not allowing gay marriage without bringing religion into the equation? If the church that I attend allows gay marriage, then how can the government not allow the marriage to be legal?

Next - Equality. All men (people) are created equal. Gays are inherently excluded from seeking and marrying a person of the opposite sex because it's not the way we are (for whatever reasons) programmed. Our chosen lifemates are, by our very nature, the same sex as we are. Can someone PLEASE tell me why we should be not be treated as equally in the prospects of marriage as our hetero/straight counterparts? Again, DO NOT bring religion or the "ruined sanctity" crap into the mix. Why should our marriages not be every bit as legal as traditional marriages?

Lastly, there will be some who will start screaming about how the majority of the people have the right to vote and that their word should be the final word. If their word in any way denies others of their constitutionall guaranteed equal rights, that's where the courts should step in and set aside the views of the majority. If the courts hadn't done this back in the 50's and 60's, we would still have blacks riding in the backs of busses and segregated schools.

Bring on the arguments. I'll debate this point by point.

 

[CUBE]

I have thought so much about this idea. It was so hard to see the 8 campaign in Calif. I really believe it is not about gays getting married that bugged these "church" people. I think on a base level it was a "legit" way to be mean to others and mask the guilt. I think these anti gay people really do enjoy the feeling of hate inside them...they like the anger and the power of being mean to others. It is so sad they are without culture or community that they could do this to others.

 

[B_quietguy]

If Irish got civil rights, then Italians would want them too.
If Italians got civil rights, then blacks would want them too.
If blacks got civil rights, then women would want them too.
If women got civil rights, then gays would want them too.
If gays got civil rights, then ____ would want them too.

Conservative religious people fought viciously against each and every group of being able to fully participate in US society. You name it - Jews, atheists, transgendered people, Latinos, Asians, whomever.... They all had to struggle against discrimination which conservative religions enforced.

I have to see a conservative religious person come up with a single compelling reason to justify their discrimination.

 

[houtx48]

while I am not advocating plural marriage, it's not like it has not worked in parts of the world since the beginning of time. perhaps it is natural progression, only time will tell.

 

[ericbythebay]

Group marriage is not the same as same-sex marriage.

Straights have had group marriage for thousands of years, we can look to that data for why it isn't legal in the U.S. Typically, it results in someone being little more than the property of someone else or it places an undue burden on society, ie. multiple unemployed wives shitting out kids with a marginally educated father that can't support the family.

 

[B_bi_mmf]

Group marriage is not the same as same-sex marriage.

Same-sex marriage is not the same as opposite-sex marriage. Differences ought not, in and of themselves, be a basis for denying people equal rights.

Straights have had group marriage for thousands of years, we can look to that data for why it isn't legal in the U.S. Typically, it results in someone being little more than the property of someone else or it places an undue burden on society, ie. multiple unemployed wives shitting out kids with a marginally educated father that can't support the family.

People also have said that gay relationships were "typically" such things as promiscuous. Your characterization is a stereotype and in no way an acceptable basis for discrimination against those who choose a threesome, or some other group situation, rather than a twosome.

 

[Fredro]

Good discussion, friends. However:

Seems like the the debate on "plural marriages" should be left separate from the process of making same sex marriages a reality. It just bogs down the process we (gays and our supporters) are trying to achieve. Let's not confuse our issues by continually adding more "what if's" to the equation. Our opponents love it when we lose focus and stop pushing forward. The discussion is getting cloudy with the talk of more than two marrying and that's not what this thread is about.

 

[B_bi_mmf]

The discussion is getting cloudy with the talk of more than two marrying and that's not what this thread is about.

Au contraire! Group marriage is exactly what this thread is about. Please read the first posting.

But you do make excellent points about the gay-marriage issue in post # 2.

 

[Fredro]

Yes, I went back and re-read the OP. I guess I was more zealous about the gay marriage aspect of the post, I lost track. I apologize for that.

Or as Roseanne Rosannadana would say:

"Nevermind."

 

[houtx48]

Group marriage is not the same as same-sex marriage.............well what if a herd of lesbians get married?

 

[heist]

I've always thought that it was kind of careless for people to say that plural marriages are inherently bad. I mean, just because it doesn't work for you (emotionally/psychologically whatever) doesn't mean that someone else can't handle it. (Of course, personally, I already have enough trouble trying to be in relationships with only one person, so more than one would probably be a mess for me. :smile

If anything, I find that the reason people try to protect "traditional" marriage is because, to them, the roles in marriage are very strictly defined: one man, as the breadwinner and ruler of the household, and one woman, as the caretaker and the one that takes care of things the man can't. Therefore, if you have (say) two men, it messes up the balance provided by the "traditional" relationship. I would speculate that this is also why "traditional" people tend to think that male-male relationships MUST have one guy be the "man" and the other be the "woman" in the relationship -- they don't understand how relationships can exist otherwise.

A common defense of "traditional" views on marriage is that children need both a mother and a father to thrive. Yet studies have shown that children really just do better with 2 parents (regardless of gender) than with 1. This makes sense, because more adults per child means more attention they can give to the child (and probably more money they can bring into the household). But one thing that has puzzled me is this: why can't "traditional" people accept the idea that children might only need a mother-figure and a father-figure? This separates the role a person fulfills from their being and (within the "traditional" view) would allow same-sex relationships. (I guess that’s actually a rhetorical question, since their reasoning is Biblical in nature.)

Now, one question that follows: would having even more parents be even better for children? This would depend on how close to saturation we already are with a 2-person relationship (Are all of a child’s requirements already fulfilled by the 2 roles?). And it is true that a grandparent’s help is good for the family. Of course, there is a psychological theory that children might only be able to bond closely with a few family members, but I think the benefits would outweigh the “harm” of not being close enough with one of the parents (and can anyone really say that they are honestly very and equally close to all of their family members?).

OP, I would wonder: how might you design a system for plural marriage? (Does everyone have to get married together at the same time? Is the marriage of Alice and Bob considered completely different from the marriage of Alice, Bob, and Carol?) And how would plural divorce work?

As a final thought: if they really wanted to protect the sanctity of marriage, maybe they should just make it harder to get married (and divorced). It would probably reduce the number of marriages-of-convenience but not affect the marriages-of-love.

tl;dr I have a lot of thoughts on marriage.

 

[red7.5]

I'm from Massachusetts, the leader in gay marriage, and I know many gay married couples (some straight ones, too). As a gay guy, I'm thrilled the trend towards gay marriage acceptance is spreading. But as good as it feels, and as right as it seems, the federal government does not acknowledge state-sanctioned gay marriage yet - not for income taxes that's for sure.

The situation seems ripe for a federal court case or two...

 

[houtx48]

''The situation seems ripe for a federal court case or two''... exactly where this is headed, any bets on how long it takes to get to the supreme court?

 

[ActionBuddy]

"Beyond Gay Marriage"?... Well... Gay Divorce!... The lawyers will love it.

 

[D_Beau Nerr]

Gay marriage is foolishness. Not all people approve gay marriages. Take a majority of California for example, surprisingly. I don't hate gay people but the things that they push through bring discomfort to my inner common sense - call it conscience, morals, values. No offense but this is just my two cents worth of opinion.

 

[ericbythebay]

Gay marriage is foolishness. Not all people approve gay marriages. Take a majority of California for example, surprisingly. I don't hate gay people but the things that they push through bring discomfort to my inner common sense - call it conscience, morals, values. No offense but this is just my two cents worth of opinion.

Some may not approve of your marriage. When do we get to vote on that?

Why do you feel that it is moral to deny children the protections and stability of marriage, merely because their parents are of the same-sex? Do you think we should also go back to the time when bastard children had less rights?

 

[Fredro]

Gay marriage is foolishness. Not all people approve gay marriages. Take a majority of California for example, surprisingly. I don't hate gay people but the things that they push through bring discomfort to my inner common sense - call it conscience, morals, values. No offense but this is just my two cents worth of opinion.

And the views of some people brings discomfort to my senses. It's not conscience, morals or values. It's their desire to tell me that I have to conform to their values and morals because they feel that they have the only correct set of consciences, morals and values. They feel that their views on this matter are the only correct and valid ones. They feel that everyone else should just automatically agree because they think that the majority's opinions should be the only deciding factor in matters of denying people their civil rights and constitutionally guaranteed equality.

160 Years ago, the majority of the people found no problem with slavery.

140 Years ago, the majority of the people found no problem with not allowing blacks to vote.

85 Years ago, the majority of the people found no problem with not allowing women to vote.

50 years ago, the majority of the people found no problem with keeping schools segregated and believing that African Americans were something less than their white counterparts.

40 Years ago, the majority of the people found no problem with not allowing interracial marriages.

I'm sure glad the majority's opinion didn't win out on all of these matters.

 

[cute5]

...
If gays got civil rights, then ____ would want them too.QUOTE]
------------------------->ROBOTS

seriously tho...yes, I'm in favor of [gay / group / trans-species / virtual] mariages.

 

[B_bi_mmf]

OP, I would wonder: how might you design a system for plural marriage? (Does everyone have to get married together at the same time? Is the marriage of Alice and Bob considered completely different from the marriage of Alice, Bob, and Carol?) And how would plural divorce work?

I hope that we will ultimately evolve into a system where civil marriage can involve any two people, any three, etc. I would imagine that participation in more than one marriage would be allowed, e.g., a person involved in two separate households with the other person(s) in the two households having no relationship with each other.

My guess is that most of the people interested in longterm relationships beyond an exclusive one with just one other person would gravitate toward a single household in a group situation rather than multiple households.

I would think that once a person wanted out of a relationship, then the marriage would be dissolved. If others in the group wanted to stay together, then that would be a new marriage.