Beyond Gay Marriage

LGX

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 29, 2007
Posts
625
Media
0
Likes
239
Points
263
Location
San Francisco, CA, USA
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
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.

I find this post extremely ironic.
 

heist

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Posts
129
Media
6
Likes
50
Points
113
Location
At the beach. : )
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
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.

I wonder, is there anyone out there who wouldn't mind if their significant other like someone else as well? The only scenarios that I can imagine it working out is if, for a 3-person ordeal, all 3 like each other enough to all want to marry each other. I mean, otherwise it falls into the category of "Well, you like this other person, but it's okay because you like me better." And that feeling of superiority wouldn't be healthy for any relationship.

I don't know; maybe it's just my own prejudices preventing me from understanding. (But of course, I acknowledge that just because I don't understand it, doesn't mean I should automatically dismiss it as wrong.)
 

vibrator

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Posts
278
Media
0
Likes
6
Points
103
Sexuality
No Response
Gay marriage is like the tide its coming whether you like it or not. If eveyone focuses on improving their own lives, everything will be fine. This is a heavy discussion for this site. Wow.
 

B_bi_mmf

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Posts
3,016
Media
0
Likes
133
Points
133
Location
U.S.
Gender
Male
As I said:

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.

Yes, I think a triad would be the most likely configuration, but it would hopefully not be "a 3-person ordeal" as you characterize it!

For you and most others, exclusivity may be a crucial element of intimate relationships. But for some of us, sharing can be extremely powerful and satisfying.

I wonder, is there anyone out there who wouldn't mind if their significant other like someone else as well? The only scenarios that I can imagine it working out is if, for a 3-person ordeal, all 3 like each other enough to all want to marry each other. I mean, otherwise it falls into the category of "Well, you like this other person, but it's okay because you like me better." And that feeling of superiority wouldn't be healthy for any relationship.

I don't know; maybe it's just my own prejudices preventing me from understanding. (But of course, I acknowledge that just because I don't understand it, doesn't mean I should automatically dismiss it as wrong.)
 

matticus201

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Posts
475
Media
12
Likes
110
Points
248
Age
43
Location
Dallas, TX
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
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.

Talk about irony... "No Offense"? I think it's crazy that someone could make a comment like "Gay marriage is foolishness" knowing that it will offend many gay people, and then offer a platitude like "no offense."

Bottom line, if you don't approve of gay marriage, that's your business. But, as an equal rights issue, it's protected under the Constitution. It is the charge of the Judicial Branch of Government to uphold, interpret and protect the Constitution. So, "no offense" but I don't care whether you approve of gay marriage or not, I don't care what your inner common sense tells you, nor do I care what the majority of California thinks. It's not their, or your, place to decide what I can do or who I can marry. The Constitution protects my right, and it will be upheld, sooner or later.

Personally, I don't approve of bigoted, closeminded comments, but I'm certainly not telling you not to make them, nor am I launching a campaign to slander you, skew the public's view of your life, or discriminate openly against you at the highest levels of government.

If you don't believe in gay marriages, don't go to one. Don't be friends with gay people. Trust me, we won't mind.

No offense.
 

Brick7

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2009
Posts
493
Media
1
Likes
242
Points
128
Location
The dark conservative heart of Central California
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Gay marriage is foolishness. Not all people approve gay marriages. Take a majority of California for example, surprisingly.
I believe the final vote count was somewhere around 52.2% yes and 47.8% no. That's called a bare majority and far from overwhelming. I say the jury is still out on gay marriage in the state of California.
 

heist

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Posts
129
Media
6
Likes
50
Points
113
Location
At the beach. : )
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Yes, I think a triad would be the most likely configuration, but it would hopefully not be "a 3-person ordeal" as you characterize it!

For you and most others, exclusivity may be a crucial element of intimate relationships. But for some of us, sharing can be extremely powerful and satisfying.

By "3-person ordeal", I merely meant to refer to a 3-person relationship without using something loaded like "affair" but still implying the complexity that would necessarily be built into it.

Perhaps I should rephrase: what I meant is that it isn't healthy for there to be inequalities in a relationship. And I suggested that it would be difficult for a plural relationship to exist without inequalities. You mention that "sharing" is powerful and satisfying -- do you mean that it is equal sharing? This is the topic that I was trying to address. And naturally, I would agree that it is the part most people would have a problem doing.

Also, I don't think "exclusivity" is really the right descriptor -- it immediately suggests a possessive view to relationships. Perhaps "commitment"? This shouldn't be taken to demean anything, but I think it has a more positive "giving" connotation than the negative "sacrificing" connotation that exclusivity has.
 

B_bi_mmf

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Posts
3,016
Media
0
Likes
133
Points
133
Location
U.S.
Gender
Male
Yes, I think a triad would be the most likely configuration, but it would hopefully not be "a 3-person ordeal" as you characterize it!

For you and most others, exclusivity may be a crucial element of intimate relationships. But for some of us, sharing can be extremely powerful and satisfying.

By "3-person ordeal", I merely meant to refer to a 3-person relationship without using something loaded like "affair" but still implying the complexity that would necessarily be built into it.

Perhaps I should rephrase: what I meant is that it isn't healthy for there to be inequalities in a relationship. And I suggested that it would be difficult for a plural relationship to exist without inequalities. You mention that "sharing" is powerful and satisfying -- do you mean that it is equal sharing? This is the topic that I was trying to address. And naturally, I would agree that it is the part most people would have a problem doing.

Also, I don't think "exclusivity" is really the right descriptor -- it immediately suggests a possessive view to relationships. Perhaps "commitment"? This shouldn't be taken to demean anything, but I think it has a more positive "giving" connotation than the negative "sacrificing" connotation that exclusivity has.

I think that there are almost always inequities in relationships. My wife gets something somewhat different out of our relationship than I do. There must of course be reciprocity, love and caring in both directions, mutual respect and support, but "equality" does not really capture the essence of most relationships.

In a threesome, I do not see equality as the primary goal. All three relationships must be strong, but concern about everyone being on exactly the same footing could be destructive. Taking pleasure in the relationship that the other two have is extremely important.

And there is the three-way relationship, which ideally integrates and overarches the three pairwise ones.

When I was in a MMF menage for three years, there was never an issue of: Does she love both of us equally? All three relationships had their own unique qualities, and all three were intensely sexual. Did we worry about such things as: Can she cum more easily with one of us penetrating her than with the other? Not at all!

I think the term "exclusivity" and even "possessiveness" is in fact rather descriptive of most long-term relationships. I definitely do not equate "commitment" with limiting sexual activity to one person. Deep, long-term relationships are indeed possible without sexual exclusiveness. In fact, some relationships are stifled or even destroyed because of an unrealistically narrow view of "commitment".

Certainly, twosomes are the only way to go for many people. But as society gets increasingly tolerant of diversity, and as many people get more and more in touch with their own bisexuality, it seems likely to me that the day is coming when threesomes and other types of plural relationships will become no bigger deal than are gay and lesbian couples today.
 
Last edited: