I think Dr. Helen is sweet, but this couple gives me the creeps.

I'm confused. The guy says that he doesn't want to be subjected to the constraints/ or bound by the bible, yet, his wife points to the bible as precedence (polygamy) to be able to have this type of marriage – “In the bible, one man had many wives….”.

Why do they need to get married to hold hands in public and have the whole world see and acknowledge their “love for each other” and validate their lifestyle choice?

His argument about marriage and freedom was interesting...

If they want a relationship with another man, more power to ‘em ...but marriage? What would they do if one of them wanted a divorce? Messy.

Aloha! We want, we want, we want…it’s not fair, it’s not fair, it’s not fair – Mahalo!

They said themselves they “wanted to change the paradigm for the whole culture”, and then say WE are plurality ignorant?

Comes of as self absorbed and grandiose to me.

What biblical example of polygamy has one woman with multiple husbands?

Dont think there is one in the bible, being a partiocally oppressive religion, but there are examples from many other cultures which predate the judeo christian mythology

A different perspective on the Edwards marriage.

Speaking in generalities, I'm not sure how 2 men married to one woman would work.

Men typically, typically ladies, have a higher sex drive than women. A common complaint for women is "he wants sex all the time."
I'm not sure if this is the ideal situation if one woman is married to two men as the requests/demands for sex may be too great for her.

A better situation in general, would seem to be one man and two women so they could share the higher sex drive of the male, which is what we commonly see in nature.

When the guy gets older this may not be so, and he may not be able to meet the requests/demands of the wome.

Ladies not what I believe I don't want to go down that road. I believe in one man one woman. Just a personal observation based on some life experience.

As with gay marriage, I don't see the problem.

"I want to walk down the street hand in hand in hand in hand and live together openly and proclaim our relationship."

Fine, do it. It's your right to have whatever relationship you want. It's my right to think "ewww...gross" and not invite you over for dinner.

But also to have all those survivor and visitation rights and tax breaks and everything like that.

So write up a contract giving each other these rights. What's the problem? Who cares whether or not it fits the governmental definition of marriage?

Of course, if they admit that there is no problem, poof, there goes all the free publicity. Maybe that's what it's really about...again, just like gay marriage.

Gee, what was that about slippery slopes?

True ljulip, but the woman in question cited "biblical example".

Moreover though, I don't know of any culture in which women have multiple husbands. I'm not saying there are none, but I read broadly and have never heard of such a thing.

what about the guy that married his car, dont they deserve the same rights as everyone else LOL. I'm all for marriage between 2 consenting adults, regardless of gender, but now we should sanction marriage between 2 men and a woman, why not 2 men a woman and their cow or 4 women, etc. If you want to have a relationship with others in your marriage, fine but dont try to force it on others.

These people seem to me to be confused. They don't know what the fuck they want, so they're going to try anything and everything to fulfill their "need", when all they really need to do is to cultivate some inner happiness. How can you expect someone else to make you happy when you aren't happy with yourself? Putting the repsonsibility on someone else for your happiness is self-defeating.

...I don't know of any culture in which women have multiple husbands. I'm not saying there are none, but I read broadly and have never heard of such a thing.

Yeah, me either. Maybe they think they're a reincarnation of those fictional Amazonian women? o.O

I usually love the vids Dr. Helen does so I started to watch this one. It wasn't but about a minute in that I shut it. The Lessins were (as Feebie said) creepy.
There was way too much of the vibe that Will Ferrell and Rachel Dratch gave off in the "my lover" sketches on SNL. Ugh.

In the Himalayas, there are some tribal culture in which a woman will marry a group of brothers. My guess is that there are not enough women to go around.

I know quite a few polyamorous people (seems to be the thing to do among people in their 20s and 30s in Cambridge/Somerville, don't see the appeal myself). One acquaintance of mine has two husbands, but I don't know if the husbands are involved with each other or how they handle the sex thing. Obviously I'm very curious but haven't found a polite way to ask!

Most poly people I know don't follow the "everyone is involved and bisexual" model, though. Most have a primary partner who they marry or live with or are otherwise serious about, and a secondary partner who they just date and have fun with.

I'm not poly so have no direct experience with it, but in my observation it leads to a lot of drama where one person has a date for Saturday night and the other is home alone sulking because all of their partners are off on dates with other people. Or situations where one person wants to fuck around but doesn't want the other one to fuck around. Or where one pretends to be poly because they are in love with the other one so agree to it, and then feel obligated to go out and date people, but can't find anyone.

I've never met an elderly couple or group who is poly who has been together for decades and had kids and is still actively poly. Not saying they don't exist, just that they are outside my sample set.

Couldn't watch the whole clip, it was boring. They seem like generic aging hippies to me (aside from the poly thing), not especially creepy, but not exciting enough to be on a show, either.

Moreover though, I don't know of any culture in which women have multiple husbands. I'm not saying there are none, but I read broadly and have never heard of such a thing.

Posted by: Robert at August 14, 2009 5:25 AM
=======================
From watching the travel channel and national geographic ther is one sect of people in africa that I have heard of and one in the South American jungles in the amazon rain forest that I saw. I can't cite the names of the tribe. Sorry.
This is however, extremely rare.

Its not supprising that you havent heard of it, bt thats cultural filtering for you.

Polyandry was practiced as far back as 2500BC in Sumeria. Writtigs from a Sumarian King outlawed it in 2300 bc.

It was most widley praciced by many mironeasia and polynisian tribes as well. It seemed to work best in hunter gatherer societies, and all but died out after contact with western society

Dr. Helen is very sweet, and as a bonus she's totally hot too.

Not that that is rellevant...

Polygamy could definitely get messy. Someone needs insurance and can't get it? Ask your best friend if you can marry her husband on paper only. Then when she ended the "marriage", she walks away with a huge chunk of everything. Could be fun.

If they want to be a three-some, who am I to object? I'm straight, married a straight man, procreated three times, then got a very nasty divorce. I'm not for the marriage is for procreation argument or the what if they divorce argument. If two people, or three, or four want to commit to each other, then let them although I don't really see them getting tax breaks for this. Open relationships are not for everyone, but I've seen some that have really worked well and made some of the not so open relationships look like shit. And as far as John Edwards. He's just scum. He's a cheater and should not be used as an example of why polygamous relationships would work. These people are talking about trust and commitment, something John Edwards knows nothing about.

"outlawed it in 2300 bc", "many microneasia(sic) and polynisian(sic) tribes" - "died out after contact with western society".

You don't support your own conclusion. It's always been rare and I'd bet that "many" is a few.

"We should have every right to inherit from each other and visit each other--I don't care what you call it, we're not second-class citizens!" says Janet Lessin. "Any people who wish to form a marriage with all the rights and duties of a marriage should have the legal right to. "

And all the pro-GM people said we were absurd to say that poly's were going to jump on the "rights" bandwagon. If we keep this up, marriage is dead. Sad. Can you imagine when they start asking the courts to adjudicate the dissolution of these "marriages"? Who gets the kids? The house? Yes, what they do in their bedroom is their business, until they want us to make it ours when it ends.

I don't think that anyone stated that it is common, just that it exists or has existed.

"It was most widley praciced by many mironeasia and polynisian tribes as well. It seemed to work best in hunter gatherer societies, and all but died out after contact with western society"

My WAG--a theory drawn from a embarassingly limited anthropology background--is that structure only works in (1) matrilineal/matriarchal societies (2) where resources are plentiful enough that no one cares if fathers stick around to provide for kids. Kinship gets based more on mom's family than dad's, so paternity does not matter much--to kids, moms, or dads.

The examples you cite sound like places providing such abundance even in pre-industrialized times, and they were far enough away from less abundant places that resource plundering by outsiders was not easy.

Interestingly, now that western society has enough wealth to make everyone fat and a legal system to reallocate it that wealth, even over the protests of producers, you see a return to matriarchal/matrilineal norms in some communities. I don't think that experiment is going to work out in the long run, however.

Also, I am unaware of any matrilineal/matriarchal society that lasted very long against incursions by patriarchal/patrilineal societies. As we consider the rise of Islam...

First off shit wad they arent my conclusions do a litttle fucking research.

Second many small hunter gatherer societies and a very small corner of the world is indeed few in the grand scheme of things.

Sorry, can't relate. Have a hard enough time trying to just get one woman.

I tried watching the video myself, and I found the same thing others have said: they were just creepy.

On a personal level I have moral objections to the idea of polyamory, but on a political level I feel that consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want. I wonder why people aren't advocating for government to get out of the marriage business altogether, rather than selectively give out rights based on what's morally popular; maybe something like required prenups for everyone.

Frankly, I give these guys my best, but I don't see a lot of these relationships working out with a designated "third-wheel." It's hard enough with just two…

"Speaking in generalities, I'm not sure how 2 men married to one woman would work.
Men typically, typically ladies, have a higher sex drive than women."

The real probelm is not diffenrent levels of sex drive, but jealousy over having to devote work and wealth to raising some other man's brats.

"In the Himalayas, there are some tribal culture in which a woman will marry a group of brothers. My guess is that there are not enough women to go around."

Nicole, not just tribal cultures there, but mainstream Tibetan culture. Basically it arose because the environment was so poor that one man just couldn't support a family, but a couple three brothers could. It also helped when me would go off on tradeing trips that could take several months.

They way they work it is to have brothers marry the same woman. That way all the kids are siblings or cousins, and all the men have a reproductive stake in raising the whole batch.

"If we keep this up, marriage is dead. Sad."

Marriage IS dead. "Love-marriages" a la Jane Austen were the first cut, and no-fault divorce has finished the job. No wall we have are temproary live-in arrangements and serial "monogamy".

I wonder why people aren't advocating for government to get out of the marriage business altogether

People are. That's the standard libertarian position on marriage, and I think Amy has advocated it here in the past. (Correct me if I'm wrong, Amy.)

I don't think they're creepy. I just disagree with them - and don't think I'd enjoy having one or both of them strewn across my body doing "sensual play" or whatever they called it.

Also, if some bitch tried to get all up on D I'd get all up on HER and ask her if she generally enjoys having an in tact face*. That would be called jealousy and I don't feel I need to be reprogrammed. I don't feel it's something I need to work through. I don't think I am insecure at getting pissed if some girl tries to pick up my fiance or something.

*This is different from being possessive or controlling in an irrational and unhealthy attempt to prevent your mate from having contact with anyone. Which *would* be something that needs "reprogramming".

The real "goal" isn't so they can show their love for one another - you're free to hold hands with however many people you want in public - just be courteous and don't take up the whole sidewalk.

The goal isn't financial, either, as pointed out by another poster. You can appoint whomever you please to be your beneficiary. The "tax breaks" aren't all that great either, unless you have kids, and these people are waaaaaay past the age of having kids. Even with kids, the so-called "tax breaks" don't really help much.

The "goal" is to have society as a whole validate - indeed, approve and applaud - their choice. Just like gay marriage. Why do they want this? I'm no psychologist so I'm not really sure. Their own guilty feelings, maybe?

Also, why bring up the Bible at all? There are plenty of people who aren't Christians, don't go to church - and never have, who live openly Biblically "immoral" lives, and don't feela bit guilty. It's not like people are going to point fingers and stare when they go out, all three holding hands.

Sounds like they are the ones that have a problem with their own lifestyle, not others. Either that or they're trying to get a book or movie deal.

You want to know how it will be
Me and her or you and me
You both sit there with your long hair flowing
Your eyes alive, your minds are still growing
Saying to me what can we do now that we
Both love you -- I love you too
But I don't really see, why can't we go on as three

You are afraid, embarrased too, no one has ever in your sweet short life child
Said such a thing to you
Your mother's ghost stands at you shoulder
Got a face like ice -- just a little colder
Saying you can not do that it breaks all the rules
You learned in school
But I don't really see, why can't we go on as mmm three

You know we love each other it's plain to see
There's just one answer comes to me
Sister lovers -- some of you must know about water brothers
And in time maybe others
So you see what we can do
Is to try something new - that is if you're crazy too
But I don't really see, why can't we go on as three

"Triad" by David Crosby, 1968
performed by Jefferson Airplane on their "Crown of Creation" album

Twisted then, twisted now.

Generally, women "hate" Christianity (restrictions on female sexuality) but say nothing about Islam (even more). The Old Testament is roughly analogous to Islam, coming from a Bronze Age Mesopotamian culture. The New Testament is Greek Humanism married to Jewish Monotheism, and a whole different ball-game. The female poster above who "hates" Christianity is being disingenuous.

That being said, the idea that niche societies removed from competitors or internal strife can act as models for hyper-competitive, technology driven America is like saying modern fuel cells will be designed by stone age tribes from Papua New Guinea. Typical female fantasies.

Particularly Western men have killed without reservation or measure to maintain exclusive sexual access to a woman. Western men have never "shared" women and in isolation (Pitcairn Island, where the Bounty Mutineers fled) have reliably killed each other over women. Fletcher Christian was among the first to be killed, in fact, and the mutineers all but one slaughtered each other -- over women.

You won't find many takers for Polyamory, other than a few gay men wanting the form of a heterosexual family. You will find, however, many takers for Polygamy, as has been the case in Britain, Canada, and across Europe. Given that women are not manufactured like Widgets, polygamy's rise implies a number of men going without wives, and a lot of violence. That's always been the case historically.

Given the importance of MONEY and STATUS in the lives of many/most women, polygamy makes a certain amount of sense. I bet there are a lot of women who would rather be wife #2 or #3 of a man who is rich and famous than the exclusive wife of someone "ordinary." Probably sexually preferrable as well...less frequent sex but more intense, given the stronger attraction to a high-status man.

Leaves lower-status men out in the cold, of course...the real problem is children and the inevitable conflicts among the wives as to whose children are getting preferential treatment.

Leaves lower-status men out in the cold, of course...

Actually, the real problem is when all those unmarriageable low-status males gang up on the high status males and take them out.

Which is why polygamy is not a good long-term survival strategy for an organized society at peace with its neighbors.

Ok, gay "marriage" proponents, make the case that multiple-partner "marriage" or incestuous "marriage" should not also be permitted.

Are you ready to celebrate and honor, with equal legal "dignity," these folks' passion for each other?

This should be fun ...

Jay R youn know how much I love throwing wrenches into you machinations.

But I dont have a problem with the government legaly recognizing ANY contract entered into by consenting adults.

You really think incestuous couples are gonna stop fucking cause the government wont give the joint filing tx incentives?

"Generally, women "hate" Christianity (restrictions on female sexuality) ...

In my experience, women tend to be at least equally harsh judges of other women when it comes to sex. For example, did you ever see how married or engaged women react to a prowling woman who they know had sex with a married or engaged man?

Christianity gives such gals a means of condemning other gals for sinfulness. Pretty useful when you seek to ostracize someone, as women most like to do when they dislike someone.

People are more likely to critique Christianity because it is the religious foundation of our Western culture. Islam is seen as irrelevant and as other people's problem.

Though I'm not sure where you all get the idea feminists don't critique Islam. I remember reading about the black-painted windows in Afghanistan back in Junior High, around 1990. I think it was in MS or something like that. That's also around the time "Not Without my Daughter" was so popular and all the feminists were passing that one around. And "Princess, Life Behind the Veil". That was another popular one. And there were all those feminist orgs, Women in Black or whatever they were called. And everyone was forever writing articles about FGM.

JayR, as I said earlier, consenting adults should be free to engage in whatever relationship they want without government interference. There's constantly some scandal regarding an elected official who has cheated or impregnated someone. Who says that those people are to decide what types of relationships we engage in? Again, it doesn't matter if you want to marry one person of the same sex or three of different sexes. If all are in agreement, why shouldn't they be allowed? I forgot what a sacred institution marriage is in this country. Clue me in to where this world is that heterosexual marriage is in the name of God and for the sake of procreation. Clue me in to that same world where heterosexuals stay married and have healthy long lasting relationships. The reasoning against gay marriage or any other forms of commitment doesn't hold up if you want to model it on the current version of hetero unions.

> This should be fun ...

I came in late, Jay R... Whose side are you on?

> They don't know what the fuck
> they want, so they're going to
> try anything and everything

See, I think that's what most of the support for gay marriage is all about. People are bitter that divorce has made gruesome heartbreak such a pedestrian condition... So, golly, like, whatever. When people are in an infantile and wounded frame of mind anyway, the 'validation' that comes from straight certification of gay unions seems more precious than it actually is.

> How can you expect someone else
> to make you happy when you
> aren't happy with yourself?

Maybe it's kind of para-doxy-woxy, but I don't think a woman who keeps two men happy at the levels of intimacy typical of marriage is actually being all that narcissistic... There may be all kinds of weirdness at work in her immortal soul, but it seems almost snickeringly inappropriate to say she's badly socialized.

I think I'd rather have society honor three-way mixed-gender marriages than gay ones. Family court would a shitbath, but family court is always a shitbath... Maybe if every divorce had three snotty lawyers in front of the judge, things would become more procedural and administrative. If one party in a three-way divorce decided to be petty and obstructive, the other parties could power through.

> Christianity gives such gals
> a means of condemning other
> gals for sinfulness.

Y'know... It's just that... People are always, always going to have an interest in the way those around them select mates. Sometimes that interest is tawdry and intrusive, but sometimes it's helpful and defensive. It ain't a policy problem, or the curse of being religious or anything like that.

> as far as John Edwards. He's
> just scum. He's a cheater

I dunno if you followed the link earlier in the earlier comment, but what you're saying is what came to mind when I finished the piece. For some reason, when people (Democratic women!) admire a male politician, his sexuality is suddenly something that is purely the responsibility of others. Rielle Hunter is a hussy homewrecker and Monica Lewinsky is a scheming temptress. These men, seemingly blessed for 'leadership', have no agency for the traffic in their own trousers.

> the idea that niche societies
> removed from competitors or
> internal strife can act as models
> for hyper-competitive, technology
> driven America is like saying
> modern fuel cells will be
> designed by stone age tribes
> from Papua New Guinea

That's what I thought when reading Lujlp's comment, too: There are a lot of things that primitive, illiterate cultures do. They hit each other on the head with rocks when they have conflicts! It's a proud tradition, and indisputable part of our human heritage!
________

Lujlp, this has been going of for years, and it's got to stop: I'll send you a twenty dollar bill if you change your name to something that can pronounced and typed by normal people.

The justification for gay marriage does not come from gruesome heartache caused by hetero divorce. Hetero divorce is thrown in when opponents of gay marriage ask the question, what if they divorce, as if hetero couples do not divorce. You following the thought process here yet? Divorce is a fact of life. People break up, straight people, gay people, bi people, etc. Why should only hetero couples be allowed the legal right to fuck up marriage. I say share the wealth. And as far as the cheating politicians go, I happen to agree, Crid. John Edwards and Bill Clinton were the ones who entered into the binding marriage contract. It doesn't mean that the mistresses involved were blameless, but basically these men chose not to keep it in their pants and then blame those "predatory" women as though they had no choice but to go along with it. I still say its the business of those in the marriage, but it strikes me as hypocritical to think that these are the people who are deciding on what relationships are acceptable legally.

Crid,

I'm on the side of letting cats do dogs, men do men, women do women, sisters do brothers, or whatever, without government interference or sanction. However, there is no need for any relationship to be legally recognized and socially honored as "marriage" except for 1 man + 1 woman.

BTW, if Lujlp goes for it, and uses spell-check once in a while, I'll chip in ten bucks!

Given the fact that many people can't make a two-person heterosexual marriage work I just don't understand what all the hype is about. I don't care if they hold hands and walk down the sidewalk together--so long as they don't take up the entire thing and if they want to PDA, that's o.k. too so long as it doesn't look like a preview for an upcoming porno flick.

I just don't get the whole "validate me, validate us, validate our lifestyle!" thing going on now.

> Divorce is a fact of life.

Because we make it so. This ain't the weather.

> there is no need for any
> relationship to be legally
> recognized and socially honored
> as "marriage" except for 1 man +
> 1 woman.

You're a brother. Welcome aboard. I'll teach you the handshake at the next blog picnic.

It amuses me that we're talking about all this pie-in-the-sky stuff, and this is what he Google computer chooses to advertise to us. Quoting:

• The seven secrets to communicating with a man that will create lasting love and affection.

• The truth about men who aren't "emotionally available"... how to know if you've got one and what to do if you're dating one.

> Why should only hetero couples be
> allowed the legal right to fuck up
> marriage.

You mind if I write that down for later? It might be important to remember how cynical you are.

These debates always confuse me. Why should gender or the number of parties be relevant considerations to whether consenting adults are permitted to enter civil contracts?

I don't remember Monica Lewinsky being portrayed as evil... wasn't Linda Tripp the one everyone hated?

Why?

Because civil marriage is a three-party contract.

And the consideration offered by the couple to the state is simply this - that they will produce a new generation of taxpayers.

Quite frankly, any married couple that fails to reproduce is in breach of contract.

When homosexuals can create a new person without outside assistance, then they can get married. Until such time, forget it.

Well here we go again, Crid. If you feel it should only be recognized for a man and woman, explain why. Is it religious beliefs? Is it the procreation argument? Does that mean sterile people should not be allowed to wed? Explain your argument. What is the reasoning? And you can write down as many of my comments as you'd like to save for later. That pleases me immensely because maybe when you go to read them over, some reality will sink in. Tsk, tsk. We were just becoming close.

> Why should gender or the number
> of parties be relevant

Because these factors have differing demands upon and rewards for the society that hosts the 'parties'. (But why do you care, "Whatever"?)

> explain why

Already have, many times. Start here and read the next six years of blog posts.

Short answer: Children deserve a loving mother and a loving father.

PS- Kristen's comment -

> Why should only hetero couples be
> allowed the legal right to fuck up
> marriage.

- reminded me of this classic.

Reminds me of the old Monkees song, "Here Comes Tomorrow". Er...not that I was a Monkees fan or anything....

In a threesome, wouldn't someone get left out at various times? One cooks better, one makes better conversation, one makes better financial decisions, maybe one makes love better, leaving the other one a "chore", on and on. Maybe they end up leaving you out of the day to day stuff most of the time

Just looking at it from a completely selfish male point of view, a male who can't see it working.

And the consideration offered by the couple to the state is simply this - that they will produce a new generation of taxpayers. Quite frankly, any married couple that fails to reproduce is in breach of contract.

Lots of people in breach, then, if you were right. Of course you are not. But then, the state is not a party. Even if it were, If reproduction were consideration, it would also need to be explicitly stated as a requirement, the failure of which would require abrogation of the contract.

Short answer: Children deserve a loving mother and a loving father.

For that claim to be relevant here, you would have to assume that gay marriage or tri-marriages like that mentioned here would significantly increase the number of children deprived a loving mother and father. Gay couples can't reproduce, so this seems unlikely. In this case, kids are irrelevant. But they're a convenient excuse for people to persist in confining gay relationships to second-class status while pretending not to be homophobes.

Whatever, you're not even old enough to use the word "homophobe". Go away.

I'm too young to use a word and should leave because I showed where your argument fails? Unless letting gay people marry magically hurts the kids of unions that can procreate?

Crid, I read your early blog post regarding homosexual marriage. It seems to come down to the procreation argument with you although you really were not clear even back then. The marital contract between two people and society has not been a great success story. You can call me cynical all you'd like, but this world that you envision, this world that you use to justify opposing gay marriage and gay parenting does not exist. Maybe its time to widen our horizons. Maybe its time to say that instead of hoping that the state of hetero marriage and parenting will change, that we should allow other people the same options that straight people have. Gay partners pay taxes. Gay partners put money into the economy. Gay partners buy homes. Gay partners vote. To not allow them certain rights that come with a civil contract can be considered discriminatory. I know that this is America and that discrimination is live and well, but how do we justify allowing them to vote and pay taxes but not afford them the same rights to legal relationships that we allow hetero couples? You can spare me the children deserve a loving mother and loving father bit. Yes, they do, but they don't always get it. It also does not mean that a child in a gay family will not only be loved, but cherished and wanted. Again, looking at the hetero example, maybe just maybe its time we allowed the gays to have the chance to fail at it or maybe even show us up.

Whatever -

It has nothing to do with fear, hate, or discrimination.

Homosexuals are a biological and evolutionary dead end.

> Maybe its time to widen our
> horizons. Maybe its time
> to say...

These are the words of a person s trying to impel personal resentments into a broader sphere, disguising bitterness as compassion.

> but not afford them the same rights
> to legal relationships that we
> allow hetero couples?

They have the same rights as hetero couples when they couple do the same things. The law doesn't discriminate.

PS- "Gay family" is goofy language. You're saying that Junior and Sissy have no Mommy... Or they have no Daddy. There's no reason for us to pretend that's acceptable. The intimate love of men and women is profoundly distinct, which is why most of us have a profound preference: Children deserve hefty samples of both.

Homosexuals are a biological and evolutionary dead end.

Yeah, exactly. Dead end. That's why we homosexuality keeps happening.

Old people are biological dead ends. They just use resources. Don't let them enter into contracts! So are those born sterile! Keep them from making civil agreements!

Where in our Constitution does it state that when it comes to freedom of contract, agreements between men and women are privileged over agreements between men and men, or women and women?

Children deserve hefty samples of both.

Sure, if you insist. But even granting you that, you've offered nary a lick of evidence why gay marriage would, given the shitty condition in which so many children are brought up, far shittier than having two mommies or two daddies, make things worse for kids. You simply assert it as though it were true in absence of any evidence.

While there is no doubt it makes things worse for the many actual, real, people (not your hypothetical children) that gay people can't marry today.

The law doesn't discriminate.

Bullshit.

The law says hetero pairings > gay pairings like it used to say men > women or whites > blacks.

Seriously, I agree with the government getting out of the marriage business altogether. Grant rights by contracts, and if one needs to break or terminate a contract, then set up the terms in the contract. As far as kids, do it the same way they do it now in family court: The best interest of the child.

This is not brain surgery or rocket science. The government should not rule personal relationships or the bedroom (or the household) - I understand the need for a goverment of some sort - but all this social regulation just makes things more complicated.

I'm not sure what makes me bitter. I must have singlehandedly caused the divorce rate to skyrocket with my bitter feelings. Then after my evil plot to break up hetero marriages succeeded, I decided to enter the domain of gay marriage to see what damage I could do there. Good thing you discovered my secret, Crid. Now the world of matrimony is safe from my evil clutches.
Seriously, that has to be the most retarded logic I've ever heard. Because I think that gay people should have the same right to commit that hetero people do is not bitterness disguised as compassion, but keep going with that as it allows you to avoid making any real argument to support your point of view.
As far as not being discriminatory, well, hmmmm, let's see. Couple A decides to take their tax refunds and put it down as security on an apartment because they've decided to move in together with thoughts of marriage in the future. Couple B has the same thought process only, wait, they cannot legally wed because they are the same sex. Both couples pay taxes. Both couples are in love. How is that not discriminatory that only Couple A has the option of marriage in the future when Couple B does not have that same option?
Anyway, Crid, you're starting to bore me now. You type away but all I keep seeing is blah blah blah.

By the way, I keep reading about tax breaks. What tax breaks do married couples (sans children) get. How much is their marginal rate diminished? Or is a lump sum? Someone please tell me!

> I agree with the government
> getting out of the marriage
> business altogether

Which might be cool, if people would let it. But people count on government for all sorts of administration and enforcement.

Whatever:

Yeah, exactly. Dead end. That's why we homosexuality keeps happening.

Old people are biological dead ends. They just use resources. Don't let them enter into contracts! So are those born sterile! Keep them from making civil agreements!

Where in our Constitution does it state that when it comes to freedom of contract, agreements between men and women are privileged over agreements between men and men, or women and women?

Where in the Constitution is the government allowed to intrude in a sacred religious rite?

I'm all for homosexuals all coming out and pairing up and not reproducing with their own genes. We'll find out real fast if homosexuality is genetic or not.

And frankly, if we're to keep civil marriage at all, I think there needs to be some kind of requirement that reproduction occur. Otherwise, what's in it for the government to grant all sorts of legal conveniences to a couple?

Marriage is about one thing - family formation. And if you aren't actively supporting offspring, you aren't forming a family.

I haven't seen a multi-partner arrangement yet that wasn't based on at least one of the participants having the IQ and/or self-respect of a mud brick.

"Marriage is about one thing - family formation. And if you aren't actively supporting offspring, you aren't forming a family."

So what are you supposed to do if you have infertility? Divorce?

You make no sense and I'd be willing to bet that you know very few people who are homosexual and certainly have none in your family.

Why not trying, just for a day, to be attracted to members of your own sex? It's not a choice, it's hard wired into your brain, and if it was a "choice" why would someone choose to belong to a group where so many committ suicide because of the hatred they encounter from society and even their own families?

Give me a break.

"Y'know... It's just that... People are always, always going to have an interest in the way those around them select mates. Sometimes that interest is tawdry and intrusive, but sometimes it's helpful and defensive. It ain't a policy problem, or the curse of being religious or anything like that."

Yeah, why should I *not* ostracise a woman who is trying to get into my boyfriend's pants? She ain't exactly my friend. (If she succeeds, then he ain't my friend either.) How can it possibly be considered "petty" to not tolerate these kinds of people? I look for friends who watch my back, not people who stab me in it. This is helpful and defensive, as you put it. Yeah, if only there were more women willing to share their boyfriends or husbands with other women. That sounds like something a 14-year-old boy would think up.

"Let me just say that I am very, very "amused" by all their ads on my site, some more than others!"

I am finding it hilarious! There is a search engine that looks for certain words and phrases on your site and then targets it for these ads. You're getting these Muslim dating sites because of your blog posts that are critical of Islam. Maybe the next generation of computers will grasp the concept of "irony." It reminds me of when we played those "mad libs" games as kids, where you insert random, meaningless nouns and verbs into sentences.

"And frankly, if we're to keep civil marriage at all, I think there needs to be some kind of requirement that reproduction occur."

Please excuse any typos as my jaw keeps dropping every time I read this and hitting the keyboard. I think with the reproduction requirement we should have chaperones to make sure that the couples reproducing aren't enjoying it and that they are just reproducing. Maybe there should be a legal limit with that contract spelling out the amount of moaning, length of foreplay, and positions allowed. No doggie style, only missionary. Swallowing not allowed because that's a wast of good sperm. Don't be too loud because remember, the purpose here is not to enjoy sex but to produce families according to Brian's textbook version of family. What's next Brian? Only blondes with blue eyes can reproduce?

> That sounds like something a
> 14-year-old boy would think up.

In 1973, it came to mind.

PJTV is getting desperate.

Who ever thought that PPV video would work as a business model?

Kristen, I am certain that every person on this blog who wails about how "it's all about the kids" is doing his or her damndest to make as many new taxpayers as possible. Because of course, taxpayer production really is what it's all about. I'm glad to see these folks be so positive about tax paying though.

Kristen, I am certain that every person on this blog who wails about how "it's all about the kids" is doing his or her damndest to make as many new taxpayers as possible. Because of course, taxpayer production really is what it's all about. I'm glad to see these folks be so positive about tax paying though.

"Because of course, taxpayer production really is what it's all about."

Heh! The people doing the most breeding are the ones living OFF the taxes, not the ones paying them.

"Heh! The people doing the most breeding are the ones living OFF the taxes, not the ones paying them."

Yes, Pirate Jo, but they are usually the ones not getting married because they qualify for more state aid if they are single. Just makes me wonder where all these great hetero marriages are that I keep hearing about in some of these comments.

> Heh! The people doing the most
> breeding are the ones living
> OFF the taxes, not the ones
> paying them.

Piratus Jehosaphat... Pee Jay... Super Peej... Is it any wonder we love her so?

No. No, it is not.

Whatever:

I'm glad to see these folks be so positive about tax paying though.

Someone's gotta cover for you slackers.

Kristen:

Please excuse any typos as my jaw keeps dropping every time I read this and hitting the keyboard. I think with the reproduction requirement we should have chaperones to make sure that the couples reproducing aren't enjoying it and that they are just reproducing. Maybe there should be a legal limit with that contract spelling out the amount of moaning, length of foreplay, and positions allowed. No doggie style, only missionary. Swallowing not allowed because that's a wast of good sperm. Don't be too loud because remember, the purpose here is not to enjoy sex but to produce families according to Brian's textbook version of family. What's next Brian? Only blondes with blue eyes can reproduce?

This is an impressive example of industrial-grade stupid. There's so much straw here that Mr. Ed would never starve.

Of course, if you don't support the perversion of the day, you must be one of those stuffy "no sex for you" puritan types.

Poor, dumb stupid.

Of course, it would explain how you manage to equate marriage and sex. Because that's the real reason all those homosexuals want marriage, they can't wait to get into the sack!

You should really stop trying to think. You aren't particularly good at it.

"The spurious arguments of marriage being for procreation of children is ridiculous."

Man, this hurts. Of course that quote is wrong, and for a variety of reasons. Why does the author really think it was invented?

Any mention of a topic that can even come close to bearing on sex, who has it, who can't and who is weird for wanting more of it just drives people insane.

There are at least six examples in the posts above of straw men. Most cases are just plain ridiculous. Allow me to simplify.

The State has a vested interest in your partnerships, and it always will. One of these partnerships is marriage. Everyone benefits from your being responsible to your partner, and to your offspring, whatever the business.

This is not changed by adoption, single parenthood, polyanything, although when responsibility is diluted it can be neglected.

There is one thing that does change this: when you decide that the goal is NOT a declaration of promises to a partner, but qualifying to get something.

Don't be an idiot. When you make a promise to a non-traditional partner, you do NOT set up the same relationship with the State. This is not about you, you, and you. Your position must be sustainable and have merit for State support.

What? You just want to get something?

Protests about how "real" your relationship with {character name here} is do not change the simple fact that the State set up laws based on "conventional" marriage, some of which reward the married, because the conventional marriage does predictable things, such as produce children and produce labor in proportion to the rate at which that family consumes resources.

Already, it is obvious that non-traditional partnerships do not do that.

Wanna "marry" your car, your cat, a manatee or the Mormon Tabernacle Choir? Show me you're not a net burden. That's when the State should say, "Okay, come on down!"

But if you want a blazing neon sign about your own motive, define "marry" for yourself, consider all the people who want it to apply to them, and then wonder why they do not have the definition you do.

Gay marriage has been legal for five years now. I've been to a few weddings. They are as formulaic as other weddings... mingle, ceremony, mingle and wait for the wedding party while having cocktails, eat, listen to speeches where at least one family member says something inappropriate, dance, have cake, dance.

And the happily ever afters are the same as everyone else's too, work, pay bills, go on fun vacations, have kids.

I'm not quite sure what the big deal is.

Brian, you are the one equating marriage and sex. You are also the one saying that civil unions should have a procreation requirement. I just took your suggestion a step further. Its sad when you consider homosexuality the perversion of the day considering there have been homosexuals throughout time. I'm not sure if you feel it should be against the law to be gay of just for gays to marry considering your arguments. I would suggest getting to know a few people who are gay. My feeling is you probably know a few but your thoughts scare them away from being honest with you. The gay friends I've had are no different from my straight friends in their ability to love their partners and be good friends to others. They've been wonderful to my children and me. I find it so sad to think that anyone could have such a fear of them based on the fact that they love someone of the same sex. I lived next door to lesbians when I was married. Their yard was always kept nice, their pets were always well cared for, their children were extremely polite, and when I went through my very nasty divorce, they were the first ones over to offer any kind of assistance I would need. They had been together for 15 years when I met them and that was 7 years ago. Funny how I have the option of getting married again because I'm straight, and these two beautiful people do not because they are gay. With the exception of their gender, they represent everything good about marriage, parenting, and relationships that all the gay marriage opponents speak of when speaking against gay unions. I guess when you are speaking of black and white issues its easy. Try getting to know these people that you are so against and then come back to me with your ridiculous arguments.

> There is one thing that does change
> this: when you decide that the goal
> is NOT a declaration of promises
> to a partner, but qualifying to
> get something.

Go Raddy Go!

> This is not about you, you, and you.
> Your position must be sustainable
> and have merit for State support.

Duuude! You're singing my song.

Btw, Brian, I forgot to compliment your "Kristen is stupid" argument. Now that you've provided me with such a well-reasoned argument, I'm re-considering my thoughts on the whole thing.

Kristen– Paragraphs, OK?

On divorce- the statistics skew the real picture. Everyone knows that more than half of all marriages end in divorce. Yet, well more than 50% of all married people have not been divorced... Whoa! How can that be?

Serial divorcers, that's how. Many people who get divorced one, get divorced more than once, way more than once. Someone with 5 marriages behind him (or her) offsets five stable couples.

That said, no stable, long lasting, expanding, and progressive advancing society has ever been other than monogamous between a male and female united as one couple. The closest has been the Islamic world, which succeeded in conquering a good deal of the world while practicing polygamy. And look at them now.

Widescale practice of polygamy eventually and inevitably leads to women assuming second class status. Example in the US abound. Look at the various Mormon sects in the US. And these sects survive only because they cast out young virile males who don't play by the leader's rules. That is, they want a woman of their own, and cannot get one.

And other arrangements have failed big time. The Oneida Community, Jim Jones and his followers, the Shakers, etc. All movements towards alternative arrangements to traditional man-women marriage (except polygamy as one man multiple women) have failed. Most with the death of a charismatic leaded, but many fall before that seminal event. They simply are not stable.

Based on history alone of alternatives to the traditional marriage concept of one-man-one-woman, the State, any state (as in nation), has a great deal of interest in preserving traditional man-woman marriage. And traditional marriage isn't just a Christian thing. It's practiced in all communist nations that are officially atheistic. And in most Asian societies.

Yes, all kinds of examples of other types of living and marital arrangements can be found. And the societies that practiced them didn't prosper and expand and become dominant.

What I found creepy wasn't the sexual aspect of the Lessin's relationship, but the new age love shit.

* * *

BTW, having studied polygamy for a long time due to several of my Mormon ancestors being involved in the practice, I concur with Harold; widespread polygamy necessitates that women become second class citizens and that there is some mechanism to cull young men from the marriage pool.

Kristen -

Look, I never equated sex and marriage, you did. You seem to think that procreation is sex. Sex causes procreation, and that's it's primary design function, but not its sole purpose.

The fact of the matter remains, no matter how nice, or cool, or bitchy any homosexuals you and I know are, they are not capable of reproduction without the assistance of a third party.

Personally, I would be fine with the state revoking a marriage license from a couple that intentionally remained childless. The state's not getting anything for its trouble, after all.

You wanna fuck? That's nobody's business but yours and those with whom you get freaky.

You want marriage? Prove to me that I (as society) get something from the deal. The fact that divorce exists proves that marriage does not promote monogamy or permanence of relationships.

And yes, you are stupid. You can't even find your enter key.

And I'd greatly appreciate it if you and your fellow marginal thinkers would stop attributing to "fear" or "hatred" or "bigotry" a position that was arrived at with nothing but historical analysis and logic.

Joe:

widespread polygamy necessitates that women become second class citizens and that there is some mechanism to cull young men from the marriage pool.

Most often, that mechanism is war. I'd bet that if you polled the supporters of polygamy (especially polygyny) they're mostly anti-war and probably mostly pacifist.

Like I said on so many other threads this week - nobody knows how to play chess any more. They can't even think one move ahead.

Brian,
If you hadn't called it the perversion of the day, I would apologize for thinking your reasoning was based on moral judgments of a person's sexuality. The rest of your explanation makes a little more sense as far as your line of thinking goes and I can respect that while respectfully disagreeing with you.
Am I correct in assuming that what you mean is that any couple that is not going to procreate should be allowed to marry and get some form of legal benefit from that union? That would be an across the board refusal to people not wanting children, people marrying later in life, divorcees re-marrying without the intention of having kids, senior citizens, etc?
If that is your argument then you should scroll up because it wasn't clear. You did sound like you were gay bashing.
And, oh look at me, I found the enter key!

I agree brian it is sad that no one plays chess anymore

If you hadn't called it the perversion of the day, I would apologize for thinking your reasoning was based on moral judgments of a person's sexuality.

No moral judgment at all.

Although I did say over 20 years ago that if society ever found itself accepting homosexuality as "normal" that society would find itself being pressured to accept any number of sexual perversions as "normal" as well. And now we have groups pushing for normalization of pederasty and plural marriage.

Oh look! There is a slippery slope after all! It just exists solely in the political world where the government is allowed to dispense spoils based upon group membership.

Am I correct in assuming that what you mean is that any couple that is not going to procreate should be allowed to marry and get some form of legal benefit from that union? That would be an across the board refusal to people not wanting children, people marrying later in life, divorcees re-marrying without the intention of having kids, senior citizens, etc?

Certainly. What does the state get from the union of a pair of geriatrics? This is why the government needs to be disinvolved completely. Given that just about every "automatic" legal protection in marriage can be contested by third parties, it's not worth any more than a standard contract. If the homosexuals or the geriatrics can find a church that wants to bless their union, go for it. Beyond that, the state has no place being in the transaction aside from its natural interest in promoting procreation.

If that is your argument then you should scroll up because it wasn't clear. You did sound like you were gay bashing.

It was perfectly clear. You, however, chose to view the entire thing through your rage-colored glasses.

There's a difference between gay bashing and stating a simple truth. The fact remains that two homosexuals are not capable of creating offspring solely from their own genetic material. By that simple fact alone, they are a genetic, biological, and evolutionary dead-end.

I wasn't wearing rage colored glasses, Brian, but I won't continue to argue the point. I would not consider homosexuality the same as pederasty or even plural marriages. The long term consequences of accepting gay marriage is not the same as a grown man taking advantage of a young boy. That will not and should not ever be acceptable.
What I do accept is your argument stating that the marriage contract should be available only to those who will produce children because you have finally expressed that it is not just intended to prevent gay marriage but across the board though you did again stoop to getting in a dig about homosexuals. Again, while I do not agree with you on this subject, I will apologize for any offensive comments I made that insinutated you were a homophobe.
The fact that I would like to see gays have the same rights as staight people comes from my position that a gay couple wanting to commit to one another should have the same protections under the law that straight people have. I don't see any validity to any argument that puts down a gay relationship when those same arguments could be used against many hetero relationships.
And while I have no problem with the couple originally written about, I do not think as a rule polygamy works long term for all of the reasons stated in other posts. I will still say that I do know many "open" relationships where the couples have a healthier relationship than many staight ones I know.

I would not consider homosexuality the same as pederasty or even plural marriages.

I didn't say they were the same, or that they could be considered so.

What I said was (in not so many words) that the "gay rights" activists, in agitating for a fundamental redefinition of a social bond, and in their continued use of victim and group-identity politics to force people to accept them as "normal" would embolden other sexual minorities to do the same.

And now we have organizations that are attempting (using the same exact methods and words, mind you of the early gay-rights movement) to normalize pederasty and polygamy.

Sex is not race. And marriage is not a right. It is a fundamental bond that has allowed for the existence of human civilization. Making any changes to its substance should be approached with the utmost caution and with due regard for the long-term implications.

We've already seen the harm that no-fault divorce and emotion-based marriage caused. Let's not make things even worse, shall we?

All you people who say "what's in it for the state", implying that the state is somehow a party to the civil contract that is marriage, please explain what marriage costs the state. Because you seem to be saying that gay marriage costs the state something, without giving anything (future taxpayers) back. What does it cost?

As I asked above, does simply being married qualify a couple for a lower tax rate? Do they get a tax rebate for tying the knot?

Whatever, the biggy is Social Security survivor's benefit. Increasing the number of situations in which persons A & B can increase their joint lifetime SS payout by getting married does, in fact, impose a burden on the SS system.
--
phunctor

Data show that married people tend to earn and save more, too, thereby putting more money into the system while being less of a burden on it.

My bride of 24 years and I cannot have children. Does that mean we should hand back the marriage license, and/or get a divorce? Met a gay couple at a wedding recently that had been together for 38 years. How many straight people pull that off? I still do not see the threat in allowing gay couples to marry ... will married couples suddenly want to 'try' homsexuality? And if so, who cares? I can find no Constitutional basis to deny them the right to marry. As to the animal marriage arguments .. can we keep the hyptheticals to people, please? Animals have no standing under the law here in the good ol' USA. I do admit the 3-way thing is ...different, but..the question is where do we draw the line? Polygymay / polyamory does have financial consequences; and I do see a bright line between discriminating on gender vs discriminating on number.

I just read this comment from NicoleK

"Gay marriage has been legal for five years now. I've been to a few weddings. They are as formulaic as other weddings... mingle, ceremony, mingle and wait for the wedding party while having cocktails, eat, listen to speeches where at least one family member says something inappropriate, dance, have cake, dance.

And the happily ever afters are the same as everyone else's too, work, pay bills, go on fun vacations, have kids."

Ummmm... they don't have kids. Unless adultery is involved. And then, THEY don't have kids. One of them does, and the other one is "married" to the one that does. No biological relationship exists.

In most societies throughout history, biology is destiny. For a minor child, being unrelated by blood to an adult in the household has always been a precarious place to be. Still is today
-----------------
Another argument made throughout this thread is that homosexuals should have the same right to marriage that heterosexuals do. As is now, they do. It's the same right that an ugly man (or woman) has. (or animal lover or necrophiliac- etc and so on and so forth.) They can marry any member of the opposite sex that will have them. Because marriage is between a man and a women. Any other definition changes the relationship.