"It's all based on a really high degree of love and trust," says the wife.
I love the look on the face of the moderator at 1:57.
"And then, after a while, it didn't really bother me," says the goat-bearded husband.
Something about the music track — so cheesily happy! — makes me especially dubious about the actual happiness achieved by this exemplary couple.
The wife looks way happier than the husband. Check the look on her face at 2:11 as she pops some food in his mouth (enacting the supposed charms of domesticity).
Oh, wait... there are 2 different women here, but they look kind of alike. I notice this halfway through, at which point, I don't really care who's getting sexual satisfaction where, because I simply don't believe their protestations of pleasure. You can't believe what regular, closed-marriage couples say about themselves either. It's all perfectly smarmy until a marriage breaks up, not that you can believe what the broken-up halves of erstwhile marriages have to say about what happened.
By about 4:42, my impression of what I might be looking at here is gay people who want to live in nuclear family units, with their own biological children. This would be something entirely different from the "polyamory" model that is being pitched in the media. That is, 2 homosexual couples could reorganize into 2 married opposite sex couples for the production of children, whom they would live with in one household. The married couples wouldn't have a sexual relationship (beyond producing the children), and they would have an enduring, happy sexual relationship with their homosexual partner. The 2 couples could live nearby and serve in an uncle/aunt role toward each other's children.
December 26, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
280 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 280 of 280Inga wrote:
Jr. What does incestuous marriage have to do with SSM? I know you are trying to prove how they are both against natural law or something, but I don't think they are equivalent.
Maybe there is no natural law. Maybe there's just "ew". But you are still denying people their "rights" until evolution comes around to their way of thinking, correct?
Why aren't you evolving to acceptance of their situation whatever that may be?
Maybe NAMBLA is more evolved than you and you are just the bigot who hasn't evolved yet. Yet in the meantime you are perfectly OK with depriving them of "rights" based simply on "ew".
O Ritmo wrote:
It helps with his circuitous reasoning. If something is illegal, it is therefore wrong, and helps absolve him of any difficulty in deciding what is right or what is wrong in his own mind.
I woudldn' argue that all things that are illegal are wrong or that all things that are legal are right.
NAMBLA's position is illegal, and I think it's wrong. but maybe you think it's right, based on your own mind.
Consenting adults Jr.
What the hell does NAMBLA have to do with SSM, or even incestuous marriage?
I woudldn' argue that all things that are illegal are wrong or that all things that are legal are right.
Except in this case.
NAMBLA's position is illegal, and I think it's wrong. but maybe you think it's right, based on your own mind.
What Inga said.
He just throws rhetorical bombs to avoid addressing the real issue. And not that it matters, but this sounds like a fallacy of the converse accident.
I should add that he does what he does in this case because he has nothing else to stand on.
You are attempting to prove all these other relationship scenarios are equivalent to a SS relationship. You fail to prove your point, you can't lump every kind of abberation from what you consider normal into one entity. All are different .
That kind of family you mention - two gay fathers and two lesbian mothers - was featured in USA Today back in 2004.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2004-03-09-gay-parents_x.htm
The two gay fathers were later charged in the murder of Robert Wone in 2009. Wone was killed by multiple stab wounds, probably during sex. The three men living in the townhouse beat the cover-up charge but still might face murder charges. They claim an intruder killed Wone.
Jesus, Ritmo and Inga pontificating!
A low life scumbag racist and a ditzy moron.
I'll let you figure out which is which.
This should be preserved for posterity.
But if I disagree with a law being legal or illegal, that doesn't mean that society couldn't have passed that law. does it?
I agree that polgamy should be illegal? But what if I thought it should be legal? Are all those who disagree with me instantly bigots? Is the fact that it's illegal immediate grounds to make it legal, simply because those that want to do certain things cant because the law says otherwise?
Every single law known to man has something that disallows behavior. But does that mean that those who can't do those things are instantly an aggrieved class (other than in their own minds)?
In the case of marriage, you have a right to marry, so long as you meet the criterion. What is that criterion? Whatever the society says it is. If society says you can't marry a 12 year old, then that's the rule. All 11 year olds are discriminated against, but if the law must be changed so as to not deprive them of "rights" to marry, then you very quickly realize there is no basis to block someone on the basis of age at all. If you cange it to 10 years of age, then 9 year olds are the aggrieved class. If you limit the numer to 2, then 3 or more are the aggrieved class.
Do you think that society can make such distinctions WHATEVER they may be, at all when it comes to marriage?
Ah Shouting Tommy, the self described whore and orgy expert weighing in!
INga wrote:
You are attempting to prove all these other relationship scenarios are equivalent to a SS relationship. You fail to prove your point, you can't lump every kind of abberation from what you consider normal into one entity. All are different .
They are all restricted equally.
There are many fallacies he's committing. It's nothing new. But the most consistent he commits here (as he does it everywhere) is the shotgun fallacy. Bringing up so many points that you can't respond to a single one.
He might object, but I think he might get distracted and have have trouble focusing on one thing at a time.
Anyway, if you're looking for a legit way to describe how he instinctively lumps a whole bunch of unrelated BS together, just call it a "red herring". Does the trick and the most basic of debaters will know what you're talking about.
But I can't confirm that jr will.
This is a laugh riot!
This should be taking place on video. Years from now, it will be difficult to believe that this much stupidity could exist in such a small space.
Yeah, let's let Orgy Boy have his moment of glory while dictating argumentam ad antiquitam to the law professor.
Snicker.
Ritmo, when do you start producing your army of black allies to support your views.
You know, all those imaginary black friends, associates and co-workers?
You've yet to parade them out to prove that all opposition to anything you think is racism.
Call out your black troops, racist!
AA: I support individual freedom and autonomy. People are going to do good and bad with that. I'm not playing a game with anyone, just living my own life. You seem to endorse some twisted fantasy of controlling other people...
I think the fantasy here is that everything, absolutely everything, in a society should (or can) answer to "individual freedom and autonomy" as its ultimate benchmark and its highest good.
Society where the ideal of "individual freedom and autonomy" is developed and prized enough that people can, say, choose to marry or not to marry, or be left in peace in homosexual relationships? Good. Society so stupefied and out of touch with reality that "individual choice and autonomy" is no longer a prized good among others, no longer a means to an end, but an end in itself, a reified idol which demands the re-arrangement of every institution as if the each and every social structure exists for no other purpose than to facilitate "individual choice and autonomy"? Terminal idiocy.
And I will happily concede that marriage is the foundation of human society.
No, you believe that "individual choice and autonomy" is (or should be) the ultimate foundation of society. Once you take that as your premise, of course the form that a marriage takes is pretty much irrelevant. That is where your disagreement with ST (and others) lies, not in some alleged control freak corner of the dissenter's minds.
It seems blindingly obvious to me that the accepted form of marriage in a society (monogamous vs. polygamous, etc.) will affect the whole culture of a society. Nobody who actually thinks seriously about marriage and human society would every work himself into some "over-intellectualized stupor" where he blinds himself to any consideration but "denying equality" regarding the subject.
This is the Three Stooges on steriods!
Well, the Three Stooges were likeable, so there is a difference.
Being called a "racist" or "stupid" really seems to hurt your sensitive feelings, Thomas.
How many black and intelligent people did you offend and cause to hate you before you came to feel this way?
Ritmo, call out your imaginary black friends!
It's a little late for that tactic.
I can introduce you to some real black people, should you ever get up the nerve.
I didn't realize that Jesus was here pontificating.
Maybe Thomas got confused and didn't realize who he was for a moment.
This is your favorite topic, Ritmo.
Come on! Let's hear it, Racist Ritmo!
I can introduce you to some real black people, should you ever get up the nerve.
Are you saying that you find black people to be scary?
For how long have you felt this way?
Are you wearing your Klan outfit while you type, Ritmo?
Oh, and that was pretty classy to have a productive conversation with the host and then call her "whacky", Tommy. How do you manage to pull off that kind of class!
Come on, Ritmo, be a complete racist shit!
I always enjoy that act.
Hehe, that was as good one Ritmo.
If you're rubber, who's the glue?
That's deep stuff.
Ritmo, why do you always disgrace yourself at the bottom of threads?
Try humiliating yourself at the top of threads.
You'll enjoy it even more!
Is it snowing where you live, Ritmo? I know how much you like whiteness.
INga wrote:
You are attempting to prove all these other relationship scenarios are equivalent to a SS relationship. You fail to prove your point, you can't lump every kind of abberation from what you consider normal into one entity. All are different .
ANd yet you are suggesting that gay marriage must be treated the SAME as hetero marriage.If we are to treat everything differently, why the demand to treat these other things as one, when they're not? Isn't your stance in fact a denunciation of the gay marriage argument,and my exact point? 2+2 does not equal 5 simply because there are those who say it should be the same as 2+2=4.
O Ritmo wrote:
Nice. And I suppose you would feel secure in your rights if you were only allowed to marry another man, you silly doo-rag.
THis is why the other things are the same as gay marriage. Because of the assumption of "rights". If you want to get married in a polygamous relationship, then society is discriminating against you the exact same way that society is also discriminating against gay couples. Does a polygamous trio though in fact have the right to get "married"? Well yes, if by married you mean one person marries one other person. But no if you mean as polygamists. But Why not?
So, if O Ritmo then turns around and argues "And I suppose you would feel secure in your rights if you were only allowed to marry one person and not two, you silly doo-rag." what should my response be?
He's just made the argument that because gays don't have the rights that heteros do when it comes to marriage that they must have that right. Polygamist don't have the rights of couples, but does that mean that they shoud have an expectation that they SHOULD have those rights?
You Inga, keep saying that its not feasible to allow polygamy legally. Yet, to those trying to make polygamy legally, YOU are the bigot standing in the way of them not getting rights. And they don't have rights of couples. Are you OK with that?
Hard to produce that kind of entertainment intentionally.
I imagine you find it hard to produce any kind of entertainment intentionally.
Other than what you amuse yourself with by poking around with in the toilet after your morning constitutional.
Racist Ritmo, I gotta go.
Racist Ritmo shall be your name ever more on this blog.
I will immortalize you.
I actually make money entertaining people, kid. You, on the other hand, humiliate yourself frequently for free.
It's a great act!
Well, enjoy your show. But too bad you couldn't tell us more about how you and your geezer sisters still fight over which of you your father loved more.
I bet it was you - because you gave him better blow jobs.
I say we rename Shouting Thomas, Shiting Tommy, he comes into a thread, drops a load of feces and then has somewhere to hurry off to, typical. Probably to church to play the organ:) what a saint.
Tommy, do you want the occasional dollar bill or so thrown into your hat or straight into the guitar case?
It's hard to say. The guitar case provides a better target, but shows off how little you've made.
A hat, OTOH, is smaller, so the tiny number of singles will make it look more full.
So then lets go back to marriage as a concept. If you meet the criterion set by society (whatever it may be) then you can get married, and with the marriage you get certain benefits). But if you don't meet the criterion you can't get married and dont get the benefits.
Leaving aside what that criterion even is, you INga are apparently ok with this notion when it comes to polygamy. Which means you are ok with depriving loving people of their rights. Rights that hetero couples have.
Can society set that criterion at all (whatever that criteriion may be) that would prevent WHOEVER from marrying WHOEVER. If yes, then society will define marriage in ways that will not be acceptable to all. Like the polygamists you say should be denied the ability to marry.
Tommy's comments are like turns he takes at the glory hole. He sticks it in, anonymously squirts on anything vaguely resembling a "target", and then zips his pants up and runs away.
Before the cops get him.
Sodium meets chlorine!
Enjoy your noble gas octets!
"Before the cops get him"...... Heheheheh.
Lol, what are you talking about?
You and your gas routine, Chickie... I guess it must smell pretty good to be noble.
Not as noble as Tommy believes his own farts to smell, though.
Well, he did say that he was a "whoremonger" upthread, Inga. And I'm pretty sure that Woodstock isn't located in Nevada or Amsterdam.
But seriously, the guy's just an insecure and ridiculous little douchebag regardless. But then, so would anyone in his position.
Yep, he has a knack of making my skin crawl.
When I first endured his creepy essence, I posted an images link to the murderer in Silence of the Lambs. If you look at his website, there's a bit of a resemblance, and the creep factor is definitely there.
Palladian responded by saying that the character on screen had better fashion sense than him.
Tommy is a pretty repulsive person. If you want some kicks, though, at what smarter people have succinctly said in rebutting and shutting up his creepiness, check out the blog Lawyers, Guns and Money. Watching some of those comebacks in rapid succession was like watching an asshole getting sucker-punched twenty times in a row by twenty different people.
Here's one of the threads. I'm sure there are others.
But this one should have been entertaining enough. It's funny to see what happens when he goes out into the world and tries to play with the "big boys". (And girls).
The best one is when Shouty (as they called him) says:
I have the feeling (that)...
And they respond:
Well isn’t that cute. Do you also have a fact?
I'll have to read the thread, interesting, I wonder if his comeback was "I am an artist".
No, he's, er, cultivated that excuse here. Go to his romper-room blog if you want a taste of his Howdy Doody genre of musical stylings.
But someone else on that thread did go to his blog and pick up on him talking about how he likes to shout at little, Asian girls - (I guess because they turn him on or something). And then they responded, rather appropriately (IMO), "ick'.
You'll just have to read for yourself. They're pretty good at ending the bad ideas that jerks like him can't ever get enough of.
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Lol, what are you talking about?
I said, "sodium meets chlorine"
The comments turn into a pillar of salt when you two meet.
I love the arbitrary change to fit some, but not others.
The homosexual thinks he has the answer with "Two Humans" because it fits for him.
But you're limiting my love because I'm in love with a horse.
And you're limiting my neighbors love, because he is in a religion that has fixed him up with his 5 year old cousin.
But that's ok, it's icky for you to think of us.
So your new definition of "marriage" is two humans, because it works for you.
Sloppy seconds is pretty bad, but sloppy two hundred and thirty eighths is where I draw the line..
I love the arbitrary change to fit some, but not others.
The homosexual thinks he has the answer with "Two Humans" because it fits for him.
But you're limiting my love because I'm in love with a horse.
And you're limiting my neighbors love, because he is in a religion that has fixed him up with his 5 year old cousin.
But that's ok, it's icky for you to think of us.
So your new definition of "marriage" is two humans, because it works for you.
Oh, my. Inga saying marriage should be limited to pairs because she can't imagine how current divorce procedures could be applied.
I mean, that's right up there with someone in 1912 saying marriage has to be limited to heterosexuals because only putting a penis in a vagina actually consummates a marriage, and an unconsummated marriage is legally invalid.
Except at least the guy in 1912 is talking about a standard that went back so far in history and so established by custom that it was reasonable to mistake it for a fact of nature; current divorce procedures don't even go back a century.
Inga wrote:
Consenting adults Jr.
What the hell does NAMBLA have to do with SSM, or even incestuous marriage?
consenting adults is yet another of those social constructs based on "ew". Why then is it not open to similar deconstruction.
What is an adult anyway? prophet Mohammad married a 6 year old and waited till she menstruated before doing the deed. Why isn't menstruation an example of adulthood? Way back in the day we used to have children working in factories. Which shouldn't we treat kids that way now?
We're arguing over a fixed definition fixed by society. But society doesn't have to fix it that way does it? NAMLA doesn't think they should. Why are they wrong and you right? Why is Mohammad wrong but you are right.
simply because you have the law on your side?
How is that different than our redefining marriage to be more than just a man and a woman, or denying polygamy? It's not.
It's ok though. You're just not evolved yet in your thinking on this and polygamy. Or any of the other things that you are aainst but other people are for and are denied by law.
And you call yourself a liberal. Why don't you open your mind, and stop judging other people base on your hangups.
You can't legislate morality, as they say.
Eric wrote:
I love the arbitrary change to fit some, but not others.
The homosexual thinks he has the answer with "Two Humans" because it fits for him.
But you're limiting my love because I'm in love with a horse.
And you're limiting my neighbors love, because he is in a religion that has fixed him up with his 5 year old cousin.
But that's ok, it's icky for you to think of us.
So your new definition of "marriage" is two humans, because it works for you.
Exactly Eric. Does Inga not realize what a hypocrite she is? I love how evolution of standards or slurs corresponds exactly the way she thinks about those standards. Who knew? so she's against polygamy. Lo and behold she's not a bigot for agreeing that the law should deny polygamists the right to "marry". Because society, or rather she hasn't evolved to that point. But gays are a special case,and society has evolved because lo and behold, that's where Inga is on the question. So if you disagree there you are a bigot.
Inga, you are the exact same bigot that those who are against gay marriage are, when it comes to polygamy!
OK, Jr. I'm a bigot.
I won't stand in judgment of your incestuous love affair with your horse's ass.
I'm tired of paying for other people's lifestyle choices, and watching trillions be borrowed from other countries for the same.
There is no need to create a new class of dependents. If this didn't cost me any more money, or cause my kids to have to pay any more money than they already owe, I'm all for it.
Otherwise, the answer is simply NO MORE ENTITLEMENTS. It's sickening how much the productive class has been taken advantage of.
Inga:
OK, Jr. I'm a bigot.
I won't stand in judgment of your incestuous love affair with your horse's ass.
But you are a bigot... To those who think polygamy should be legal. Are you ok with that though? Fundamentally is it better to be bigoted towards gays or polygamists, and why? Like if I look at someone who,is against gays marrying I should throw tomatoes at them and call them evil. But when it comes to being against polygamists marrying, can I still throw the tomatoes at them and call them evil?
And who's deciding that? In other words, why do you not deserve having tomatoes thrown at you for being such a bigot?
As to standing in judgement of my incestuous love affair with my horses ass.
One, I don't own a horse.
Two,it can't be an incestuous affair, unless the horse were part of my family (though, if I were to try to marry my horse, would you hae a problem with it you judgemental bigot?)
Third. You used the word "your horse" if it is my horse, why couldn't I have sex with it? I'm not saying i want to, i'm just asking why there would be some restriction in my own home. dont i have the right to privacy?
There is no consent required for any interactions between humans and animals, so yet again, any restrictions would have to be based on social norms. But who are setting those? Bigots against having sex with horses? Those trying to impose their morality on others? The same judgmental bigots also against polygamy and gay marriage?
Finally, why would you NOT have a problem with people having sex with animals? What's the matter with you? You would withhold judgement on that?!
.
Dante's War against Math and Quantification continues unabated.
Yep. Marriage is costing our government so much more than the extra hundreds of billions of dollars per year that the Defense Department confirms that it doesn't need.
Or so Dante would have me believe.
Inga if I'm against gay marriage being legal but am for,polygamy being legal and you are for gay marriage being legal but against polygamy being legal, who is the bigger bigot, and which is the relationship to defend morally and which is the relationship to reject morally? Which is the evolved position to have and which is the bigoted one?
Likewise suppose there's someone who is pro gay marriage, pro polygamy, pro incestual marriages, pro bestiality, and someone else is anti gay marriage, anti polygamy , anti incestual marriages, anti bestiality etc.
How are we judging these two on these issues. One could argue that you are open minded about incest, but one could also argue that you shouldn't be open minded about incest. Is having an open mind then a good or a bad thing?
is defending NAMBLA the moral position or the immoral position? Are you just saying that because you agree or disagree with defending the NAMBLA position.
Jr. WTF are you talking about?
I think you know what I'm talking about.
You talk about bigotry and evolving standards. I'm trusting to figure out what that means....to you.
Why are people who are against gay marriage bigots, but people like yourself against polygamy not bigots.
If you are against bigamy are you a bigot just like you're a bigot for being against gay marriage. Are you a bigot for being against incestual marriage just like you are a bigot for being against gay marriage?
If the issue is that people not being able to marry those they love is a denial of rights, then are you not for the denial of rights when it comes to polygamists?
and how is that somehow more of a moral position than denying gay people of their rights to marry who they want?
Shorter Inga and Ritmo:
"Who cares about the Gods of Copybook Headings when we have these new, spiffy liberal Gods, Fairness and Equality of Outcome? Fairness and Equality of Outcome are so much cooler, and you can call anyone who disagrees with you a bigot without any evidence or logic whatsoever!
The news media will back you up on it, too!
Here are some pro gay marriage positions, but how valid are they are as principles when applies to other examples of restricted marriages?
Denying them is a violation of religious freedom/. But denying polygamists is not? denying marriage to children is not? Denying harems is not? Do you not know the history of polygamy and the Mormons and how they were forced to give up polygamy to keep their state?
Marriage benefits (such as joint ownership, medical decision-making capacity) should be available to all couples. how bout incestual couples? How about a couple with an adult and a child? those aren't couples?and why just couples? do trios not need health care?
Homosexuality is an accepted lifestyle nowadays with most evidence strongly supporting biological causation. that is true, and that's probably the only argument that is remotely valid. Only it doesn't mean that society MUST change its definitions of marriage to suit gays.Polygamy COULD be an accepted lifestyle too.... If you bigots would just get over your hangups. Any alternative lifestyle COULD be accepted, if people simply accepted the lifestyle as a norm.
Denying these marriages is a form of minority discrimination. are polygamists not a minority? Is denying polygamy then not an example of minority discrimination too?
It doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular. who is defining hurt? Does someone having sex with a horse, or with their kids hurt society in general? If people have had sex with their kids, I'm not physically hurt. Are the kids hurt? well you say yes, and the people having sex with the kids say no? So who's right, and how are we determining that? basically, you're saying that society can define hurt, and define norms. Why then would there be an issue with society restricting marriage on the same grounds? You accept the premise when it comes to polygamy, so you can't argue that society somehow can't define marriage to not be what it finds to be harmful or objectionable.
The only thing that should matter in marriage is love. REALLY? that's it? so if you really love kids and want to marry them, that's all that should matter? if you love 6 people equally, you should be allowed to marry them all at once?
It encourages people to have strong family values and give up high-risk sexual lifestyles. so would incest. Talk about strong family values...
The same financial benefits that apply to man-woman marriages apply to same-sex marriages. and all other relationships.
Everyone of these reasons, while sounding good i theory are not moral absolutes (even though they are argued that way) and most are patently false when it comes to many instances where we similarly deny people the right to "marry".
So you are left with the question is can society restrict any narriage, based on these arguments, or are gays some special class where these are rules should apply? Why gays, and not say polygamists? And I would flip that to say, if we are going to restrict marriage when it comes to polygamy, why not when it comes to gays? Are gays some special class, again?
Note this is not me saying that gays MUST be discriminated against. Society could have ordered itself around polygamy and not around couples. Then couples would be the group not able to marry. Incest COULD be the norm, and you could be denied a license if you DON'T marry a blood relative. But that's not how,society ordered itself.there is nothing to anywhere to say that society can't promote or demote social,constructs that either benefit or hurt it.
All these "fairness" programs have really had a great effect on children. Growing up without a father.
Why, who cares about those kids, when we have to worry about the stupid worn out "fairness," which leads to completely unfair outcomes, from stupid middle of the road people.
Kids are losing fathers. How fair is that? Well, it's fair if you are pursuing feminist fairness, I suppose. Or Gay fairness. Or whatever perfectly fair society people like Althouse want.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/25/fathers-disappear-from-households-across-america/?page=3
I find it humorous that this whole renewed gay marriage thrash arose from Ann's insistence -- and I would say misapprehension -- that the video was really about a regular gay couple and a regular lesbian couple wanting to raise their regular biological children nuclear family style, under the bizarre cloak (for reasons Ann doesn't explain) of polyamory.
I thought it was obvious that the couples were who they said they were -- irregular straight couples playing around with polyamory, or what we used to call "open relationships," while raising their biological children.
From a pragmatic standpoint about this group:
1. Seems to me everyone's Jays's bitch.
2. Petri dish awaiting epidemiological tragedy.
3. Concerned about the risk of sexual abuse of the children by (related or) unrelated adults in the group who feel they have a bond to them. The bio parents don't have a very finely tuned sense of protecting their children. These adults already believe your bogus rules don't apply to them and they are superior creatures due to their love and trust. That kind of talk is so cultish. Jim Jones claimed sexual access to his cult members. Many cults and communes operate this way. The adults coerce ER educate their children to cooperate. Assuming they even know about it.
So does the lesson we learn from this change if the interview isn't held within the white, highly-educated, upper-class progressive bubble? What kind of things do we find when she interviews people from neighborhoods where polyamory is the norm, like Oakland?
kentuckyliz: Good point about the cults. Well spotted.
The group I knew closest to these chuckleheads was partly led by a guy who was bringing the gospel from a crazy Austrian psychology-sex cult run by an ex-member of the Wehrmacht turned hard left artist.
They were all straight, though a few were flexible, but there were no children involved and thank god for that. Within a few years, after much drama and craziness, they split up, drifted apart and settled down to more normal lives.
"I have never seen children from an open marriage be at all promiscuous" for a certain definition of promiscuity.
I live with my ex-wife and her husband, both of them in open marriage, neither of them with me. This way the kids get to see their father and mother, we homeschool, and I have dinner waiting for me when I get home.
"I have never seen children from an open marriage be at all promiscuous" for a certain definition of promiscuity.
I live with my ex-wife and her husband, both of them in open marriage, neither of them with me. This way the kids get to see their father and mother, we homeschool, and I have dinner waiting for me when I get home.
Don M.: And I'll bet you're all straight or mostly straight.
Well, this notion that people were to have only ONE sexual partner at a time is rather new in human culture relatively speaking. How many wives and concubines did Charlemagne have when he was crowned "Holy Roman Emperor" by the Pope?
Even in cultures where there was only one legal marriage, it wasn't considered odd to have a mistress or to engage a slave for sexual pleasure. It was not considered adultery to share a wife or a slave girl with your brother if he traveled to visit you.
This notion that ONE person is going to be everything you ever need for your entire life is probably a cause of more problems than it solves. Humans have never been wired that way. It is a cultural pressure, not a natural human instinct. In 19th century Europe it would not be considered unusual for someone to have a mistress or for someone's wife to be the mistress of another provided it was kept low key.
The "tradition" we currently have in Western culture is the result of a decree issued by a Pope, it was not the outcome of normal culture. It was forced upon the people first under penalty of excommunication and later under penalty of death by the church.
Even in traditions such as Rome where there was only one recognized marriage that bound two families together, recreational sex outside of the marriage wasn't all that unknown among those with enough idle time to engage in such activity.
This whole mixing of marriage with romantic love of only one person comes from the stuff of fairy tales and was not the reality for most of human existence.
I have sometimes wondered how many families could have been spared breakup and economic devastation had the notion of a secondary "fling" been tolerated. I live in a place where such relationship dynamics are tolerated to a larger extent than in other areas. Why break up a family and ruin your long term wealth and retirement/investment plans and possibly wreck the lives of children because someone became infatuated with another?
I have to applaud this group of loving people. Good for them. I wish them all the luck in the world. These family values are ones of love and commitment, and if it is two gay couples or whatever, if they instill the values of love, honor, commitment, and truth, what more could society require?
I know of two long term Polyamorous relationships, on lasting about fifteen years and one approaching twenty years. I don't know how they work in side the relationship, just that they have lived together and functioned as a triad for that length of time. One has children, one had none, both were from the SF Fan Community. In that time I have seen maybe fifteen divorces among co-workers, friends and acquaintances. So in my opinion, polyamory works for some percentage of the American population.
I see a lot of people here saying government shouldn't be in the defining marrriage business. I am generally in agrrement with the nstatement that the goveernment which governs least governs best.
While recognizing government does have legitimate functions. Every extant national government in the world, without exception, regulates and defines marriage. In the western world, I believe it was the French who first took marriage definition and registration away from the clerics and took that power unto the state. Looking at how widespread the practice is, it looks like defining marriage is a legitimate state function.
Some governments do an extremely piss poor job of it- for in much of sharialand 12 year old brides can be bought and sold. But they do it nonetheless.
The fact that less then a handful of states have now legitiimized SSM through the ballot box means that the fight against SSM is over. Courts will use those handful of elections to declare changing social mores, and inflict SSM on ther rest of the states in no time flat. I'm seriously surprised cases arguing that haven't already been brought to any courts.
And within a very short period of time after that, polyamorous marriages of all kinds will be legalized- for there is no legal bar to them if SSM is legalized. Everyone here who has stated there is no relation between the two is lying.
In germany, meanwhile, they are trying to reinstate a ban on bestiality, legalized at the same time as gay sex. alloed.http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/world/germany-to-ban-sex-with-animals-report/story-fnddckzi-1226524544281
In Florida where someone is arguing that donkey sex should be allowed, and that Florida is backwards for banning it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/18/carlos-romero-donkey-sex_n_1894146.html
And here is the argument at volokh, another law blog, that bestiality laws need to be reconsidered.
http://www.volokh.com/2012/12/05/zoophilia-sex-toys-and-the-consitutional-protection-of-autonomous-sex/
But none of this, OF COURSE, has anything to do with SSM. An entirely different subject that won't lead to anything else.
The notion of 'family' was raised somewhere in the earlier comments. As in this is a nice cohesive family.
Not sure about that, but I'd bet that there really isn't much family at all, beyond the four adults in the household. Do the participants' extended families welcome them on holidays, for example? Probably not, and probably there's a good dose of shunning going on. The uncles, aunts, cousins, parents and grandparents aren't likely to stop by for Sunday dinner, I'd bet. There was probably a net loss of family.
What happens when Man #1 decides that he's tired of having sex with the same two women all the time and really wants someone newer and hotter to boink? How's that going to work? And if Guy #1 has the freedom to try new stuff, then doesn't Guy #2? And Women #1 and #2?
This doesn't work. And taking ONE example of a polyamorous life and postulating that it can work for many people is not only bad research, it's fantasy.
Flawed as it may be, traditional one man, one woman marriage hasn't been surpassed by any other arrangement. And this is especially true when both parties take time BEFORE they marry to fully understand the expectations of how their lives will be lived AFTER they are married, make their life plan, and commit to carrying it out - for better or for worse.
@ Dante: 12/26/12 12:45 PM
"That doesn't sound fair to me to the people who go through the great expense and time of raising the kids who support the next generation"
Yes, the free rider problem will bring down the Bismarckian nationalization of filial piety. Social security means I have no stake in the existence, citizenship, or productivity of any offspring.
But it's orthogonal to sexuality.
Meanwhile, Disney is putting out a show where the lead character's got two moms.
Post a Comment