"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.
२६ डिसेंबर, २०१२
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२८० टिप्पण्या:
280 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Ann to come up with such scenarios means that you have too much time on your hands. Surely you must have better uses of your vacation time. Come on down to Miami. The weather is perfect today.
"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."
Yeah, the women don't look particularly heterosexual; the dudes? Dweebish.
But I don't have "gaydar," so who the hell knows, beyond it being queer as hell.
Time to say the obvious, Althouse...
I told you so!
Your support for the gay activist agenda, I've concluded after reading your comments on porn, is that you believe that gay marriage will persuade gay men to engage in the "nice" sex that you endorse.
You're full of shit on that one.
Traditions exist for reasons that are hard to visualize or explain, because they developed over centuries out of day to day human experience.
You've really over-intellectualized yourself into a stupor on the gay marriage stuff.
Here are the orgiasts, declaring that they will play "nice," just as you asked. They've checkmated you.
This is just another way of removing meaning from the word "marriage." These couples may be legally married, but once they venture into this realm, they no longer have a real marriage, IMHO. They just have polyamorous relationships.
@Shouting Thomas 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 that I would challenge you to articulate. It's easier to criticize me for all sorts of imagined, vague things.
You seem to endorse some twisted fantasy of controlling other people that I would challenge you to articulate.
I don't want to control anybody.
I would highly recommend that you spend some time in the Philippines, a society that I find fascinating for a lot of reasons.
One of the most prominent reasons is that Filipinos seem to accept every type of sexual arrangement imaginable with barely a comment, while still requiring that everybody agree to respect traditional religious and family authority.
It's a long story, but I think that's a better way to do things.
You seem to endorse some twisted fantasy of controlling other people that I would challenge you to articulate
Isn't this the very definition of government?
I've always seen you as a big government liberal, and now you are coming across as an anarchist/libertarian
In other words, Althouse, I'm in favor of "hypocrisy."
Messed up. The two women are both masculine in appearance, holding hands as if in moral support during this interview, appear as if they have manipulated their lives to be able to facilitate a lesbian relationship. But then my theory gets blown out of the water with the other two boyfriends, is it a sexual relationship also? Confusing, my head is spinning.
As for the two husbands, they are in a contest to win the hand of the fair J and giddy with sexual joy that their dumpy wives are encouraging them to be unfaithful, because it's only fair since the women are.
Who knows, maybe the horn dog husbands wanted to see some female sex and the two wives agreed, then discovered they liked each other more than their husbands. Now I'm really confused.
WTF?
How did I guess that Shouting Thomas would be in here blabbering away as usual?
I'm glad you don't charge rent to us queers who seem to have such a large residence inside your head.
One of the great joys of being a gay male is not having to live with women.
So, what's the "constitutionally adequate" reason for not letting all three, four or more of these people marry?
I've read the biographies of many eminent Victorians. What is striking is the amount of work they accomplished and the unhappiness of their sex lives. There's something to be said for sexual inhibitions. If these people put the same amount of effort into writing long novels or researching finch beaks as they put into having a fulfilling sex life, who knows what wonders they might achieve......I can't see as how these people are doing any harm, but they will never become all that they can be until they experience the life enhancing possibilities of sexual repression.
I'm glad you don't charge rent to us queers who seem to have such a large residence inside your head.
I've always been fascinated by sexual rebels and outcasts, Palladian.
Why do you think I lived for such a long time in the midst of the rebels and outcasts in San Francisco and New York City?
But, I'm interested in the reality that transpires right in front of my eyes, not in political manipulation. I'm an artist. My work is telling the truth of what I see with my own eyes.
But, I'm interested in the reality that transpires right in front of my eyes, not in political manipulation. I'm an artist. My work is telling the truth of what I see with my own eyes.
I like that side of you. I wish we saw more of it.
I've always been fascinated by sexual rebels and outcasts, Palladian.
I don't think of gay sex as rebellious. It has a very long history. A great human tradition, so to speak.
"One of the great joys of being a gay male is not having to live with women."
So you don't like my proposal for 2 gay couples to restructure into 2 opposite sex households each raising their own biological children?
If you wanted children, you might want them to have their own mother in the home. There are different ways for gay people to have children, and this would be one.
It looks like what these couples are doing.
And more specifically, Palladian, observing the 2 couples in the video, do you perceive 2 gay men and 2 lesbians, or believable heterosexual couples who have a side attraction to the same sex?
So, what's the "constitutionally adequate" reason for not letting all three, four or more of these people marry?
There isn't one. The government should not be in the business of regulating or licensing marriage at all.
These people are just weird, I don't really care to understand them. Love, sex, marriage, civil rights, etc. Weird people
I watched the video with the sound off, before I read the comments. The only affection that seemed genuine was between the two women. Are the men gay, too?
I get your point, Althouse, and I don't disagree with the validity of the arrangement you suggest, for interested parties.
And more specifically, Palladian, observing the 2 couples in the video, do you perceive 2 gay men and 2 lesbians, or believable heterosexual couples who have a side attraction to the same sex?
Of course. I have been with many men who were also attracted to women, even some who were married to or dating women. I've also had sex with men who insist they are strictly heterosexual. Sexuality is sometimes very complicated and inexplicable, and attempts to categorize it are sometimes laughable.
Oh, repeating the Oneida community and the Shakers and all the other curious rapturial organizations of the 19th century? Only now using sexual magnets instead of spiritual?
Do recall what a tiny fraction of the population entered into those curious communes, and how long they lasted.
They weren't EVEN the 1%.
"So, what's the "constitutionally adequate" reason for not letting all three, four or more of these people marry?"
Of course, that's not the question I'm asking, and we've discussed marriage rights in this context many times before on this blog. Palladian's response — get the govt out of marriage — has also been discussed many times.
I think I've raised a new question, so reverting to these old topics seems evasive to me.
I've also had sex with men who insist they are strictly heterosexual. Sexuality is sometimes very complicated and inexplicable, and attempts to categorize it are sometimes laughable.
IMHO, at that point it no longer sexuality so much as hedonism.
The government should not be in the business of regulating or licensing marriage at all
As long as government agencies (Social Security, IRS etc) treat people differently based upon their marital status, the government has to regulate/define/license marriage.
Up until the last ten years, it was a generally accepted concept that the government had a significant interest in protecting and promoting traditional marriages.
You can't believe what regular, closed-marriage couples say about themselves either.
Is this a statement made in the context of the video at hand or a declaration in general? I'm having a little difficulty understanding why it is true in the latter sense.
When a marriage dissolves there needs to be a way to legally divide the property and custody of the children. So if the government stays completely out of the marriage biz, what's the alternative?
I could see marriage prenup contracts being a requirement, but that would mean a law and the government creating one. Or arbitrators that help decide who goes where and who gets what when and if a marriage dissolves. But then again, if there is no law as to requiring the use of an arbitrator, then what?
I can envision parents stealing children and property from each other, no child support, at a higher rate than is happening presentl.
Laws do serve a purpose after all.
I wrote my last comment before Palladian said:
"I get your point, Althouse, and I don't disagree with the validity of the arrangement you suggest, for interested parties."
Thanks!
"'And more specifically, Palladian, observing the 2 couples in the video, do you perceive 2 gay men and 2 lesbians, or believable heterosexual couples who have a side attraction to the same sex?' Of course. I have been with many men who were also attracted to women, even some who were married to or dating women. I've also had sex with men who insist they are strictly heterosexual. Sexuality is sometimes very complicated and inexplicable, and attempts to categorize it are sometimes laughable."
But how about those people in the video. To me, the women seem like lesbians who are pleased to have found men willing to perform the full father role in their homes. Do these women want sex with men (other than to procreate)? I'd like to know, because they are promoting a way of life that might not be what they are saying. They're acting like their husbands are their central sexual relationship, and I'm finding it hard to believe.
Note that the husband (in the first couple shown) was upset with the proposal at first. He may be more believably bisexual... or not. But why would these men be interested in the type of women we're seeing them paired with? That just strikes me as odd.
Is it creepy to speculate about them like this? They put themselves on display as some kind of model of how to live. I'm skeptical that they are what they purport to be.
"for the production of children"
Could we rethink the phrase?
Children are natural and organic because they're human beings, made from sex not a lab. They're not joint property. And yes, you wonder why some people have hang-ups over IVF.
We may no longer be children, but we weren't products.
We may no longer be children, but we weren't products.
Correct. We were reproducts.
Definitely beta males.
My first impression was also that the lesbian relationship was the primary one and all activity surrounding that was secondary and extemporaneous, well maybe at first. It seems quite deliberate now.
I would love to have been witness to the discussions of whose date night turn it is. I wonder if jealousy is an issue ever? I can't believe it wouldn't be, they are human after all.
I'd ask questions like:
Do you have any adult friends who you are not having sex with?
When your children become adults, how do they become part of your community?
These tend to be female-dominated relationships. Poly men are usually dweeby dudes who are total pushover betas.
Definitely beta males.
The calumny directed against orgiasts is very strange.
The people in this video, I'd bet, are getting a hell of a lot more sex than most of you can imagine. Which means that their systems are flooded with endorphins. They are, literally, high!
Some men fear continual sexual arousal in women. Some men welcome it.
The difference between men who fear or welcome a state of continual sexual arousal in women is not necessarily indicative of sexual status or cuckoldry, as you imagine.
You folks really do need to use your imaginations. For a man who needs and wants a lot of sex, a woman who exists in a state of continual sexual arousal is a dream come true.
There are more choices here than (a) or (b).
And, Inga, jealousy is always an issue in every human relationship. My sisters and I are still squabbling over who was daddy's favorite, and we're all old and our father is dead.
The people in this video, I'd bet, are getting a hell of a lot more sex than most of you can imagine. Which means that their systems are flooded with endorphins. They are, literally, high!
Eventually, your body gets used to the increased intake of chocolate cake and you have to seek other, richer, creamier desserts to get the same endorphin rush.
Shallow, but I think I'd like this story a lot more if the people in it were attractive. And one was a French maid, or perhaps a 1960s stewardess. Overnight coast-to-coast, "oops I spilled my drink, can you help me dry my pants" - that sort of thing. Popping buttons, indeed.
Eventually, your body gets used to the increased intake of chocolate cake and you have to seek other, richer, creamier desserts to get the same endorphin rush.
Take it from an old whoremonger.
You are wrong. Well, you're not always right!
So, I guess how I see this is - why?
Why bother with marriage? Isn't this sort of gaming the system? What if either party in the marriage decides they're threatened by this? How does this shake out in court?
Typical 60's hippie nonsense that we're being asked not just to tolerate but *celebrate*.
Grow up...
Typical 60's hippie nonsense that we're being asked not just to tolerate but *celebrate*.
Grow up...
It always seemed like the true hippies stopped at "tolerate". It was the darker side of that coin that kept pressing and pressing until they reach "celebrate".
Grass may look greener on the other side of a fence. But it never is and by then the fence has gone back up.
Anyway, who could trust a spouse who loves another man or woman intimately every other day? No one can do that. Ergo: they are lying to themselves.
Does anyone here realize that William, in his comment, has just committed heresy? You don't privilege human achievement (let alone achievement as sublimation) above the fullest possible exploration of polymorphous perversity! All right thinking people have known that since Norman O. Brown. Get with it, William!
I really didn't care that much what any of these rather facile people were trying to sell the moderator or me, until the video got to the point where they had clearly co-opted the kids in selling their unsavory little menagerie. What is the point of maintaining the appearance (for the children?) of a conventional marriage if you're going to compel your children into "awareness" (not understanding, at least not at that age) of Mommy and Daddy's "open marriage?" Feh. At that point I did a spit-take and shut off the vid because they'd lost me irretrievably.
The first woman is more obviously a lesbian than the second. No red flags for either of the men.
Trad guy so wisely said,
Anyway, who could trust a spouse who loves another man or woman intimately every other day? No one can do that. Ergo: they are lying to themselves.
12/26/12 11:48 AM
Exactly.
Anyway, who could trust a spouse who loves another man or woman intimately every other day? No one can do that. Ergo: they are lying to themselves.
One of the more fascinating aspects of human sexuality is that just about everybody is convinced that the way it works for them just has to be the way it works for everybody else.
Even those who proclaim themselves liberals.
People can do whatever they want and have as many permutations of sexual congress as they like. As long as we, the taxpayers, are not supporting their lifestyle, I could give a flying eff what they do.
They just don't get to call it marriage or take legal or financial benefits, deductions, rights that are given to "MARRIED" couples.
Marriage is an institution that has a defined meaning and has had that meaning for centuries. Words mean things. If you want to create your own definition of marriage....get your own words.
Shouting Thomas said...
Definitely beta males.
The calumny directed against orgiasts is very strange.
The people in this video, I'd bet, are getting a hell of a lot more sex than most of you can imagine. Which means that their systems are flooded with endorphins. They are, literally, high!
Some men fear continual sexual arousal in women. Some men welcome it.
The difference between men who fear or welcome a state of continual sexual arousal in women is not necessarily indicative of sexual status or cuckoldry, as you imagine.
You folks really do need to use your imaginations. For a man who needs and wants a lot of sex, a woman who exists in a state of continual sexual arousal is a dream come true.
There are more choices here than (a) or (b).
Nice riff, Thomas, but I was not intending to describe all male orgiasts as betas, just the ones depicted in that video. And I stand by my remarks.
Nice riff, Thomas, but I was not intending to describe all male orgiasts as betas, just the ones depicted in that video. And I stand by my remarks.
That's an interesting distinction, and you might be right!
If there are no objective standards, then why speculate. Why propose compromise. If it is all relative, then why care at all. The only "virtue" is democratic, which is realized through superior numerical or coercive leverage.
Marriage is an institution that has a defined meaning and has had that meaning for centuries. Words mean things. If you want to create your own definition of marriage....get your own words.
Exactly. This group of people may tell themselves they are all one big happy family, but I bet the truth is that parenting decisions are made by just the two main parents. Imagine trying to actually raise children as a large group like that. You would have to have board meetings to make decisions - about schools, discipline, vacations, job decisions, financial decisions. This is really just a loose group of friends who have sex with each other. They aren't a family. And they aren't necessarily committed to each other.
These guys are looking way up at even gamma male status.
They are shallow little over educated horndog pussies willing to sacrifice their dignity for sex with dogs--that's about the only remotely male trait about them.
The women are over educated dykes. They trapped their little girly guys and gladly trade their dignity for a little lickety split, and rationalize it with therapeutic bullshit.
And they foisted off their sickness on "their" kids. Honestly, how the hell would they know who bred what? Anyone who thinks these people haven't been banging around for ever could and may well star in "Polyamory: the Next Generation."
It won't be long until this sick little network of pervs will be divorcing and replacing the offensive lovers. It might survive, but it will never metastisize.
Darwin was right about some things.
Cue the Gods of the Copybook Headings.
@Renee If you don't like the word "production," you'll have to object as well to "reproduction."
"These tend to be female-dominated relationships. Poly men are usually dweeby dudes who are total pushover betas."
Which is why I doubt the attraction of these women to these men.
Oh for heaven's sake ... just watched 7 minutes of self-indulgent fluff that could have come straight from the 1970's about the virtues of "swinging."
Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice
sheesh
One of the great joys of being a gay male is not having to live with women.
Yes, but you have to live with other gay males. Ideally you'd want to live with a straight male, but you'll probably end up sexually unfulfilled that way. Given that most gay men have the emotional stability of a 13yo girl anyway, I'd rather live with an adult female.
Poly men are usually dweeby dudes who are total pushover betas.
Not necessarily. Many men see it as a means of control and assertion. They see themselves as the pimp and the woman as the prostitute. The woman is their property and they are lending her out.
Polyamory makes me think of Burl Ives:
Polly Wolly Doodle Polly Wolly DoodlePolly Wolly Doodle Polly Wolly Doodle
Oh, I went down southto see my Sal,
Sing Polly Wolly Doodle all the day.
My Sally she am aspunky gal, Sing Polly Wolly Doodle all the day.
"Marriage is an institution that has a defined meaning and has had that meaning for centuries. Words mean things. If you want to create your own definition of marriage....get your own words."
Law isn't a dictionary. It is an exercise of power, imposed on people. You have to judge the coercions as coercion, not how well the government followed word definitions. Laws are always abusing words, but the abuse of words is a very minor quibble when we discuss what the abuses are.
In the case of marriage, the real abuse affecting people is having all these tax laws and benefits programs that apply according to who is in the category married, and it's not fair to have all those things depend on getting into a category that in nearly all significant applications, excludes gay people. That's what's wrong, and it's just not important what "marriage" means as a word.
Yet even if it did, if defining words properly was the true purpose of government and getting word definitions wrong was an abuse of power, word definitions change over time and by usage, as any dictionary will reveal and as the existence of different languages make obvious.
So that argument quoted above makes almost no sense. Those who state it are only, to my mind, stating that they oppose same-sex marriage. Noted. But you aren't on track to persuade anyone (not anyone whose thinking skills I respect).
Do you think they Polly Wolly Doodle all day?
Pogo said...
"Cue the Gods of the Copybook Headings."
Indeed. So true.
@Shouting Thomas I support individual freedom and autonomy.
Then why do you support government sanctioned entitlements for homosexuals (aka gay marriage)? It encourages the opposite of autonomy, by providing incentives to suck off the government teat.
For the record, the lesbian with kids are a bit more challenging from a moral perspective.
la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la!!!!
and it's not fair to have all those things depend on getting into a category that in nearly all significant applications, excludes gay people.
Why? The state has an interest in promoting heterosexual unions. It's not so clear it has an interest in promoting lesbian unions even if they produce children. And I see zero value to the state in promoting gay male unions, as they provide incentive to pull able bodied people out of the work force, and add incentive to suck off government and other taxpayer entitled survivor rights.
Yet, the government is largely structured so the next generation pays for those rights (doesn't that suck), and male gays aren't reproducing. 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.
He may be more believably bisexual... or not
A study indicated, of those who considered themselves male bisexuals, very few were.
Face it, if you are a guy, you like butts or boobs. There is very little in between.
@Shouting Thomas 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.
So how does this work out in regards to bestiality, sex with children, incestual relationships.
And how does this work out when it comes to laws passed. If you are for personal freedoms should that mean that society should endorse an incestual marriage.
They just don't get to call it marriage or take legal or financial benefits, deductions, rights that are given to "MARRIED" couples.
We can call it anything we damned well please. You shouldn't get the right to use the power of the State to define and regulate a voluntary, religious/spiritual/romantic relationship between consenting adults.
Marriage is an institution that has a defined meaning and has had that meaning for centuries. Words mean things. If you want to create your own definition of marriage....get your own words.
That's a ridiculous statement and has nothing at all to do with the subject.
Having failed to make a case for giving the power of the secular government to regulate the ontological nature of interpersonal unions, you people are now going to make it some stupid quibble about words.
Neutral civil contracts for those wanting them. Beyond that, "marriage" should be left to churches or other spiritual or secular, non-governmental entities and/or to individuals to define.
the real abuse affecting people is having all these tax laws and benefits programs that apply according to who is in the category married
Abuse? Really?
The ideal place for children to be raised is with their bio parents in a marriage. Marriage as that place has existed prior to even law -- communities have supported such arrangements through action & tradition.
Either society benefits from recognizing the ideal or it can engage in the fantasy that because not everyone can reach the ideal, so f**k the ideal.
SSM advocates cling to the latter.
Ditto this "polyamory" "polygamous" mendouchery.
Not that being married is going to be such a tax benefit anyway with Obama in charge. Individuals to be hit at $200K and married couples at $250K say hello to marriage penalty.
When one wants Big Government to be each person's God/Spouse/Parent, then one needs to deconstruct marriage/family -- just redefine it to mean whatever sex-fad of the moment demands.
Life of #Julia, indeed.
Face it, if you are a guy, you like butts or boobs. There is very little in between.
It really depends on the guy and his ... attributes, whether there's going to be very little or very much in between those butts or boobs.
Fascinating. I don't believe these relationships really work, but it's interesting to hear from the people who claim they work.
I once had a guy pitch the polyamory idea to me as he was preparing to dump me for another woman. That was a no.
They just don't get to call it marriage or take legal or financial benefits, deductions, rights that are given to "MARRIED" couples.
And don't insist that public schools teach children that your lifestyle is "normal".
Otherwise, heck, if you want MW4MW 24/7, that's your prerogative.
Boundaries have purpose. Ask the Potato Growers.
Human happiness requires righteous boundaries. Relating to people within those boundaries make us well.
Human depression and disillusion comes from relating to people without boundaries. Those people make us sick.
It's funny to watch so-called conservatives shriek and bray about the terrifying possibility that the government might not retain the power to "define marriage".
Oh no! The sacred, immutable, billion-year-old institution of marriage will crumble if the federal government ceases to regulate it! Government, help us!
It doesn't matter if these polygamous and polyandrous relationships don't often work out. Rights are not contingent on their feasibility or even their advisability.
"I've got nothing against kooky"
Kooks
Fascinating. I don't believe these relationships really work, but it's interesting to hear from the people who claim they work.
Good point, Darcy. You never read about a 25th anniversary celebrated by a polyamory couple/triple/group.
You do read about bitter separations when one member of the party takes the kids and leaves, citing a new-found sense of morality. And the separation is inevitably ugly, especially for the children who may be of uncertain parentage.
With the word reproduction, it is a reference that people are using their own DNA, not picking out of a catalog I guess. With the double same-sex scenario of couples, there is a blending. Will siblings some be full blood, half, or a few not related at all? One could have full-blood siblings living under two different households, one a male couple and one a female couple. Legally they would not be siblings at all.
SSM advocates cling to the latter.
It's best to cling to latters when climbing around the world of ideas. Latter safety is very important.
Althouse opines: Yet even if it did, if defining words properly was the true purpose of government and getting word definitions wrong was an abuse of power, word definitions change over time and by usage, as any dictionary will reveal and as the existence of different languages make obvious.
Words do evolve, but please do not confuse that with definitions being changed via legislative or judicial fiat. If you're all for it, why don't you give us a good example from recent times when an ancient rite was renamed? Make it something good like marriage, baptism, or maybe a traditional role like husband, wife, mother, etc.? I still can't see how matrimony could apply to same-sex male marriage on etymological grounds.
Even the tolerant Dutch maintain hyphenated prefixes for their permutations of marriage.
The problem with the Sullivanists is that they insist that M + F = M + M or F + F. They want absolute equality instead of equivalancy. I think it's a linguistic travesty myself.
Under traditional marriage law, adultery is not grounds for divorce if it is condoned, so these are traditional marriages.
There is no need to go on quest for the "constitutionally adequate" reason for not letting all three, four or more of these people marry."
Also, that's not something they are requesting. They just want to be left alone in their traditional, albeit open, marriages.
That might also work for the gay couple and lesbian couple that Ann Althouse posits choose to opposite-sex pair for traditional marriage and children.
But with gay marriage now recognized, why bother? And what are the odds that each of the 2 lesbian women would each want a gay man as the father of her children?
"Lesbian woman interested in nuclear family with gay man seeks another lesbian woman and a couple of gay men with same interest." That's quite a lot to find, even on Craig's List.
In the case of marriage, the real abuse affecting people is having all these tax laws and benefits programs that apply according to who is in the category married, and it's not fair to have all those things depend on getting into a category that in nearly all significant applications, excludes gay people. That's what's wrong, and it's just not important what "marriage" means as a word.
It IS important as to how you define marriage IF the government is going to be doling out goodies or punishing people through the laws for the status of married/unmarried. Leaving aside the religious objections of the various permutations of cohabitation....how are you going to devise 'fairness' in the tax and legal system with marriage being defined as the following: one man- one woman, one man-two or three women, one woman-two men, two women-two men. MATHEMATICALLY, how are you going to make it 'fair' in the amount of benefits, tax breaks, inheritance laws etc?
Yet even if it did, if defining words properly was the true purpose of government and getting word definitions wrong was an abuse of power, word definitions change over time and by usage, as any dictionary will reveal and as the existence of different languages make obvious.
Kind of like the conundrum we are in now with the defining of Corporations as entities or "people". This is why words have meaning. When you change the words, without out changing the laws or changing the laws without changing or creating new definitions, it creates chaos.
Marriage is now defined as one man one woman. Domestic partnerships is an attempt to define the union of two men, or two women or a man and woman. This definition is an attempt to create a new legal status and definition other than marriage.
Palladian has the best idea. Get the government out of marriage and out of the business of taxing and punishing and grabbing half of your estate when you die. The government won't do this, of course, because they are habitual thieves and pick pockets. How can they take our money if we make the tax code "fair"?
If you want to disapprove of other people's marriages, you'll still be able to do that, even after there is ssm. Recognize that you do already disapprove of other people's marriages -- that man who's too old for his wife, that woman who married the guy only for his money, etc. etc.
As for raising children in an ideal setting, you've already got so many less than ideal situations for children, whether ssm is the law or not.
The notion that denying equality to gay people is keeping all manner of bad things from happening... why do you believe it? I lack confidence that your belief comes from an admirable place in your psyche. And yet you pose as superior! Sorry, I just don't believe it. I'm willing to grant you that you perceive yourself as a good person and want to be a good person, but I'm not believing that your ideas represent the goodness that you claim. You are denying equality, and that demands a better showing than you are making here.
Good point, Darcy. You never read about a 25th anniversary celebrated by a polyamory couple/triple/group.
That must be because it's never been allowed to flourish in the past and has always been suppressed by uptight religious folks. ;)
How is Suzy Favor Hamilton's polyamorous lifestyle a crime, while these four live a lifestyle that isn't criminalized?
Favor Hamilton is getting a bad deal, I think, if one assumes that everything people do with consent is okay.
Oh no! The sacred, immutable, billion-year-old institution of marriage will crumble if the federal government ceases to regulate it! Government, help us!
No, dear, real marriage will still occur, but supporters of it will then have a hostile Government out to punish them for not celebrating and supporting all the alternative forms of "marriage".
And that is the real endgame of support of the radical redefinition of marriage.
I've always supported civil unions/domestic partnerships. Funny though, that's just not good enough anymore.
As others have noted about the video, the men look dweebish and the women look mannish ...
Visual confirmation of the attempts to make the sexes fungible.
That must be because it's never been allowed to flourish in the past and has always been suppressed by uptight religious folks. ;)
Not entirely true. University towns were notorious for the propagation of communal communities beginning the in the early 1960s. Everything was shared, including spouses.
"Palladian has the best idea. Get the government out of marriage and out of the business of taxing and punishing and grabbing half of your estate when you die. The government won't do this, of course, because they are habitual thieves and pick pockets. How can they take our money if we make the tax code "fair"?"
As long as the govt is using the marriage concept to classify people, it needs to do it in a way that does not impose an invidious discrimination. It's no use saying there could be completely different way to structure govt. You admit that's not on the horizon. So, within the system we have, until it is changed, there shouldn't be oppressive unfairness. You can say, we'll leave all those flaws in place, because everything should be changed.
Either change everything or fix the significant flaws (and I mean the kind of flaws that impose unfair burdens on some people and not others). This is basic fairness, and the idea of words having a set meaning is completely flimsy as an answer.
And, btw, laws often state particular definitions for words, making words terms of art for the purpose of a statute. That's the norm.
"Oh no! The sacred, immutable, billion-year-old institution of marriage will crumble if the federal government ceases to regulate it! Government, help us!"
It has already crumbled, for the government to only see the legal status of marriage being only about tax benefits, with no underlying cause a law redefining marriage is a result of its destruction, not the cause.
I take the marriage issue seriously, as I would like to call it 'the other marriage inequality', as in fatherlessness. Dads are important, even if one can come to terms if their father was not present or better off not being present, it is a real loss for an individual. Dads are able to more freely give to their children, when they're in a healthy committed relationship with the mother. I'm not trying to knock divorced or parents who no longer reside with one another, but my husband doesn't have schedule pick-up/drop-off when doing something with the children.
Palladian said...
It's funny to watch so-called conservatives shriek and bray about the terrifying possibility that the government might not retain the power to "define marriage".
Oh no! The sacred, immutable, billion-year-old institution of marriage will crumble if the federal government ceases to regulate it! Government, help us!
Disingenuous. Were it not for a minority interest tirelessly advocating for gay marriage with sympathetic governmental entities, no one would be seeking protection of the traditional approach from other governmental entities. Summary: I wouldn't give a fuck about gay marriage if I weren't certain that homosexual activists will tee up the end of hetero-normative education as soon as the ink is dry on their marriage certificates. Safe, legal, and in the closet just isn't good enough, is it?
I'm absolutely neutral on gay marriage, Althouse.
You're dingy on this issue. This notion (gay marriage) only appeared on the public scene 20 years ago, and reversed the PC position that preceded it.
You're operating on pure emotion, and I won't even try to figure out why. You're a whack job about this shit.
MATHEMATICALLY, how are you going to make it 'fair' in the amount of benefits, tax breaks, inheritance laws etc?
For legal purposes, let's define marriage as between two humans. Seems easy enough?
Well, looks like Rick Santorum has been vindicated.
Lefty psychos in 5, 4, 3...
"How is Suzy Favor Hamilton's polyamorous lifestyle a crime, while these four live a lifestyle that isn't criminalized?"
The majority isn't up for criminalizing adultery, but that would be what you're talking about.
There are some anti-adultery laws on the books, but you don't hear about them being enforced. Would you like to see them enforced? I suspect the courts would find them unconstitutional.
And, this is the only issue I can think of where you just go whacky, Althouse.
It's kinda funny.
If I had to guess why, I'd guess that the veneration of the homosexuals atmosphere in which you live is the cause. Academia is completely off its rocker in that regard.
It's funny to watch so-called conservatives shriek and bray about the terrifying possibility that the government might not retain the power to "define marriage".
Society defines marriage. Cultural traditions are the definitions.
This IS the problem, that government is attempting to define, punish, protect and control a societal more (imagine a little accent mark over the 'e). The government can change the definition and even change the laws, but until 'society' agrees it is just chaos. Pissing up a rope.
Of course my life style is so out of control that I'm currently imagining whether I'll buy the usual two or the promiscuous four new tires at the Goodyear store this afternoon.
It's not "whacky," Thomas, nor is it wacky. It's just a very easy issue. I'm not straining to get to what I'm saying. It's just awfully obvious. It's a bit tedious to keep saying it, but I really do wonder what's driving the other side to draw their line in the sand here. It seems quite sad and stupid to me.
And I will happily concede that marriage is the foundation of human society.
For legal purposes, let's define marriage as between two humans.
Why only two? And what about consanguinity?
If it's "unfair" that same-sex couples cannot marry (even as their relationship is not legally proscribed, and they can make all manner of private legal documents covering inheritance & medical decisions) the why is it "fair" that two elderly spinster sisters cannot marry? Or an elderly couple marry their caretaker son or daughter? Or a few friends? Or ...?
MATHEMATICALLY, how are you going to make it 'fair' in the amount of benefits, tax breaks, inheritance laws etc?
For legal purposes, let's define marriage as between two humans. Seems easy enough?
It is if you don't think about the math, tax or legal ramifications.
Why stop at just two...which is the object of this posting and video. How about four humans? Eight humans? What about the inheritance laws if we can define marriage between brothers and mother? Father and sons?
Multiple and overlapping welfare benefits for polygamous marriages? THAT was one of the big issues with those illegal polygamous cults in Utah and elsewhere.
Do the MATH and tell me how it can be fair when a legal institution, which is what marriage is now under our current laws, consists of constantly changing permutation of people.
I don't give a fig about the religious aspects as long as people don't try to force churches to officiate at weddings they object to. As a former financial planner and estate planner: you would have NO ability to make any plans because the laws you would be trying to follow and the tax ramifications for your client would be founded on quicksand.
I like the idea of "getting government out of marriage" but I've read several articles lately which convinced me that it would be a very bad idea. I'll see if I can find the link to the one that I thought was really excellent on the topic.
I haven't fully formed my opinion on gay marriage. Emotional me says I am not against it. Spiritual me has a problem reconciling it with my beliefs.
It's a bit tedious to keep saying it, but I really do wonder what's driving the other side to draw their line in the sand here.
I just stated it earlier.
Tradition cannot be explained in legalistic or even intellectual terms because it is an accumulated wisdom that humans acquire through centuries of day to day experience.
Your conviction that you, using solely your intellect to "think" through this tradition, have the ability to decipher how and why that tradition has utility and meaning, and why it may be essential to the proper functioning of a society, just strikes me as absurd arrogance.
It's a bit tedious to keep saying it, but I really do wonder what's driving the other side to draw their line in the sand here.
That is making the assumption that there are only two sides.
"(M)y 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."
Bingo. In keeping with gaydom's current love affair with the "sliding scale" theory of sexuality, I don't see a 100% heterosexual here. Heck, there's not even a 50% hetero among these polyamorites. My fairly accurate gaydar says the most masculine hubby is the first depicted, Martin, and a couple of the wives are packing more testosterone than he.
These folks are primarily gay; but, probably for the reason of child-bearing and -rearing, instead of living a fabulous life of outrageous gayness, they've instead opted for a simulacrum of hetero domesticity.
Not that it's really fooling most average folks. But then the polyamorians are mostly from Massachusetts; and there's been such a low standard of masculinity there for so many generations now that probably no one notices. But in that 95% of America which comprises what the journo-elite class derides as "flyover country", the masculinity of these women women and the delicacy and sensitivity of these men scream their presence without saying a word.
> There isn't one. The government should not be in the business of regulating or licensing marriage at all.
The federal govt got involved mostly to protect the progressive income tax from community property states. It didn't work but ....
Married people in community property states were claiming that half of the collective income was due to each person, regardless of who actually earned it. If you tax them as two singles, that plays havoc with revenues. So, a married status was invented.
Except that that doesn't work. The arithmetic is such that you can achieve at most two of the following:
(1) Progressive marginal rates.
(2) Taxes for married people independent of who actually earns the money.
(3) A differential between the total taxes paid by a married couple and two singles with exactly the same income&distribution.
Note that "differential" doesn't mean benefit. It can be a cost, a benefit, or, as in the current system, a benefit for some and a cost for others.
"(M)y 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."
Bingo. In keeping with gaydom's current love affair with the "sliding scale" theory of sexuality, I don't see a 100% heterosexual here. Heck, there's not even a 50% hetero among these polyamorites. My fairly accurate gaydar says the most masculine hubby is the first depicted, Martin, and a couple of the wives are packing more testosterone than he.
These folks are primarily gay; but, probably for the reason of child-bearing and -rearing, instead of living a fabulous life of outrageous gayness, they've instead opted for a simulacrum of hetero domesticity.
Not that it's really fooling most average folks. But then the polyamorians are mostly from Massachusetts; and there's been such a low standard of masculinity there for so many generations now that probably no one notices. But in that 95% of America which comprises what the journo-elite class derides as "flyover country", the masculinity of these women women and the delicacy and sensitivity of these men scream their presence without saying a word.
Betty is married to Archie and Veronica.
Veronica is married to Archie and Betty.
Archie is married to Betty and Veronica.
Veronica has also fallen in love with Pierre.
Veronica now wants to divorce Archie, and have Betty and herself marry Pierre.
Archie wants Betty and himself to marry Pierre's sister Lola.
Lola wants to marry Archie Jr.
Betty's lawyers blame Veronica because it is always the dark-haired one that stirs up trouble.
I hope that clears it up.
I like the idea of "getting government out of marriage"....
I agree, mostly. The part where it becomes complicated is the legal rights that a marriage license can establish for inheritance, succession, property rights, pension rights, etc.
A marriage license is necessary to claim the Social Security and pension benefits that belonged to a deceased spouse, to collect the life insurance benefits, to establish next of kin, etc. In that regard the government plays an important role by granting licenses and preserving marriage records.
It is if you don't think about the math, tax or legal ramifications.
Two humans. Nothing changes [legally].
Why stop at just two...which is the object of this posting and video
If a married person wants to have 100 girlfriends I could care less. Just limit the legal definition of marriage to two humans. Like I can't claim more dependents than I actually have on my taxes. Same idea.
Sometimes I think that those individuals and groups who want a non-traditional marriage should just draft articles of incorporation. They could establish the relationships, cover all the important stuff (at least to the participants), establish by-laws, etc.
Garage, yup, simple and inclusive, legal marriage should be between two people committed to each other. Any more than two people in a legal marriage, can you imagine the legal nightmare in the case of divorce?
Some things simply need to be viewed from a common sense position.
@Michael Haz
Yes. All of that, and the for the protection of children as well. The construct of marriage is far-reaching in our legal/societal system.
It has finally become clear to me. I finally get Althouse.
It's all about being fair.
Fairness is the highest value, not effectiveness, not the greatest good, not what has worked in the past, not even the will of the majority.
fairness.
You Conservatives suck because you are a big bunch of meanies and won't do the fair thing.
The difference between Conservatives and Liberals, is that Conservatives have figured out that life isn't fair, and that there is no point trying to make it so.
Affirmative Action? Fairness.
Welfare state and high taxes on the rich? Fairness.
Abortion on demand? Fairness.
When all is said and done, this thread would make a great source of plot material for Downton Abbey's next season.
Some things simply need to be viewed from a common sense position.
The problem is, for many people the commonsense position is that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I find it fascinating that Instapundit so often quotes the Gods of Copybook Headings, since he is both pro-choice and pro-SSM.
As the poem states:
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "The Wages of Sin is Death."
There is nothing in our genes that requires mating for life.
The legal pairing of one man to one woman has arisen in every single civilization, culture, and society in the history of humanity. Although homosexuality and polyamory have certainly existed for as long as we have been human, no stable, legal relationship has ever survived in any culture, anywhere.
It has been tried many times. It always ends in grief and failure.
We may think we are better, smarter, more mature, and more capable than those that went before.
The Gods of the Copybook Headings smile at our hubris.
Governments just codified what society spontaneously produced: a legal union between one man and one woman.
If there really was a pressing need for homosexual "marriage", it would have occurred at some point in human history.
Even what is being attempted today is nothing more than special interests looking for financial and social advantages via "cargo cult" stylistic aping while lacking the true underpinning substance.
Some things simply need to be viewed from a common sense position.
The problem is, for many people the commonsense position is that marriage is between a man and a woman.
12/26/12 1:55 PM
Gahrie, that won't fly anymore because there is a moral judgment attached to it. Times have changed, society now recognizes same sex partners as having the capacity to love each other and live together in the same fashion as heterosexual couples. As for having more than two partners in a legal marriage, too likely to result in a legal nightmare.
Conservatives have figured out that life isn't fair, and that there is no point trying to make it so.
Conservatives know that life isn't "fair" and that much of the "WE GOTTA DO SOMETHING!" emotional reaction of the Left creates even worse issues of "fairness."
Affirmative Action ... casts suspicions on the achievements of those that is purports to help
Welfare state and higher taxes on the rich ... see Heinlein's statement on "bad luck"
Abortion on demand ... not really fair to the child that gets killed for reasons of convenience
I don't want to control anybody.
You just want them to behave as you tell them to behave.
I thought that among the things marriage to one person was suppose to provide, was an expectation of certainty that would lead to stability.
That... whatever that is on that video, stretches those expectations very thin... to a delusional level.
If the election of Obama shows us anything, is that the preoccupation of how we fare relatively to each other, is, still very much paramount in our minds.
Its the biggest damage Obama has inflicted on us... the idea that we only do better when others are made to do less well.
But, as I've said before, I've never been married, so there is the possibility that I have no clue.
Gahrie, that won't fly anymore because there is a moral judgment attached to it
Every law and regulation has a moral judgement attached to it. The question is...which morals?
You just want them to behave as you tell them to behave
I'm a non-smoker. Always have been. I also see the benefit of non-smoking - for health & personal economics.
I don't like Nannystate laws that punish smokers for being smokers - stuff that makes no health sense to other people (e.g. not allowing people to smoke on public land out in the open)
But I maintain that non-smoking is a better choice and may argue the same. I do wish more people would not smoke. That is not the equivalent of using the law to make people behave like I wish them to behave.
Inga asserted: Times have changed, society now recognizes same sex partners as having the capacity to love each other and live together in the same fashion as heterosexual couples. As for having more than two partners in a legal marriage, too likely to result in a legal nightmare.
Times also changed from a society that recognized polygamy to one that disapproves of it on moral grounds. Norms are reversible.
Lem wrote: Its the biggest damage Obama has inflicted on us... the idea that we only do better when others are made to do less well.
That was spot-on, Lem.
Norms are reversible.
Not to the Progressives. President Obama's campaign slogan was not an accident. Progress (and surely we can all agree that progress is a good thing) only has one direction.
Lets say the expectations are not met... and you want to expand.
Shouldn't you first find out why those expectations were not met, before you expand?
Aren't you risking a lot by expanding?
There is a Spanish saying...
Quien mucho abarca poco aprieta.
I've never been much of an end-times kinda guy, but I gotta say just objectively looking at these folks, looking at not only what passes for "normal" these days, but is actually out and out celebrated, and then reading the comments in this thread, the end is clearly near.
Why should a marriage be between "two humans"?
Why water it down that much?
Why try to shoe-horn SSM into some sort of bogus "fairness" argument?
The point of marriage was to create legal protections for two parties with disparate societal strengths and weaknesses.
A man has less socio-psycho-somatic limitations on lifetime earnings. A woman has greater limitations, but also different proclivities for homebuilding. The woman also gives birth to their children.
If the woman is unscrupulous, she can deprive the man of his progeny while soaking him financially. If she decides to seek maximum earnings, she can end up wealthy while impoverishing him. And her claims of rape or domestic violence have extremely low levels of accountability.
But if the man is unscrupulous, he can ruin her social value, self-esteem, health, etc, and leave her penniless, with no way to support herself and/or children. He can use her and then jump to another, younger and more attractive woman with little penalty.
Marriage was the way to protect both individuals from the unscrupulous, to protect children from the selfishness of their parents, and to protect the interests of close family relatives.
But in homosexual marriage, you have equals. There is no societal difference between two men. There is no earning difference between two women. There is no disparity in legal protection for domestic violence. There is no difference in biological urges, hormonally-significant age points, etc.
There is no dissimilarity to try to bridge.
As for raising children in an ideal setting, you've already got so many less than ideal situations for children, whether ssm is the law or not.
The notion that denying equality to gay people is keeping all manner of bad things from happening... why do you believe it? I lack confidence that your belief comes from an admirable place in your psyche. And yet you pose as superior! Sorry, I just don't believe it. I'm willing to grant you that you perceive yourself as a good person and want to be a good person, but I'm not believing that your ideas represent the goodness that you claim. You are denying equality, and that demands a better showing than you are making here.
I'm not sure who you are arguing against. I'll assume it is me (thought I doubt it, and without the attribution, I would need to apply your argument to the many posts here).
It's not about superiority. It's about fairness, and what's good for society. I see no quantitative evidence that gay marriage is good for society. Yet, marriage, especially when it takes a worker out of the work force, is good only if it yields to a superior next generation, as far as I can see.
Why is it fair for heterosexuals to spend the time and energy raising kids that support all of today's spending, tax benefits, etc., for a group that require it when they aren't making the sacrifices?
My assumption is the marriage benefit of having one spouse working is for that reason: to raise a superior next generation work force. And I find it doubly harsh that those who marry and procreate have a marriage penalty in almost all circumstances.
There are definitely reasons for marriage when it comes to child rearing, as it puts a massive premium on staying together, especially for a single bread-earner. Yet, there are many pressures to be married if you have children, rightfully so.
Gays are simply not subject to those constraints. So what if the law isn't perfectly well defined? One should make it less fair to those who sacrifice to make the next generation of workers?
I realise a business model is not very appealing nor is it the only way to look at it.
Its like we have an emptiness of consciousness that needs to be fed, because it has never grown up or whatever... some people feed it more than others and it leads to relationship obesity?
I don't know how it feels but it just doesn't look healthy at all.
Why should a marriage be between "two humans"?
I don't consider it watering it down. It's not my marriage. It takes nothing from me if someone decides to marry the same sex instead of the opposite sex. So why should I care?
This is totally awesome! It's great that we're accepting of all these lifestyles.
When can we expect to see the benefits? I mean, it's probably unreasonable to expect the payoff to happen in something so short as 40 years of this kind of societal shift, but seriously, when can we hope to see the really big drop in abortions, prison population, income inequality, drug use and poor performance in school that accompanies non-traditional families?
Darcy said...
"I haven't fully formed my opinion on gay marriage. Emotional me says I am not against it. Spiritual me has a problem reconciling it with my beliefs."
Ditto, with a slight alteration: at a secular level, I coudn't care less. Really.
Spiritually, as a Christian, I have a problem, and find difficulty reconciling the two.
I think this point is one Althouse glosses over as if it were irrelevant.
But if she forces me to take sides between her opinion of me, or God's opinion of me, guess who loses?
I'll bet that if they looked for a little while, they'd find an S&M couple that's raising an "A" student. The normal distribution is like that.
"With 50% of marriages failing, John and Jenny's marriage seems as stable as a rock. They attribute it to sessions with whips and bondage devices that their son, Trevor sometimes takes part in!"
If you want to disapprove of other people's marriages, you'll still be able to do that, even after there is ssm.
Indeed. Much of the time, I think I disapprove of all marriages already. Heterosexual marriages are the worst because of the advantages given to the female under a variety of laws, especially in the event of a divorce.
Too much ugly + PDAs = bad combo.
Hetero or homo one thing is for sure I'm not picking up a Republican vibe at all.
Very SWPL/Obama bumper sticker Prius/Suburu Outback/kale/Regina Spector/guns bad/people of color good/dolls for boys/erector set for girls, etc etc.
Not necessarily gay just EXTREMELY Caucasian.
Note at 4:29 - Howard Stern and Bababooey! LOL.
Palladian said...
How did I guess that Shouting Thomas would be in here blabbering away as usual?
I'm glad you don't charge rent to us queers who seem to have such a large residence inside your head.
ST has admitted/implied that he has had sex with Filipno lady boys.
I think he rationalized it because the woman he was with wouldn't give him what he wanted.
Plus, he's the kind of White guy who goes for the Asians because it makes him feel more like a man.
Seems that way to me.
So he's part homo. You two might get along.
Inga said...
"Garage, yup, simple and inclusive, legal marriage should be between two people committed to each other. Any more than two people in a legal marriage, can you imagine the legal nightmare in the case of divorce?"
O.k, but can we then at least insist upon the qualifier of "consenting adults?"
And how about an iron-clad promise to fence off bigamy and other permutations of multiplicity?
So why should I care?
Indeed, Nitschke. The world would be a better place if you cared about fewer things, like health care and gun control.
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.
Ann: Maybe, but why go there? There are plenty of heterosexuals who try this sort of thing.
That hippie commune you covered a few months back had four-way marriages. There was a San Francisco commune, called Kerista, not far from my old apartment, that organized itself into groups that swapped partners but were faithful within each group.
Not surprisingly, all these experiments in polyamory collapsed, but while they were going, their practitioners were similarly self-promoting.
Tim, of course two consenting adult humans. No bride snatching like some African tribes do ;).
Promises of fidelity are never ironclad Tim.
Althouse said,
"The notion that denying equality to gay people is keeping all manner of bad things from happening... why do you believe it? I lack confidence that your belief comes from an admirable place in your psyche. And yet you pose as superior! Sorry, I just don't believe it. I'm willing to grant you that you perceive yourself as a good person and want to be a good person, but I'm not believing that your ideas represent the goodness that you claim. You are denying equality, and that demands a better showing than you are making here."
Let's just say we agree to disagree on this. We "deny equality" because it seems obvious that homosexual marriages are not equal.
A more important issue is, who decides how the law will define marriage? If the vast majority wanted it, it would happen and with little contention. Should laws attempt to lead social norms, or should the law reflect the values of society? The latter, it seems to me, would be less contentious.
I can't view the video at work, but I have thought about what I would do if I was homosexual and wanted children.
I would find a lesbian who shared my desire for kids and beards.
Leaving gaydar arguments aside, how likely is it that these couples are not who they say they are, i.e. heterosexuals?
They are proud and public about their sexuality. Why they would be using such a peculiar story as a cover for homosexuality? It seems to me these people would be happy to let the world know that they were gay as well as polyamory. At this point homosexuality is more acceptable in our society than the experiment in this story.
I'd go with the odds. There are a far more heterosexuals than homosexuals, and far, far more heterosexuals than homosexuals raising children.
When it comes to fathers, we should worry more about kids having too few fathers than too many.
No bride snatching like some African tribes do
OMG! There goes Inga and her racist comments again.
Comeon Dad, are there any bride snatching tribes in Scandinavia?
This stuff has been around for a while, of course.
Sierra also describes as herself as "a Witch, a Priestess, and a teacher in the Reclaiming Tradition of Witchcraft, and participates in magical activism with the Pagan Cluster and in her home community near Boston."
Seriously, folks, are she and her strange bedfellows worthy of a heavy-duty discussion about their idea of marriage?
DADvocate, I read that WT article you linked. It had a lot of numbers. Like these.
Married couples with children have an average income of $80,000, compared with $24,000 for single mothers.
Not to worry. The MSM will find examples of gay three-way marriages where the adopted kids are earning scholarships and they're active in the PTA.
Of course, the MSM won't visit Oakland, East St. Louis or Compton to film their segments on alternative families, but who cares about them?
I'd suggest that anyone thinking this is a good idea might want to read some of the books written by children of hippies. ("Wild Child" is an anthology and a good place to start.). Free love groups do not seem to be a good influence on children.
And since we've decided that we have to redefine marriage out of "fairness", why do you think you can draw a boundary here? People opposed to same sex marriage said that legalizing it would be a slippery slope, opening up calls for legalization of polygamy and other types of relationships. Looks like they were right.
I'd suggest that anyone thinking this is a good idea might want to read some of the books written by children of hippies. ("Wild Child" is an anthology and a good place to start.). Free love groups do not seem to be a good influence on children.
And since we've decided that we have to redefine marriage out of "fairness", why do you think you can draw a boundary here? People opposed to same sex marriage said that legalizing it would be a slippery slope, opening up calls for legalization of polygamy and other types of relationships. Looks like they were right.
Comeon Dad, are there any bride snatching tribes in Scandinavia?
The Vikings actually used to be pretty good at it....
I was thinking about this thread while driving back from the tire place a few minutes ago. What rekindled my thinking was spotting a Romney/Ryan bumper sticker on the tail of a car in front of me.
The mainstream, especially the liberal mainstream seems to have no real issue with gay marriage, multi-partner sex, group sex, polyamory and so on.
Yet that same slice of the mainstream held no small measure of disdain for the Mormon practice of polygamy in the run-up to the recent presidential election, even though it has been repeatedly described as a practice refuted and condemned by the LDS many decades ago.
That is hypocrisy in no small sense of the word.
Comeon Dad, are there any bride snatching tribes in Scandinavia?
Are there any tribes in Scandinavia? I'm sure there were back in the days of the Vikings. But, I think that's over with now. What have you got against the Scandinavians?
I just like to occasionally show how easily innocent statements can be portrayed as racist. Certain liberals do it all the time and think they discovered the Holy Grail.
"Fairness" is an interesting notion. It seems so one-way. It is fascism masquerading as some form of kindness.
"The Christians have a view of marriage and a tradition of man-woman marriage that dates back more than two thousand years. In fairness, we should not cause them to change their heritage." Said no one ever.
Palladian wrote:
We can call it anything we damned well please. You shouldn't get the right to use the power of the State to define and regulate a voluntary, religious/spiritual/romantic relationship between consenting adults.
Ever? Note, we're not talking about people being able to HAVE said relationships (though even here I'm sure in some cases the state will step in) but that society must CODIFY that marriage and provide benefits to it.
So what you're saying is society cannot define marriage.
Incestual marriages cannot have regulations against them. Neither can harems, neither can bestiality marriages. Neither can bigamy style marriages. Right?
INga wrote:
Gahrie, that won't fly anymore because there is a moral judgment attached to it. Times have changed, society now recognizes same sex partners as having the capacity to love each other and live together in the same fashion as heterosexual couples. As for having more than two partners in a legal marriage, too likely to result in a legal nightmare.
But what about the moral judgement? Shouldnt that overide the idea that it would be a legal nightmare? Are you SURE taht it would be too much of a legal hassle or is that your bias?
PEople said that women and gays shouldn't be in the military because it would cause too many legal hassles and otherwise. But, I think you'd answer that they wouldn't, and even if they did so what?
What other reasons do you have not to allow polygamous relationships?
Michael, I guess that puts me squarely outside of the mainstream liberals, if there is such a thing. I said that this practice of infidelity in marriage was messed up. Why bother getting married at all if one wants multiple partners? I suppose if there are children and property one might need legal standing if things turn sour, but more than one partner in a marriage or relationship is asking for the marriage to fail, IMO.
Ann Althouse wrote:
So you don't like my proposal for 2 gay couples to restructure into 2 opposite sex households each raising their own biological children?
If you wanted children, you might want them to have their own mother in the home. There are different ways for gay people to have children, and this would be one.
It looks like what these couples are doing.
I don't really have a problem with them doing this since they are maintaining two separate marriages. What they do personally as a quartet is immaterial. Alot of people have open marriages and have relatioships with many outslide the marriage. So long as it doesn't change the definition of marriage I don't see the problem.
But, I would argue that the second woman in the scenario would have no rights in the first persons marriage since she would be married to her own husband. The legal familial rights would still be restricted to the two married to one another. What ever sex they had would be their own choice, but not legally binding.
Inga wrote:
Gahrie, that won't fly anymore because there is a moral judgment attached to it. Times have changed, society now recognizes same sex partners as having the capacity to love each other and live together in the same fashion as heterosexual couples. As for having more than two partners in a legal marriage, too likely to result in a legal nightmare.
So you think that those in polygamous relaitionships DON"T have the capacity to love one another? And prior to polygamy being banned, polygamists were able to have polygamous marriages. So maybe your notion that it would be complicated is bigotry.
You polygaphobe.
Ann Althouse wrote:
And I will happily concede that marriage is the foundation of human society.
If you're not going to define it, then you can't say it's the foundation of society.
Palladian wrote:
So, what's the "constitutionally adequate" reason for not letting all three, four or more of these people marry?
There isn't one. The government should not be in the business of regulating or licensing marriage at all.
So then why not argue that?
And why get all offended when people bring up things like incestual marriages in relation to gay marriages. You obviously don't think society should regulate those marriages either.
You polygaphobe
Inga is a polygot (an incorrect backformation from bigot). I'd rather she were a polyglot.
By the way Palladian, there is a way you can be in whatever type relationship you want and not have to society regulate it. Don't get married. Or have the relationship you want without the govt overseeing your benefits. So long as you aren't petioning the govt to make your unique relationship the equivalent of the one that society prefers to order itself around, then society really wont care either way.
Then, I'd imagine you could have a relationship with 50 people and society wouldnt' care.
So you don't like my proposal for 2 gay couples to restructure into 2 opposite sex households each raising their own biological children?
If you wanted children, you might want them to have their own mother in the home. There are different ways for gay people to have children, and this would be one.
It looks like what these couples are doing.
No, it doesn't.
I think Ann has gotten lost in the distorting mirrors of the LGBTQ funhouse where 25% of people are gay and everything sexual is all gay all the time. I exaggerate of course.
I lived in a lot of hippie communes and avant-garde roommate situations in the seventies and eighties -- including in Boston. I've seen these people before and I've heard the same line of patter too. They may walk on the wild side some, like Sierra, but they are mostly straight.
This is not a complicated arrangement for homosexual couples to have kids. This is just Open Marriage 3.0 and it will end as badly as the first two versions.
Inga wrote:
Tim, of course two consenting adult humans. No bride snatching like some African tribes do ;).
But not three or four?
And what about father - daughter? or mother daughter, or mother son?or father son?
Should society be neutral on things like incest?
Jr. I'm sure they love each other, or more accurately the husband loves his wives, but do the wives love each other? Which wife gets the most attention, or is the hubby so perfect that he can avoid jealousy between wives?
Well the women in this scenario seem to love each other, but there are several men in that relationship. The women appear to be exclusive to each other( which makes me think that their relationship is the authentic one) or did they have other female lovers? I can't recall.
Althouse wrote:
Law isn't a dictionary. It is an exercise of power, imposed on people. You have to judge the coercions as coercion, not how well the government followed word definitions. Laws are always abusing words, but the abuse of words is a very minor quibble when we discuss what the abuses are.
The law may not be a dictionariy, but the laws are definitions that define how power and coercion are imposed. Very specifically I might add.
In the case of marriage, the real abuse affecting people is having all these tax laws and benefits programs that apply according to who is in the category married, and it's not fair to have all those things depend on getting into a category that in nearly all significant applications, excludes gay people. That's what's wrong, and it's just not important what "marriage" means as a word. But are gay people being excluded? Gay men can marry women. Gay women can marry men. It's not an issue of their rights as individuals since they have the same rights.
And your example of these people ordering themselves around a hetero relationship for the raising of the family and the gay relationship for the sex shows that.
Jr. I'm sure they love each other, or more accurately the husband loves his wives, but do the wives love each other? Which wife gets the most attention, or is the hubby so perfect that he can avoid jealousy between wives?
That's none of your business.
As far as incest goes, if the couple are male and female and of childbearing age, perhaps they might need to be required to have genetic testing done first.
I don't society is ready for that yet. The "ew" factor is still strong on that one.
Jr. I didn't say it WAS my business, I don't care what polygamist do or how they live.
But the legality of polygamous marriage is untenable.
Inga wrote:
As far as incest goes, if the couple are male and female and of childbearing age, perhaps they might need to be required to have genetic testing done first.
I don't society is ready for that yet. The "ew" factor is still strong on that one.
Shoudl the "ew" factor be enough to deprive someone of their rights? Especially if those in the relationship don't find it to be "ew"?
After all Inga, those saying that religious objections or moral objections to gay marriage are not enough are simply arguing that hte "ew" factor is not enough to deprive gay couples of marriage.
Why should the "ew" factor deprive incestual couples? (or trios)
But the legality of polygamous marriage is untenable.
It may be illegal, but that doens't mean the legality would be untenable. It's illegal because society says it is. But society might just be wrong and responding to "ew". ANd society, in your view, can't do that.
I guess I'd be ok with it if Newt Gingrich is ok with it.
But the legality of polygamous marriage is untenable.
For now, but that's only because women feel it would dilute their "true value" as a spouse, whatever that means.
You'd have to ask the women about that one.
No Jr. I didn't say the "ew" factor should be the deciding factor in making the marriage between siblings or other family members legal. I'm saying that at this time society hasn't evolved to accept such an arraignment yet. Whereas it HAS evolved to accept SSM.
It's still between two consenting adults and legally feasible, barring genetic factors in breeding couples.
12/26/12 5:38 PM
We now have polyamory on the rise based on this clip. But what about bigamy then? Lets say the two couples in the video also decide that in addition to shtupping each other they also marry each other. So each person is married to two people?
What's wrong with that?
Inga wrote:
No Jr. I didn't say the "ew" factor should be the deciding factor in making the marriage between siblings or other family members legal. I'm saying that at this time society hasn't evolved to accept such an arraignment yet. Whereas it HAS evolved to accept SSM.
So for any father daughter couples who want to marry, you are simply not evolved enough to accept their relationship. Why are you so bigoted?
What Haz (and Darcy) said @ 1:43.
But are gay people being excluded? Gay men can marry women. Gay women can marry men. It's not an issue of their rights as individuals since they have the same rights.
Har har! This old piece-of-crap argument again? Even Seven Machos gave up on that years ago. But I guess it explains Marcus Bachmann. Probably Larry Craig. Actually, it probably explains a whole lot of Republican politicians.
If we are going to place kids in families should we place them with a family that thinks that the fahter should marry the daughter? I mean, what if the father says they'll wait till the legal age. What if he says he'll groom her to be his bride. there isn't really any blood issue since it would be an adoption.
My question though is, can society say, that is not an appropriate relationship to place a child into? You'd then have to get into the whole concept of what IS an appropriate relationship between father and child, adopter or otherwise.
Maybe society can't have a concept of what is an appropriate relationship between a parent and a child. And any squeamishness about such a relationship is just "ew".
O Ritmo wrote;
Har har! This old piece-of-crap argument again? Even Seven Machos gave up on that years ago. But I guess it explains Marcus Bachmann. Probably Larry Craig. Actually, it probably explains a whole lot of Republican politicians
I'm not saying that gays would necessarily like to be married to woman, I'm saying that they have the same rights as any other man.
Thus, you can't argue that gay marriage is really an equivalent since the right would be different.
I'm not saying that gays would necessarily like to be married to woman, I'm saying that they have the same rights as any other man.
Nice. And I suppose you would feel secure in your rights if you were only allowed to marry another man, you silly doo-rag.
INga wrote:
Inga wrote:
No Jr. I didn't say the "ew" factor should be the deciding factor in making the marriage between siblings or other family members legal. I'm saying that at this time society hasn't evolved to accept such an arraignment yet. Whereas it HAS evolved to accept SSM.
If incest lovers came out of the closet and made incestual relationships the next civil rights cause, would you be flying the incest banner and demanding equal rights, fairness and justice? Or would you be saying "ew".
How about if your daughters started looking a their kids in a certain way. Would you have to accept that times are just a changing?
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.
That's a separate question. I suppose I wouldn't feel secure in my rights if I wanted to marry two people either. Or my brother. Or a kid. None of which I can do now.
Are those my "rights"? Why not?
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.
When I said that 60+ years of leftist indoctrination and inculcation have lead us this magical moment the debasement and devolution of ethics, morality, and the mores in this country, this interview kind of epitomizes that idea. Polyamory is nothing new per se, but the idea that these supposed intellectuals, who have children engage in such activities while justifying themselves as not being serial, pathological, and willing adulterers is only a testament to clear attack against marriage and civil society. The notions of judgment are held to such a low standard as to being non-existent in these peoples cases is telling reason why leftism is a dangerous and poisonous ideology.
Who needs homosexual marriage when polyamory seeks to destroy it altogether. The homosexuals are so behind the times now.
Sounds good. So since you are ok with only being allowed to marry people of a gender specified by the state, we look forward to the ceremony between you and your soon-to-be-betrothed husband very soon.
Will Marcus Bachmann and Larry Craig be officiating? Or just attending?
Marriage has a specific meaning. having a person say i feel I should be able to marry X, doesn't mean that its suddenly a right, unless X meets with the criterion set by society. It's a lot like saying that 2+2 should equal 5. No, 2+2=4. There may be people who think that 2+2 should also equal 5, but its not something that must be changed merely because it isn't.
Now, if a gay person can't marry, can they not be in a gay relationship? Can they not have a lifelong relationshiop codified by their own ceremony, even if it's not a recognized one? Sure. I could be in a lifelong polygamous relationship with peopel I'm commited to. But that doesn't mean that society must recognize that "marriage" does it?
Palladian said...
So, what's the "constitutionally adequate" reason for not letting all three, four or more of these people marry?
There isn't one. The government should not be in the business of regulating or licensing marriage at all.
Too bad that historically has never been true. There are tablets dating back to 6500 - 7000 years ago that show marriage licenses, property taxation, and all other kinds of legalisms. Government has always been in the business of marriage. Your wishes notwithstanding.
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.
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.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा