Gays, lesbians, bisexuals

[Insidious Rex]

Marriage for "love" (tradition?) is a very recent phenomenon actually. Weve finally gotten to the point where we can afford to consider such a thing as a real possibility. Marriage for the large part of history has instead been about practicality and/or social ties. So if we really want to follow "tradition" in regards to marriage we need to end this whole marry for love thing right away before it catches on...

[inked]

Actually, IR, this is a western cultural imposition upon the history or mankind - marriage for love, that is - and isn't really practiced much elsewhere in location or time. From a sociological perspective it is a phenomenon traceable to the Middle Ages and is quite well attested in the literature as precisely a new and threatening phenomenon (see THE ALLEGORY OF LOVE by CS Lewis for the literary development). The major mode of familial formation is mate selection by one's parents for all the important reasons - money, politics, and continuation of the family.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by inked

The reason it has to be "broken" is because it is normative throughout history to recognize marriage as betwixt male and female, not between two persons of the same gender (from birth or surgically).

Normative perhaps but it has definitely not been the only form of marriage throughout history. In societies around the globe, gay relationships have been recognized an celebrated. Take ancient Greece, where men could have marriages with young boys just as well as young girls. Also, in Japan and China, there were same-sex unions and - as I read somewhere - male love may once have been considered the purest form of love in Japan. There's also been a history of same-sex unions/marriages in African tribes, in native American societies, in Rome etc.

It's just that some religions and cultures don't think homosexuality and same-sex marriages are a good thing. However from a historical point of view, before the world was all westernized, many cultures have had no problems with the idea of two people of the same sex living together. So who are we Westerneers to say the norm should be man-woman marriages only?

[Spock]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

. So who are we Westerneers to say the norm should be man-woman marriages only?

hmmm, WE Westerners, that's who.
we only want it defined for our society-our country

or are you advocating the Arab practice take over the world?
or some other such idea

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

IMO, tradition is part of the definition of who we are as a people and a society.

i agree, but the question is: does it have to be?

can we get past certain traditions as we have with others in the past to the benefit of our society? (feudal serfdom, slavery, racism, women's rights, etc.)

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by Spock

hmmm, WE Westerners, that's who.
we only want it defined for our society-our country

or are you advocating the Arab practice take over the world?
or some other such idea

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing... not.

Just saying other cultures have or have had room for same-sex marriages and I think we Westerners could make some room for it too.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Actually, IR, this is a western cultural imposition upon the history or mankind - marriage for love, that is - and isn't really practiced much elsewhere in location or time. From a sociological perspective it is a phenomenon traceable to the Middle Ages and is quite well attested in the literature as precisely a new and threatening phenomenon (see THE ALLEGORY OF LOVE by CS Lewis for the literary development). The major mode of familial formation is mate selection by one's parents for all the important reasons - money, politics, and continuation of the family.

Gosh... then who are we to dare to rewrite the rules on marriage... how very untraditional! It threatens the very foundation of what marriage has always meant! Something needs to be done. Lets write letters and make constitutional amendments banning it...

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Spock

And anarchy for its own self is pointless.

I hardly think gay marriage is anarchy Spock. The institution of marriage, whether it includes gays or not, is very much opposite to anarchy.

I agree with you Brownie; perpetuating a tradition solely because it is a tradition serves no purpose. The tradition of men and women who love each other (those rebels ) marrying has many positive values, so of course we won't get rid of it.
Two men or two women who love each other is also a very positive thing, and the climate is right in many societies to recognize this. In Canadian society, for example, it was found that not allowing gay marriage is against the Charter, because this would entail descrimination based on sexuality.

But what if a legally married Canadian gay couple went to another country. Would they still recognize their marriage?

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Just saying other cultures have or have had room for same-sex marriages and I think we Westerners could make some room for it too.

And we have. IIRC you Swedes have had gay civil unions for 15 years. (AFAIK this isn't different to marriage.)

What is the difference between a civil union and a marriage anyway?

[Spock]

oh goodie, N and BJ agree, how unique.
The rest of society will just have to cave in to deconstructionalists and those who would do away with all the foundations concerning values. Too bad I don't know all the words to "koom-by-ya"....I am familiar with "on the paths to destruction."

[Insidious Rex]

Perhaps then it would be wise to add to your one liner and stock pop culture quote list a few lines of lyrics penned by the Bard Sir Robert Zimmerman my dear spock

Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

[Tamuril Sirfalas]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I didn't retitle this thread, the original thread started from back in the day, TinuvielChild, called it "Gays, lesbians, bisexuals". It just so happens you would have called a new thread the exact same thing! Cool eh?

I'm glad that you're out of the closet and proud of who you are. I think it's sad when people can't or won't accept who they are (this has broader applications than sexuality).


That is an interesting solution Brownie. People who care for blind friends (or "friends") should get some kind of tax break. After all, they have a dependent too.
Sadly, this might be hard to put into practice. But I really like the idea behind it. Maybe there is a way to make this work.


Don't we all.

yes thats cool and thanks its good to get it out and tell peopel...now if i could only tell my parents....and yes its sad when people dont accept who they are...and i wish people could realize they aren't alone in this

[Tamuril Sirfalas]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing... not.

Just saying other cultures have or have had room for same-sex marriages and I think we Westerners could make some room for it too.

hear hear! we should make room for same sex marriages and it should be accepted and treated with respect
and i know this is WAY off topic but whats this find a cure for cancer? i would like to join since my great uncle died of it recently and now you will understand my signiture

[inked]

Perchance this will make IR happy .. or not!

Forget monogamy and swinging. We're seriously polyamorous

A new frankness about simultaneous relationships is sweeping the US, reports Paul Harris in New York

Sunday November 13, 2005
The Observer


Sometimes Nan Wise's in-laws pop round on Sunday afternoons. They settle down with Nan, a psychotherapist, her husband John, a lawyer, and their two children to watch American football on TV.
So far, so all-American: a slice of suburban life on the outskirts of New York. But sometimes John's long-term girlfriend drops by, as does Nan's boyfriend. The Wises are not divorced. In fact, Nan says her marriage to John is as strong as ever. 'We are very normal, well-adjusted people,' she said.

Well, sort of normal. Welcome to the world of the polyamorous, where the family is bigger than you might expect. Polyamorists do not limit themselves to one relationship but maintain numerous relationships, straight or gay. A key element is that they are all serious emotional commitments, not just casual sex.

And polyamorists are coming out of the closet across America. Several groups have sprung up. In New York, Polyamorous NYC holds monthly meetings, has an email list of about 800 and holds a Poly Pride day each year in Central Park. A documentary, Three of Hearts: A Postmodern Family, has opened at cinemas in the city, chronicling a 13-year relationship between three people living together in a relationship that produced two children.

Many polyamorous people, who call themselves 'polys', liken their emergence to the struggle by gays and lesbians for equal rights, 'coming out' as poly in a society prejudiced against their lifestyle. 'Most people in the poly community are very closeted. The community is where gays and lesbians were in the Sixties,' said Justen Bennett-MacCubbin, the founder of Polyamorous NYC.

Bennett-MacCubbin, who is in two serious gay relationships, says he has had to come out of the closet twice: first as a homosexual at 16 and three years later as polyamorous too. 'I realised I enjoyed being with two people in two relationships. Monogamy has no interest for me at all,' he said.

Polys face deep prejudice, he says. The most common reaction from non-polys is that polys have chosen their lifestyle to have lots of sex with different people.

Nothing could be further from the truth, he says.'It is extremely important that people realise it is not just about sexual encounters. What distinguishes the poly community from swingers is that we want to make multiple emotional bonds. Most people in the poly community won't have casual sex,' he said.

It does result in complicated sexual and emotional patterns. Some polys are in 'triangles', where each person in a threesome has a relationship with the other. Or they can be in a 'vee', where one is involved with two others who are not involved with each other. Or polys can be in 'primary relationships', such as with a spouse or partner, and have one or more 'secondary' relationships. Through it all the sexes can be mixed, as polys can be straight, gay or bisexual.

But being a poly can be tough. Brigitte Philippides, an artist in Greenwich Village, has a primary relationship with a boyfriend, a serious relationship with a secondary girlfriend and several secondary relationships with other men.

To bored husbands or wives who might think being a poly means uncomplicated, carefree sex with multiple partners, Philippides has a stern warning. 'If you can't manage one relationship healthily, you are not going to be able to manage two. For polys, relationships are like a consuming hobby: they take up a tremendous amount of time,' she said.

Polys say that for many people, monogamy is unnatural. They point to spiralling divorce rates and widespread infidelity among monogamous couples. Polys, they say, are honest about the human condition. It is monogamists, they say, who live in a fantasy land.

'People divorce often not because of the cheating, but because of the issue of trust being broken. For polys, everything is open and it's all about honesty. All my relationships are working,' Philippides said.

Jealousy is the key emotional issue to be overcome. 'We are taught that jealousy is hardwired into us and people can then justify their jealous rages at their partner's need for others. Polys move beyond that,' said Wise.

Philippides was even more frank. 'We talk about jealousy openly. It is not a taboo word for us,' she said. In fact, polys have a term, called 'compersion'. This is the opposite of jealousy and involves taking pleasure from the success of your partner's other relationships. A hefty dose of compersion helps make polyamory work. That and a deft hand at scheduling so that no partner in a poly set-up feels unfairly treated.

'We want a change in perception of what's possible. By and large people are not naturally monogamous, and we should be able to talk about it without prejudice,' said Bennett-MacCubbin.

Certainly some polys have changed the perceptions of those nearest and dearest to them. Wise tells of her in-laws' shocked reaction when she and her husband came out as polys 11 years ago.

There were concerns for their marriage and their children. Now those concerns are gone. 'They see that our kids have grown up great and that our marriage is great, and that's all they really cared about in the end,' she said.

And the secret of success? 'Communicate, communicate, communicate,' Wise enthused. 'It is just honesty and working on being a better person. When we first started we took very slow and deliberate steps towards being poly. And you know what? The world did not implode.'

Being polyamorous not only means adapting to a new way of life; it also involves adapting to a new vocabulary:

Poly A person with multiple serious relationship partners at the same time.They can be straight, gay or bisexual.

Vee A polyamorous relationship where one person,'the hinge', maintains a relationship with two others who are not involved with each other. The language of multiple love

Triangle A relationship between three people where each is involved with the others.

Compersion The feeling of getting pleasure from a partner's other relationships. Polys argue that this is the opposite of jealousy.

Primary Where a poly has one central relationship, perhaps with a spouse, while maintaining links to other people who are 'secondary' relationships.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...641431,00.html
+++++++++++++++++

So, committment is everything! You can settle for number 1 (primary, main sqeeze, chief chump) or you can take a lesser position. Whose gonna provide for the kids? And will DNA paternity testing be as common as blodd typing?
------------------

This is a polythread for polyamorous regardless of sexual "orientation", right?

[inked]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Gosh... then who are we to dare to rewrite the rules on marriage... how very untraditional! It threatens the very foundation of what marriage has always meant! Something needs to be done. Lets write letters and make constitutional amendments banning it...

I believe the traditional response (at least since the 1960's) is "Yeah, yeah, yeah!" Or, if you are more into mojo, "Get yo' mo' on!" You choose, IR.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Forget monogamy and swinging. We're seriously polyamorous

A new frankness about simultaneous relationships is sweeping the US, reports Paul Harris in New York

interesting stuff... i don't have any real problem with it... once again i think it is more the "coming out" of something that has always existed than some radical change... if there is any radical change, it's the honesty we see in today's society, as opposed to touting a "norm" that really isn't one... and certainly isn't universal

let people make their own choices, and keep the law out of it unless it is absolutely necessary to include it as part of the picture

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

Perchance this will make IR happy .. or not!

Forget monogamy and swinging. We're seriously polyamorous

Hey Ive got no problem with that. Id want it for all the wrong reasons though. Basically the sexual stuff and having many people cooking dinner...

Sounds almost ideal. But I bet its tougher to make work well. Especially in this restrictive homophobic society. I know some people who are in those kinds of relationships but they are kind of insulated new ager types who have their own issues. Ive certainly been in relationships where that kind of situation would have solved all my problems... but alas all the girls ive been with are not the type to share a mate... (well at least permanently... )

[inked]

IR, we do try to make you happy so very infrequently that it warms the cockles of our hearts to see you positively beaming. That is until the paternity dues come in, of course. But then one could avoid those by restricting to same-gender relationships which are notoriously non-reproductive of humans.

[Tamuril Sirfalas]

Originally Posted by inked

IR, we do try to make you happy so very infrequently that it warms the cockles of our hearts to see you positively beaming. That is until the paternity dues come in, of course. But then one could avoid those by restricting to same-gender relationships which are notoriously non-reproductive of humans.

interesting but.....i asked a girl i like out and she said YES!! heehehehehe sorry but im happy and this discussion is going far! keep it up!!!

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

Actually, IR, this is a western cultural imposition upon the history or mankind - marriage for love, that is - and isn't really practiced much elsewhere in location or time. From a sociological perspective it is a phenomenon traceable to the Middle Ages and is quite well attested in the literature as precisely a new and threatening phenomenon (see THE ALLEGORY OF LOVE by CS Lewis for the literary development). The major mode of familial formation is mate selection by one's parents for all the important reasons - money, politics, and continuation of the family.

It sounds like you commend this arrangement

[The Wizard from Milan]

Originally Posted by inked

error! error! error! (Watch out for the robot and the electric bolts! Danger! Danger! Danger!) Marriage is a longstanding institution across virtually all known cultures. It had legal status and responsibilties recognized in all those cultures as conferring benefits and care to offspring (a notoriously impossible prospect for gays and lesbians and transgendered individuals since you need egg and sperm for reproduction), solidifying political alliances at the level of families, tribes, confederacies of tribes, and nation-states.

You may not regard that as legal, BJ, but those societies did. Check out the record of marriage in the Egyptian sources and Semitic sources dating back at least to ~1250 BCE.

I know facts bother you, but DO try to get them correct!

There are historical records that show that committed same-sex relationships predate the invention of cristianity and proably predates the invention of all institutionalized religlions.
One of the very first pieces of written records known in the history of humanity (Gilgamesh) has a same-sex relationship in it.

Anyway all that is completely irrelevent, because the point is not to keep on doing what has been for centuries, right or wrong as that might be! The point is to do what is right, what is morally right! And what is morally right is to give the same legal protections and the same legal recognitions to everybody regardless of the gender of the partner that they choose to marry